The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire.
By Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.
I. Economics of Empires

01/19/06 “Gold Eagle” — – A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms-usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.

For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods-the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.

Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world’s gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960’s was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ’s Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax-the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.

When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of “severing the link between the dollar and gold”, in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond- the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.

From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world’s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren’t strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush’s Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.

Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can’t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields-he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have gone into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished-he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

II. Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.
The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.
The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro – the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.
The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy.
Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York’s NYMEX and the London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.

At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter-those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs-will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation’s exchange:

Sabotaging the Exchange-this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.
Coup d’état-this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans.
Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations-this is another excellent solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if an attempted sabotage or coup d’etat fails, then negotiation is clearly the second-best available option.
Joint U.N. War Resolution-this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given the interests of all other member-states of the Security Council. Feverish rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves to prepare this course of action.
Unilateral Nuclear Strike-this is a terrible strategic choice for all the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total War. The Americans will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear job.
Unilateral Total War-this is obviously the worst strategic choice. First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two wars. Secondly, the Americans will further alienate other powerful nations. Third, major dollar-holding countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions. Finally, Iran has strategic alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China, India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a. Shanghai Coop and a separate pact with Syria.

Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates. At this point, the Fed will find itself between Scylla and Charybdis-between deflation and hyperinflation-it will be forced fast either to take its “classical medicine” by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, with a total financial collapse, or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, whereby it pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.

The Austrian theory of money, credit, and business cycles teaches us that there is no in-between Scylla and Charybdis. Sooner or later, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the Fed to make its choice. No doubt, Commander-in-Chief Ben Bernanke, a renowned scholar of the Great Depression and an adept Black Hawk pilot, will choose inflation. Helicopter Ben, oblivious to Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression, has nonetheless mastered the lessons of the Great Depression and the annihilating power of deflations. The Maestro has taught him the panacea of every single financial problem-to inflate, come hell or high water. He has even taught the Japanese his own ingenious unconventional ways to battle the deflationary liquidity trap. Like his mentor, he has dreamed of battling a Kondratieff Winter. To avoid deflation, he will resort to the printing presses; he will recall all helicopters from the 800 overseas U.S. military bases; and, if necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. His ultimate accomplishment will be the hyperinflationary destruction of the American currency and from its ashes will rise the next reserve currency of the world-that barbarous relic called gold.

About the Author: Krassimir Petrov (Krassimir_Petrov@hotmail.com) has received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria. He is looking for a career in Dubai or the U. A. E.

At the very outset let me clarify that I am neither a religious scholar nor do I have disciplined knowledge about the Muslim faith. The views expressed in this article are purely based on the perspective that one has developed over the course of past many years. This is by no means a critique of a faith that millions of folks all over the world follow. I have nothing against any individual nor do I intend to annoy, offend or hurt the feelings of anyone from any particular sect/religion.To begin with, paradoxical and contradictory it may sound, amidst all this opulent irreverence, the Muslims claim that there is a ‘back-to-religion’ movement the world over, even in Scandinavia and the USA – perhaps ‘as a reaction to the unlimited and incessant indulgence in the pleasures of the flesh or maybe as a refuge from the feeling of emptiness it leaves within’.

The followers of Islam also believe that the religion is attracting more adherents compared to other faiths. Interestingly many of the new converts and the ‘not so happy Muslims’ are keen to find out for themselves how the ‘old faithful’ are handling their religious commitments.

What is attracting them to Islam is its claim that ‘it abhors rituals like the ones elaborated by the Catholic Church or the ceremonials adopted by the Brahmin to elevate himself into a superior caste’.

Also, the religion is based on ‘a complete code of life combining the spiritual with the temporal’. But what is offering the greatest attraction to the common folk? To the Afro-Americans in particular is Islam’s stern repudiation and rejection of any distinction of race, color, caste or social standing.

The outsider’s quest for true Islam should induce the followers of the faith to re-examine for themselves and to see if they shall be repelling and driving away the new converts or helping them consolidate their faith. Some tough questions, therefore, need to be answered and a minute soul-searching is called for.

The first point we have to bear in mind is that more mosques do not necessarily mean more Islam, that is to say greater compliance with the Islamic code of life. If that were true, the estimated five-fold increase in the number of mosques across the land since the establishment of a country like Pakistan should have resulted in evidence of more devotion, piety and piousness. But that unfortunately has not happened. If anything, there has been a terrible deterioration in the overall national character, which amongst others includes the curse of religious intolerance, hatred amongst various sects of Muslims, and a virtual nullification of the good and the virtuous.

It is indeed shameful, and the Muslims will have to admit, that today they have more of dishonesty and debauchery, and more of normal failings than ever before. The worst of it is the insensitivity toward other religions and disrespect for those who do not ‘qualify’ to be regarded as Muslims. What we witness, therefore, is an absolute brutal decline/downfall in the fortunes of the Muslims the world over.

The Muslims need to look into the phenomenon more closely without inventing excuses or shifting blame. There undoubtedly are economic forces that are grinding the followers of Islam down to desperation and there also is the communication revolution that provides a vision of a more colorful life in the hereafter, all have contributed to the quandary, to the situation in which the Muslims find themselves today.

Worst of all, the Muslim religious divines, instead of rebuilding/reconstructing the overall Islamic character are busy brainwashing the young for waging Jihad on the Jews and the Christians. My question is: what has Islam done to save the Muslims from this disastrous fate?

The answer is to be found in separating the spiritual from the temporal in flagrant renunciation of one of the basic principles of the Muslim faith, namely that Islam is a complete, ‘indivisible’ code of conduct. The Muslims seem to have split between Christ and Caesar.

It may be heartbreaking to confess but it is nevertheless true that the same man who kneels abjectly before his God in the mosque, pledging himself eternally in truth and honesty, walks over to his business place and violates all those commitments. His adulterates life-giving foodstuffs and life-saving drugs; he cheats on his weights and measures; he mixes inferior qualities of merchandize with superior; doctors his accounts; cooks his bills and so on and so forth.

Furthermore, this state of affairs points to the inadequacy of the sort of religious teaching that induces compliance with its tenets. Learning the Holy Quran by heart or reciting it with fervor is hugely commendable. But the real benefit accrues only from a comprehension of the crux of God’s message. Most khateebs (Muslim religious scholars) in their sermons tend to dwell on the supernatural and the far-fetched, and try to regulate the lives of their followers with stories they think will excite and hold their interest, while others seek to enhance their popularity by arousing sentiments on parochial sectarian/religious issues.

It is difficult to figure out how much of it is prompted by ulterior, materialistic motives. The first fault can possibly be easily remedied by convincing the khateebs that what the Muslim society needs most today is convincing the followers that observance of Haqood-al-Abad (rights of the people) is at least as important as Haqooq-Allah (rights of God), if not more; that is to say, while God might condone missing a prayer or two (out of the five mandatory ones during the course of the day), He will not forgive any wrongs to our fellow human beings, irrespective of their race, creed or religion.

For instance, there is no forgiveness for a shopkeeper who short-changes his customers, for the chemist who sells fake life-saving drugs or the sweetmeat seller whose use of cheap quality oil paralyses half a dozen people for life, or for a contractor who builds a bridge that collapses under a busload of passengers, or a judge who sells justice, or a police official who tortures the innocent, or a farmer who runs his water supply on stolen power supply or tempers with his gas meter.

On a larger scale, suicide bombings are not allowed; taking away innocent lives in the name of God is absolutely a no-go area; crashing planes into buildings and playing havoc with other nation’s integrity in order to ‘teach them a lesson’ is perhaps the most disgusting and intrusive form of recklessness that characterizes modern-day Islam.

The khateebs will be doing a greater service to the society and Islam by driving home these points related to everyday life and, in the meantime, refrain from entertaining their listeners/followers with fascinating stories/tales of ‘another world’.

More than that, their sermons will carry conviction only if people see them practice what they preach. Ironically, they do sermonize equality and brotherhood during the annual Haj (Muslim congregation) sermon, yet, the Saudi royal family has an exclusive enclosure in the Kaaba! Is it hypocrisy or is there something inherently wrong with Islam?

The religious divines who take upon themselves the onus of determining which sect is right and which is wrong or who is a good Muslim and who is a kafir (infidel) are being too presumptuous, rather audacious. The Lord has not entrusted them with any such mission. Frequently their own party is in question; and by defying God’s directive against sitting judgment over faith of fellow Muslims or those from other faiths, to the extent of killing them, they render themselves liable to be treated as any other murderer – a common criminal who deserves no mercy. In fact, they merit divine wrath of dividing the Muslim world.

One does notice that a lot many Muslim countries indulge in sectarian strife at the state level. We would have been sparred of the wrath of the Taliban had the Saudis been not so keen on spreading Wahabism in every nook and corner of the Muslim world. They are a classic example of inciting intra-Muslim dissension and using their oil money to fight their ‘war’ for political and sectarian primacy.

Worst still is the racial bias that, despite the religion’s strict prohibition of any distinction between Muslims (save on the basis of piety), still shows up consistently. The way almost all Arab states lined up with Iraq back in the decade of 1980s in its aggression against Iran profoundly compromised the religion’s claim to be a unifying force that makes no distinction among its followers on the basis of race, color or culture.

There is also a feeling that the Arabs do not take the same measure of interest in overall Islamic causes the Muslim world collectively does on issues that are a primary concern to the Arabs.

Finally, it is flagrant failures of the opulent members of the Muslim world to comply with the basics of the Islamic moral code that is causing deep distress and disillusionment amongst those who can be regarded as the silent minority, who would like. What angers them even more is the pretence of being ‘superior’ Muslims by virtue of the fact that they follow the Islamic practices habitually even though they violate the fundamental tenets of the faith. But for this blatant hypocrisy, a lot more people the world over might have been swarming into the Islamic world.

Despite the change of times, Muslims enjoy unprecedented freedom in the United States to worship and preach their faith. Young Muslims who come here for education worship together as Muslims and not as Shittes or Sunnis, bow, pray, plead and implore forgiveness from their Lord, mix-up with each other without prejudice or discrimination. The fact that most of them are educated and enlightened and act the same way enables them to rise above parochial, sectarian and ethnic interests and work for the betterment of the community as a whole.

As for ‘the politicized Muslims’, things will not improve unless the teachings of the ‘real Islam’ are followed; an Islam without sloganeering against Jews, Hindus, Christians, Shites or Sunnis, an Islam without moral and spiritual corruption, an Islam without guns and grenades, suicide bombings and the ‘grand plans’ to destroy the West; an Islam which grants due respect to any one and every human being; an Islam which provides rights to all individuals irrespective of their color, caste, creed, sect or religion; an Islam that leads by example.

The Muslims need to stop pointing fingers at other religions and take stock of their own situation. They need to learn from other faiths. Respect the ideals for which the followers of those faiths stand for. Preach peace instead of prejudice that ends up in abstract hatred that conveys no sense whatsoever.

The Muslims need to loosen up! Confining the religion to orthodoxy hasn’t got the Muslims anywhere. In fact, so far, it appears that it’s been a campaign, a mad rush for the dark ages!

For some odd reason, the Muslim countries seem to follow their ‘Arab brethren’ and look for a leadership role from the sheikhs. It’s a faulty arrangement. Can there be a separate and distinct leadership that can be created? Can the moderate Muslim countries come forward, take the lead and enlighten the Muslims? May be one day or may be never.

What, however, Islam really needs now is a self-sustaining movement within the enlightened spheres. For starters, taking the route of ijma and ijtehad (religious consultation to keep pace with the changing times) may not be a bad idea. This process of consultation does not necessarily have to be conducted by the bearded and the turbaned but people who wear suits and ties, jeans and khakis can probably take the initiative and thereby end up doing a much better job.

Islam, if it has to survive, needs better leadership. The followers, the sincere ones and not the wretched Al-Qaeda or the Wahabi crowd, have to make hard choices. This is the time to put the house in order. This is the historical opportunity to make amends and seek forgiveness from those who have been hurt, bruised and battered by militant Islam and make a decision, once and for all times to come, that the faith itself is all about universal peace and harmony and free from those draconian hollowness of violence and aggression.

-Ahson Saeed Hasan

Dutch Hirsi Ali Says Muslims Should Protest Terrorism

The Associated Press, Published: November 21, 2007

LONDON: Dutch author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the target of death threats for her criticism of radical Islam, says Muslims must demonstrate their anger when terrorism is committed in the name of religion, just as they did last year when newspapers published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Muslims must make a moral choice to defy extremists who use their religion to justify terrorism, the Somali-born former Dutch lawmaker said during a debate late Tuesday in London organized by a think tank, the Center for Social Cohesion.

“Muslims, I believe, should take to the streets when, in the name of their prophet, people are beheaded and passengers are blown up – not only when drawings of Prophet Muhammad are made,” she said, referring to last year’s mass protests in Muslim countries over Danish newspaper cartoons.

Sitting a few meters (yards) behind her on the stage was a bodyguard, a reminder that she lives under round-the-clock protection since the 2004 murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam.

Van Gogh was shot and stabbed by a Muslim radical offended by the film “Submission” about oppressed Muslim women, for which Hirsi Ali wrote the script. The killer, now serving a life sentence, pinned a letter threatening Hirsi Ali on Van Gogh’s chest with a knife.

The location of the debate was kept secret until the last minute, and the audience of policy makers, academics and journalists was carefully selected.

Hirsi Ali and former Islamic extremist Ed Husain, an author, debated the West and the future of Islam, disagreeing mainly over whether Islam was a set of exact, restrictive laws or whether it had many interpretations.

Hirsi Ali, who in her book “Infidel: My Life” wrote of how she was subjected to genital mutilation and later forced into an unwanted marriage that led her to flee to the Netherlands, argued some tenets of Islam are inherently violent and must be rejected. After growing up as a devout Muslim, she now identifies herself as an atheist.

“The people who we’ve come to call ‘moderates’ are those Muslims who are not willing to follow every commandment that’s in the Koran and take it literally … but principally condone it,” she said.

Husain argued that he escaped the hold militants had on him as a young man by exploring his Muslim faith more deeply and finding different interpretations. He argued the key to de-radicalizing people lay in the religion itself.

“There’s no better way into the mind of an extremist than to say, ‘Well actually you’ve got it wrong. Here are other scriptural proofs to illustrate that your point of view is scripturally unfounded,’” he said. “As a minimum you insert doubt, as a maximum you take them out of that mindset.”

Husain blamed the rise of extremism in Britain on the government for allowing radical clerics a platform during the 1980s and 1990s. He said Western Islam is in its formative stages, and the kind of Islam fostered in the West today will shape the religion for decades to come.

“Young Muslims in Damascus, Jeddah, Cairo and Rabat look to us to see how it is we young Muslims come to terms with being Muslim in the heart of the west,” he said. “If we fix it here for this generation we have every chance of sending a beacon of hope back into the Muslim East.”

Anti-Capitalism in Five Minutes or Less

By Robert Jensen

05/01/07 “ICH” – – We know that capitalism is not just the most sensible way to organize an economy but is now the only possible way to organize an economy. We know that dissenters to this conventional wisdom can, and should, be ignored. There’s no longer even any need to persecute such heretics; they are obviously irrelevant.

How do we know all this? Because we are told so, relentlessly — typically by those who have the most to gain from such a claim, most notably those in the business world and their functionaries and apologists in the schools, universities, mass media, and mainstream politics. Capitalism is not a choice, but rather simply is, like a state of nature. Maybe not like a state of nature, but the state of nature. To contest capitalism these days is like arguing against the air that we breathe. Arguing against capitalism, we’re told, is simply crazy.

We are told, over and over, that capitalism is not just the system we have, but the only system we can ever have. Yet for many, something nags at us about such a claim. Could this really be the only option? We’re told we shouldn’t even think about such things. But we can’t help thinking — is this really the “end of history,” in the sense that big thinkers have used that phrase to signal the final victory of global capitalism? If this is the end of history in that sense, we wonder, can the actual end of the planet far behind?

We wonder, we fret, and these thoughts nag at us — for good reason. Capitalism — or, more accurately, the predatory corporate capitalism that defines and dominates our lives — will be our death if we don’t escape it. Crucial to progressive politics is finding the language to articulate that reality, not in outdated dogma that alienates but in plain language that resonates with people. We should be searching for ways to explain to co-workers in water-cooler conversations — radical politics in five minutes or less — why we must abandon predatory corporate capitalism. If we don’t, we may well be facing the end times, and such an end will bring rupture not rapture.

Here’s my shot at the language for this argument.

Capitalism is admittedly an incredibly productive system that has created a flood of goods unlike anything the world has ever seen. It also is a system that is fundamentally (1) inhuman, (2) anti-democratic, and (3) unsustainable. Capitalism has given those of us in the First World lots of stuff (most of it of marginal or questionable value) in exchange for our souls, our hope for progressive politics, and the possibility of a decent future for children.

In short, either we change or we die — spiritually, politically, literally.

1. Capitalism is inhuman

There is a theory behind contemporary capitalism. We’re told that because we are greedy, self-interested animals, an economic system must reward greedy, self-interested behavior if we are to thrive economically.

Are we greedy and self-interested? Of course. At least I am, sometimes. But we also just as obviously are capable of compassion and selflessness. We certainly can act competitively and aggressively, but we also have the capacity for solidarity and cooperation. In short, human nature is wide-ranging. Our actions are certainly rooted in our nature, but all we really know about that nature is that it is widely variable. In situations where compassion and solidarity are the norm, we tend to act that way. In situations where competitiveness and aggression are rewarded, most people tend toward such behavior.

Why is it that we must choose an economic system that undermines the most decent aspects of our nature and strengthens the most inhuman? Because, we’re told, that’s just the way people are. What evidence is there of that? Look around, we’re told, at how people behave. Everywhere we look, we see greed and the pursuit of self-interest. So, the proof that these greedy, self-interested aspects of our nature are dominant is that, when forced into a system that rewards greed and self-interested behavior, people often act that way. Doesn’t that seem just a bit circular?

2. Capitalism is anti-democratic

This one is easy. Capitalism is a wealth-concentrating system. If you concentrate wealth in a society, you concentrate power. Is there any historical example to the contrary?

For all the trappings of formal democracy in the contemporary United States, everyone understands that the wealthy dictates the basic outlines of the public policies that are acceptable to the vast majority of elected officials. People can and do resist, and an occasional politician joins the fight, but such resistance takes extraordinary effort. Those who resist win victories, some of them inspiring, but to date concentrated wealth continues to dominate. Is this any way to run a democracy?

If we understand democracy as a system that gives ordinary people a meaningful way to participate in the formation of public policy, rather than just a role in ratifying decisions made by the powerful, then it’s clear that capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive.

Let’s make this concrete. In our system, we believe that regular elections with the one-person/one-vote rule, along with protections for freedom of speech and association, guarantee political equality. When I go to the polls, I have one vote. When Bill Gates goes the polls, he has one vote. Bill and I both can speak freely and associate with others for political purposes. Therefore, as equal citizens in our fine democracy, Bill and I have equal opportunities for political power. Right?

3. Capitalism is unsustainable

This one is even easier. Capitalism is a system based on the idea of unlimited growth. The last time I checked, this is a finite planet. There are only two ways out of this one. Perhaps we will be hopping to a new planet soon. Or perhaps, because we need to figure out ways to cope with these physical limits, we will invent ever-more complex technologies to transcend those limits.

Both those positions are equally delusional. Delusions may bring temporary comfort, but they don’t solve problems. They tend, in fact, to cause more problems. Those problems seem to be piling up.

Capitalism is not, of course, the only unsustainable system that humans have devised, but it is the most obviously unsustainable system, and it’s the one in which we are stuck. It’s the one that we are told is inevitable and natural, like the air.

A tale of two acronyms: TGIF and TINA

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s famous response to a question about challenges to capitalism was TINA — There Is No Alternative. If there is no alternative, anyone who questions capitalism is crazy.

Here’s another, more common, acronym about life under a predatory corporate capitalism: TGIF — Thank God It’s Friday. It’s a phrase that communicates a sad reality for many working in this economy — the jobs we do are not rewarding, not enjoyable, and fundamentally not worth doing. We do them to survive. Then on Friday we go out and get drunk to forget about that reality, hoping we can find something during the weekend that makes it possible on Monday to, in the words of one songwriter, “get up and do it again.”

Remember, an economic system doesn’t just produce goods. It produces people as well. Our experience of work shapes us. Our experience of consuming those goods shapes us. Increasingly, we are a nation of unhappy people consuming miles of aisles of cheap consumer goods, hoping to dull the pain of unfulfilling work. Is this who we want to be?

We’re told TINA in a TGIF world. Doesn’t that seem a bit strange? Is there really no alternative to such a world? Of course there is. Anything that is the product of human choices can be chosen differently. We don’t need to spell out a new system in all its specifics to realize there always are alternatives. We can encourage the existing institutions that provide a site of resistance (such as labor unions) while we experiment with new forms (such as local cooperatives). But the first step is calling out the system for what it is, without guarantees of what’s to come.

Home and abroad

In the First World, we struggle with this alienation and fear. We often don’t like the values of the world around us; we often don’t like the people we’ve become; we often are afraid of what’s to come of us. But in the First World, most of us eat regularly. That’s not the case everywhere. Let’s focus not only on the conditions we face within a predatory corporate capitalist system, living in the most affluent country in the history of the world, but also put this in a global context.

Half the world’s population lives on less than $2 a day. That’s more than 3 billion people. Just over half of the population of sub-Saharan Africa lives on less than $1 a day. That’s more than 300 million people.

How about one more statistic: About 500 children in Africa die from poverty-related diseases, and the majority of those deaths could be averted with simple medicines or insecticide-treated nets. That’s 500 children — not every year, or every month or every week. That’s not 500 children every day. Poverty-related diseases claim the lives of 500 children an hour in Africa.

When we try to hold onto our humanity, statistics like that can make us crazy. But don’t get any crazy ideas about changing this system. Remember TINA: There is no alternative to predatory corporate capitalism.

TGILS: Thank God It’s Last Sunday

We have been gathering on Last Sunday precisely to be crazy together. We’ve come together to give voice to things that we know and feel, even when the dominant culture tells us that to believe and feel such things is crazy. Maybe everyone here is a little crazy. So, let’s make sure we’re being realistic. It’s important to be realistic.

One of the common responses I hear when I critique capitalism is, “Well, that may all be true, but we have to be realistic and do what’s possible.” By that logic, to be realistic is to accept a system that is inhuman, anti-democratic, and unsustainable. To be realistic we are told we must capitulate to a system that steals our souls, enslaves us to concentrated power, and will someday destroy the planet.

But rejecting and resisting a predatory corporate capitalism is not crazy. It is an eminently sane position. Holding onto our humanity is not crazy. Defending democracy is not crazy. And struggling for a sustainable future is not crazy.

What is truly crazy is falling for the con that an inhuman, anti-democratic, and unsustainable system — one that leaves half the world’s people in abject poverty — is all that there is, all that there ever can be, all that there ever will be.

If that were true, then soon there will be nothing left, for anyone.

I do not believe it is realistic to accept such a fate. If that’s being realistic, I’ll take crazy any day of the week, every Sunday of the month

The rest of the article is an addition by me. It’s the lyrics of a song by an old band called Abba.

I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Ain’t it sad
And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me
That’s too bad
In my dreams I have a plan
If I got me a wealthy man
I wouldn’t have to work at all, I’d fool around and have a ball

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man’s world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man’s world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It’s a rich man’s world

A man like that is hard to find but I can’t get him off my mind
Ain’t it sad
And if he happens to be free I bet he wouldn’t fancy me
That’s too bad
So I must leave, I’ll have to go
To Las Vegas or Monaco
And win a fortune in a game, my life will never be the same

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man’s world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man’s world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It’s a rich man’s world

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man’s world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man’s world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It’s a rich man’s world

It’s a rich man’s world