C'est Moi, Vanille

Mostly cut and paste jobs performed by the knife wielding pocket sized fairy, Vanille.

Friday, June 16, 2006

I Like This Chick:

  • http://www.paige-harrison.us/fem-led_intl_sex_study.html

  • Global International Sex Study Supports Female-Led Relationships

    University of Chicago researchers announced on April 19, 2006 that they have completed research that is based on a survey of more than 27,500 people, aged between 40 and 89 who are living in 29 different countries. Both married and single people participated in the study. Sexual orientation was not asked for cultural reasons. The survey included questions about how physically or emotionally satisfying relationships are to men and Women and how important sex is to them.

    The lead researcher, Edward Laumann is a world renowned sex researcher. Within an interview about the study, he said, “In relationships that are based on equality, couples tend to develop sexual habits that are more in keeping with both partners’ interests....... Male–centered cultures where sexual behavior is more oriented toward male pleasure and procreation tend to discount the importance of sexual pleasure for Women.” This is an interesting statement from a Female-Led perspective.

    In Western nations, two-thirds of men and 58 percent of Women said they were satisfied with their sexual lives. In Middle Eastern nations, half of men and 38 percent of Women were satisfied. In East Asian countries, the satisfaction numbers dropped to only about a quarter of men and Women. In China, "basically the Women are much more likely to characterize sex as a duty," said Laumann, adding that some 30 percent of Chinese Women regard performing sex as something that is a very "dirty act." Sex in China is "basically to continue the family," he said. Also, "men are not allowed to masturbate because it wastes their seed. It's all very puritanical." In Islamic nations, sex is considered even more an important part of life than in the West, Laumann said. "In the marital relationship, both men and Women are to derive something from sex -- it's an important part of their ties to one another," said Laumann. Yet, satisfaction levels in the Far East are lower than the West because "Women are regarded as chattel and possessions of the male," he said.

    According to Laumann, "It's clear that where there is attention to Women in daily life, they are likely to be having more orgasms. When Mama's not happy, nobody's happy."

    I completely agree!

    In fact many of the findings of the study actually support my long time position and philosophies on the benefits of living within a Female-Led relationship lifestyle. This is largely based upon my own personal life experiences. I think most Americans know down deep by now that, ‘equal’ does not work and that many men want the Woman to actually be in the leadership role.'

    There are NO Relationships in Life that are Equal

    Once again, there are no relationships in life that are equal; I don't know of a single one. In business, sports, the professions, the military, religious and learning institutions, you name it, someone is in charge or has a higher status and someone takes the orders or is a subordinate. Even with your friends there is a subtle power shift; one of you is almost always the more Dominant of the two.

    For some reason, even though the entire planet works on this premise, including the animal kingdom, when it comes to a love relationship you're expected to be "equal" in all things. This is nonsense. One person's Dominance will always struggle to rise to the fore. They may be Female or male, but one person is going to fight to get the ultimate control. Very often it is the Female who is the most vocal and takes control and once we will all start admitting it in public the Female-Led approach will become an accepted relationship lifestyle.

    The umbrella for the Female-Led lifestyle is broad. Female-Led is an unequal partnership between a Female who is In-Charge and Her male. The Female is in the Leadership role and the recognized Partner-In-Charge of the relationship. The Female makes the primary decisions about most areas of the relationship. This type of relationship does have areas of balance and may be a 24/7 lifestyle as I choose to live it, or it or may be something you do just for fun at certain times in your life as you occasionally experiment with it, or it may be lived in the realm of fantasy as the range of our erotic imagination is limitless. Whatever approach you take to the Female-Led lifestyle understand that it is being lived in countless bedrooms around the world because it holds the promise of such intense intimacy and sharing. Is Female-Led untraditional? Is it normal?

    Many males are secretly submissive and are looking for alternative ways to establish and bring a Female-Led relationship into their life in a uniquely intellectual way. Often this is because they live with an incredibly gifted Woman who they recognize can give them the emotional help they need. I have immersed myself in the study of human behavior in looking for alternative lifestyle approaches for how a Woman can successfully meld marriage, motherhood and career. There is no right or single answer and the right solution varies for every couple.

    I did not accept equality in my relationship and do not feel any Woman should unless that is what she truly wants. All aspects of a relationship should be negotiated. Do you want to put your marriage ahead of your career or do you want your work to come first and then shift to a different balance later? How would that work? How does one handle the conflict and confusion?

    As Women become more independent and with more 'male energy,' men typically become intimidated and more 'female,' reticent and unable to express their desires and take on the challenge of living with an independent Alpha Woman. For these men the only answer is that they want a traditional, controllable and docile Woman. Regardless of age many Women are facing these types of relationship issues. The answer is for Women to negotiate better relationships......that are first and foremost Female-Led.

    Are You Within a Relationship Where There is a Struggle with male and Female Roles?

    I believe an approach that works well for many couples is one where there is open negotiation over such things as career, money, children, sexual relations and all of the kinks that go along with balancing all of this out. The concept of the 'Dynamic male' is that he must learn to find and identify his feminine side and learn how to support a Woman who is in the lead role. A Dynamic male is not envious of an Alpha Woman and accepts that she is entitled to having the prestige and power in the relationship. He also understands that he must learn to live subordinate and is to respect all Women and to cherish his Female partner as the dominant partner. The key to a successful Female-Led relationship is understanding the many stages of transition and evolution that a Female-Led relationship goes through. Once again each and every relationship has different dynamics and requires a unique approach. The key is communication and learning how to negotiate differences.

    Between the ages of forty and sixty the hormones of males and Females undergo dramatic changes. This is unavoidable and is the time when many Women become the Alpha and their male partner becomes the subordinate and submissive partner. Put another way, this is when the masculine energy emerges for the Female and the Feminine energy emerges for the male.

    The evolved Alpha Woman must help her submissive male evolve into his new subordinate role. Communication techniques and assumptions must change for an intentional Female-Led couple to achieve relationship success.

    Read more about this study as well as correlations to male hypersexuality and male submissive sexuality within my E-Zine Blake Spectator for Women. All members to my web site have access to my highly acclaimed, The Art of Female Dominance web site..............


    She's satisfied, he wants more — and different

    Elle/MSNBC.com sex survey reveals a big disconnect in the bedroom

    In February 2006, Elle Magazine and MSNBC.com asked readers to talk about sex in an exclusive online survey. Specifically, the study was focused on sex in long-term relationships. Does it sizzle or fizzle once infatuation fades?

    Over two weeks, 77,895 readers, half Women and half men, completed the survey. Nine out of 10 respondents were in a monogamous relationship. Women of all ages reported that are enjoying sex with their partner more now than they used to perhaps indicating that more and more Women are taking charge in the bedroom to insure that HER sexual needs are being met and they SHE is the one being satisfied. Many men however, felt the thrills were not quite what they used to be. Hmmmm...........

    Almost two-thirds of Women participants, ranging from ages 18 up to 85, said they are now satisfied or very satisfied with their sex life. They feel less sexually inhibited than they did in the early days of their relationship and are having more multiple orgasms and despite the cliché of the elusive Female Big O, two-thirds of Women respondents said they usually or always climax during love-making. “Women are getting as much sex as they need and they’re getting a lot of emotional satisfaction,” says Janet Lever, a sociologist at California State University at Los Angeles who helped develop the survey and is surprised by how satisfied Female respondents said they were. "They are having sex on their terms, as often as they want, and with fewer inhibitions.” ~ That is THE foundation and core principle of the Intentional Female-Led relationship lifestyle. It is all about pleasing HER inside and outside of the bedroom!

    But while many Women are reporting sizzling monogamy, the guys had a more lukewarm response. Although men and Women start with the same level of sexual satisfaction when they begin a relationship, after just a few years men claim to be less content, both physically and emotionally, than they were in the early days. While 49 percent of men said they're satisfied or very satisfied with their sex life, almost twice as many males as Women reported being very dissatisfied (24 percent vs. 13 percent) with their bedroom activities. Hmmmm.....

    Men were more likely to report less sexual frequency — 73 percent of men said there was more sex in the early days, compared with 65 percent of women. “Men have a greater preference for different partners and variety,” says Sandra Leiblum, director of the Center for Sexual and Marital Health at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Piscataway, New Jersey, who was not involved in the survey. “It’s not surprising for men that being in a relationship may get boring. They feel tied down." ~ My Advice: I say tie him down using rope, chains or silk scarves..........then give him something that will have him never thinking of straying for something strange or different.

    This study sync's with the Female-Led intentional relationship model in many areas, one of the more significant is that males are reporting they are getting less oral sex and having fewer multiple orgasms per session than in those good old days when it was the male who was calling the shots in the bedroom. Apparently, this is just a memory for many males with a third of men saying, their partner doesn’t like to give oral sex and never or only rarely performs it now.

    Another key finding was that 97 percent of men and Women who reported being very satisfied with their sex lives said they are happy with their partner overall. Couples who reported good sexual communication and were open to trying new bedroom tricks reported being quite satisfied even decades after they met. Of couples who have been together six years or more, 34 percent said their passion is as strong as in the early days. Even after up to 20 years, one in three couples is still having a fabulous sex life.

    If you need some excitement and new bedroom tricks take a look inside of The Art of Female Dominanceweb site where it is always the Woman who is absolutely In Charge!

    Taking Sex Seriously

    "Overall, the people who take their sex life seriously are the people who have the best sex," says Leiblum. "People who do the same old, same old are the ones who report that sex is boring."

    The new survey’s positive picture of Women’s sex lives seems to contradict the stereotype of the “hurried Woman syndrome,” where overworked, stressed-out Females collapse in bed on a regular basis, too tired to muster up an orgasm. Even still, 42 percent of Women cited stress or being too busy as reasons why they didn't have sex at one point or another in the prior month. One exception to the overall positive picture for Women is the large group — nearly 25 percent — whose negative body image prevents them from feeling sexy. Only one in 20 males said they felt that way, the survey found.

    "It's not just that women feel bad about their bodies," says Lever. "It has a distinct carryover into their sex lives. Even if their partner finds them beautiful, the women still don’t feel attractive enough to take off their clothes and have sex."

    The Juicy Details

    How often do you have sex? Most men and Women said they have sex once or twice a week. Yet, taking all their answers into account, men think they’re having less sex than Women: Men said they have sex a median of 5.5 times a month while Women said 8.4 times. Two percent of respondents in a relationship said they were not having sex, and another 2 percent said they have sex more than once a day.

    Who wants more sex? Sixty-six percent of men said that they want more sex than their partner, yet only 38 percent of Women said their male partner wants more sex than they do.

    How satisfied are you with your sex life? Forty-six percent of women but only 32 percent of men said they’re “very satisfied” with their sex life. Twenty-three percent of men compared with only 13 percent of women said they’re "very dissatisfied." As many women — right up to the age of 65 — said they're "very satisfied" as men ages 18 to 24.

    Are you satisfied with the variety of sex? Three-quarters of Women yet just half of men are satisfied with the variety of positions and activities in their love-making. Overall, 68 percent of respondents said their sex life is predictable.

    What boosts your sexual satisfaction? For men, the best predictors of sexual satisfaction were changing sexual positions, receiving oral sex and deep kissing. Interesting.......For Women, the best predictors were deep kissing, gentle kissing and changing positions. The Female-Led relationship lovemaking style is all about both gentle and deep kissing of the Female genitals and receiving oral sex. That sounds pretty close to me!

    Do you feel desired by your partner? Fifty-three percent of men versus 37 percent of Women said they felt more desired by their partner in the earlier days of their relationship.

    Do you have as much passion in your sex life now as when you first started having sex with your partner? Seventy percent of those together one year said they have retained their passion, compared with 58 percent of those together two years, 45 percent of those together three to five years, and 34 percent of those together six or more years.

    What have you done to spice up your sex life in the last year? Sixty-four percent of respondents said they used massage, 59 percent took a bath together, 59 percent used lingerie, 54 percent tried a new sexual position, 41 percent went on a romantic getaway, 40 percent used a vibrator, dildo or other sex toy such as a strap-on, 37 percent watched erotic porn, 34 percent talked about or acted out sexual fantasies, 23 percent had anal sex, 22 percent had sex in public, 21 percent integrated food into sex (e.g. chocolate sauce, whipped cream, liquid or milk), 18 percent tried light Dominance and submission (e.g. bondage restraints, spanking), 14 percent videotaped themselves having sex or posed for pictures in the nude, and 5 percent engaged in a threesome.

    Why do some Women enjoy Anal Sex?

    "It helps me feel a whole different part of my Vagina when he has his tongue buried deeply into my bottom. The fact that it is so tight and nasty I absolutely love, and it is a real turn-on for him too! Usually it is really late at night when my inhibitions are down that I push his head down to begin to pleasure me.

    Some people have the notion that the only reason a Woman will do anal sex is to please her male partner. Not a single Woman who I have ever spoken with about this topic has ever mentioned anything about wanting to please her partner. I want my husband to do this for me because it just feels good! The anus is filled with a lot of nerve receptors that transmit to the brain and I can fell everything swell when this is being done for me and the sensations are really extra-intense.

    How long did sex last during your most recent encounter? On average, 30 minutes when it's dark and there's no sexy talk (e.g. commenting on a partner's body or how erotic something feels); 49 minutes when it's dark and there is sexy talk; 48 minutes when the lights are dim, music is playing and there is no sexy talk; 53 minutes when the lights are dim, music is playing and there is sexy talk.

    Do you wish sex lasted longer? Forty-one percent of men compared to 28 percent of Women wished their last sexual contact had been longer.

    Was the TV on the last time you were in the sack? Yes, said one in five respondents. Having the television on is a big mistake....unless you are planning to watch some Female-Friendly erotic porn videos from Libido Films.

    How often do you orgasm? Two-thirds of Female respondents said they always or almost always reach climax with their partner, but men said their partner usually climaxes more often — 73 percent of the time. One in six Women said they rarely or never climax. As for men, 74 percent said they always climax, while the rest said they usually do.

    Do you engage in oral sex? ~ Four in 10 Women and men said they rarely or never give oral sex. Here's some insight into why: 58 percent of men said their partner doesn't like receiving oral sex; one in five Women said they're not comfortable enough with their genitals to receive oral sex; 45 percent of Women said they don't like performing oral sex while 21 percent said they’re uncomfortable with this sex act. The beginning point for lovemaking in the Female-Led model is to have him lowered to his hands and knees, begging the Female for sex. Look down on him and tease him. The Female has the Power. Learn how to use your Female Powers. Perhaps he should be denied his orgasm completely. Try something really different and make things really exciting for him tonight!

    Are you happy with your partner? Eighty-one percent of men and 86 percent of women say they’re happy, overall, with their partner. Ninety-seven percent of both men and Women who are very satisfied with their sex life said they are happy with their partner.

    Does your partner know how to excite you? Six in 10 men and seven in 10 women said their partner knows how to turn them on.

    Are you a good sexual partner? Seven in 10 respondents said they are.

    Do you communicate your sexual needs? Four in 10 respondents said they had asked their partner for something they wanted in bed in the past month.

    What are some reasons why you didn't have sex in the last month? Among Women, 42 percent said they were too busy or stressed, 34 percent cited different bed times than their partner, 35 percent said they weren't interested and 23 percent said feelings about their body made them less interested. With men, 53 percent said their partner wasn't interested, 47 percent said they themselves were too busy or stressed, and 38 percent cited different bed times.

    Do you make date nights for sex? Half of respondents said they do.

    Do you engage in "verbal foreplay?" One in three respondents said they call or send an e-mail or text message to their partner to tease about doing something sexual to him or her.

    Do you read magazine or internet articles, books that promise to put the spark back in your sex life? Yes, said 52 percent of Women and 41 percent of men. I do hope you are a member of my Female-Led web site. Inside my web site, there are lot's of creative ideas to spice up your love life. Everything is covered, from learning to giving her anal sex with your tongue, the Art of Queening, how to use a sex toy on Her, The Female Dominant ~ On Top position for Her, Golden Showers, Domestic Discipline, to learning to give her endless hours of orgasms with the male mouth and tongue to all aspects of erotic humiliation of the submissive male.

    Have you cheated? Among married people, 14 percent of Women and 21 percent of men said they have cheated on their partner. Among cohabitators, 11 percent of women and 21 percent of men said they have cheated. Women's top reasons for straying: 44 percent said they were attracted to someone else; 32 percent said they wanted reassurance of their desirability. Men's top reasons: 48 percent wanted more sex; 47 percent wanted more sexual variety.

    How many sexual partners have you had? Women reported a median of six partners, while men reported seven. One in six married respondents said they had just one sex partner — their spouse.

    Join my Art of Female Dominance web site for my perspective on ways to enhance and bring variety into your sex life by taking a Female In Charge approach both inside and outside the bedroom.

  • Paige Harrison.... dominant bitch

  • http://www.paige-harrison.us/fem-led_intl_sex_study.html

  • Copyright ©2005 by Paige-Harrison.US. All rights reserved.
    Please feel free to duplicate or distribute this file, as long as the content is not changed and this copyright notice is intact.
    Thank you.

    Thursday, June 08, 2006

    another puzzle piece


    Not Only Will the US Not Attack Iran, It Looks Like the Biggest Thaw in US/Iranian Relations Since 1979 is Suddenly and Inexplicably Underway

    48 Hours That Changed the World – Oil Bourse Disappears; US-Iran OK Bi-Lateral Talks

    Michael C. Ruppert

    © Copyright 2006, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. This story may NOT be posted on any Internet web site without express written permission. Contact admin@copvcia.com. May be circulated, distributed or transmitted for non-profit purposes only.

    March 27, 2006 1330 PST (FTW) - ASHLAND -March 20 and 21st, 2006 may prove to be historic days. The Iranian Oil Bourse set to open on March 20th, selling oil in Euros, was quietly “delayed,” instantly reducing the number of mounting international threats to dollar viability. The only press story we could find anywhere on the delay made it sound like Iran had never planned to open a bourse in the first place, despite about two-dozen stories from around the world last year describing its pending debut. The next day Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei agreed to bi-lateral talks with the US over Iraq, opening the way for the first US-Iranian “state-level” talks since the fall of the Shah of Iran. The moves come at a time when it seems the belligerent rhetoric from both sides couldn’t be more intense.

    What gives?

    It is difficult to offer hard conclusions here, but there are a few significant tea leaves to read and some details of these developments that are worth looking at. In looking for a hypothetical construct that encompasses these enormous sea changes, the only two issues I have found thus far that make sense are the imminent onset of Peak Oil’s first serious symptoms and the super-fragility of global financial markets. While these may or may not prove to be correct, analysis using them to construct a working hypothesis does yield good dividends.

    First let’s look at one other unusual story that appeared just before these two bombshells hit; It has some things in common with them.

    On March 16th the Japanese news service Nikkei reported in a very small story that Japan was about to slash its oil imports from Iran in anticipation of US/Iranian hostilities or an “embargo.” That story said that Japan would switch (as if that were an easy thing to do) to Saudi Arabia to make up for the 16% of Iranian imports it planned to cut in 2006. Japan gets about 14% of its total (6 million barrel per day) oil supply from Iran. Maybe the Japanese translation suffered a bit but the Nikkei story said that Japan was worried about an oil embargo against Iran.

    Huh? Iran sells oil. It can’t be embargoed. Nikkei might have meant “boycott” but that’s an equally ludicrous notion. On this planet today there will never be an oil boycott against any seller. Any marginal spare capacity is gobbled up instantly in super-tight oil markets and there’s no place else for the world to go to replace Iranian oil. Saudi Arabia has yet to make good on two-year-old promises to expand production from under 10 to 11 million barrels per day (Mbpd). Iran is producing 4 Mbpd so a conflict or serious interruption of supply from Iran is unthinkable. Saudi Arabia—almost universally held as the only producer even claiming to have spare capacity—could never make up that difference.

    Every major producing nation except Saudi Arabia has already entered decline in terms of conventional oil production.

    According to the Oil & Gas Journal, Saudi Arabia averaged around 9.4 Mbpd of production throughout 2005. Rough calculations show that Japan’s proposed 2006 substitution of 16% of the oil it gets from Iran would equal only around 150,000 barrels per day. That would represent less than two per cent of Saudi Arabia’s current daily output. Surely Saudi Arabia could do that much for Japan. Or could it? But then the question becomes which nations would voluntarily give up 150,000 bpd?

    If pressed, of course, those nations would go to Iran to get what they didn’t get from Saudi Arabia. That’s a no-brainer. Otherwise the world would see large price spikes because there’s no elasticity in the global supply stream. In 2005 we saw price spikes of three-to-five dollars a barrel a day when a single refinery in the US shut down for just a few days—and that was before Katrina and Rita.

    In the escalating game of chicken with Iran, the Japanese announcement might have signaled to other nations that price spikes were coming even without open conflict. Iran’s loss of one customer wouldn’t even cause it to blink. There are plenty more out there waiting in line, most notably China and India.

    While there may not be a connection between the Japanese announcement on the 15th and the sudden lessening of tensions on the 21st, all three events share one thing in common. What should have been headline stories, widely circulated, were all released in (as far as America and Iran are concerned) backwater outlets and they received no play anywhere else. They all involved the US and Iran. The timing of these events and the way they were announced dictates that we leave them on the table pending further investigation.


    The story about Iran’s International Oil Exchange (IOX), better known as the bourse, needs to be repeated here in totality. It was released by the Russian news agency, Novosti.


    Iran denies reports it will open euro oil exchange
    19:15 | 20/ 03/ 2006

    TEHRAN, March 20 (RIA Novosti) - Iran denied Monday media reports that it was to open a euro-based oil exchange.

    "We have no information on opening an oil exchange in the free economic zone on Kish Island [southern Iran]," a spokesman for the Iranian Oil Ministry told RIA Novosti.

    He said the ministry would have had been informed if the exchange had opened.

    The spokesman said the exact date of the oil exchange opening on Kish Island was still unknown.

    Some media reported Monday that oil would be traded exclusively in the European currency at the Iranian exchange.

    Experts said the transition to euro from dollar in payments for oil could cause a default of the U.S. currency. All oil deals are currently made in dollars, allowing Washington to maintain permanent demand for the national currency.

    Then the next day comes the following story. The source was the Chinese news service Xinhua.

    March 21, 2006
    Qatar to establish Middle East's first international energy bourse

    Qatar will establish an international energy bourse, first of its kind in the Middle East region, the Qatar News Agency reported Tuesday.

    Gulf Energy, a global consortium of energy consultants and investors, signed Tuesday with the Qatar Financial Center Regulatory Authority (QFCRA) a memorandum of understanding on the establishment of the bourse, said the report.

    The bourse is expected to be established as part of the Energy City project in Qatar, which is the first project to be carried out by the Gulf Energy.

    According to the signed document, the QFCRA will be responsible for preparing the necessary procedures for organizational activities of the bourse, which will be specialized in the energy industry trade.

    Qatari Minister of Economy and Commerce Sheikh Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Jassem Al-Thani was quoted as saying that the bourse is considered an important step with the country's plan to become one of the largest liquefied gas exporter by 2010.

    Qatar also seeks to be a leading producer and exporter of oil products in order to meet the demands of the energy products and provide financial services that would go in line with the high international standards, the minister added.

    Gulf Energy said the project would "raise the global stakes of Middle East's energy sector, reshape the dynamics of its oil and gas business and expand its role in the management of resources."

    Source: Xinhua

    What’s key to note is that the first story was released by a Russian wire and the second by a Chinese wire. We can assume then that whatever is going on, Russia and China are part of the deal. Although the story about Qatar didn’t say it—Qatar is home to the US Central Command headquarters—there’s little doubt that the Qatari bourse would/will be denominated in dollars.

    Recently, journalist and author William Engdahl has written several pieces arguing that Iran’s oil bourse was neither a threat to the dollar or a casus belli between the two countries. In making his arguments, he asserted that many folks like me who deemed the bourse a threat believed that by itself the IOX would suddenly collapse the dollar by triggering a massive run which would commence almost with the bourse’s opening bell. That is not correct and his arguments miss the point I was trying to make.

    But first let me thank Mr. Engdahl for correctly pointing out that a massive global shift to Euro-based oil pricing was impossible (for the time being) because European bond markets were nowhere near large enough to support a widespread global shift in reserve currency holdings. That’s an important factor to watch but it does not, in my opinion, perfectly reflect the threat posed by the IOX. What if only a small shift in the global currency regime is enough to upset the global monetary applecart?

    Rather than looking at the IOX as an anvil suddenly landing on the dollar’s back, it should be looked at as a last straw. It is my assessment that Iran’s oil bourse needed only a little activity to trigger a massive global shift away from dollars without widespread European bond support to sound the death knell for dollar hegemony.

    A little crack in the dam is sometimes all that is needed to guarantee (or even cause) the dam’s ultimate failure.

    The key here is liquidity and the service of hundreds of trillions of dollars of derivatives held by major US banks like JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup. More moves—even in the smallest increments—away from the dollar might well trigger an immediate liquidity crisis that would start in the US and then collapse the entire global economy in short order. Derivatives are already under massive pressure and only a fresh supply of (stable) dollars can keep them from imploding.

    That’s one of the big motivators, I think, behind the Fed’s decision to stop publishing M3 money-supply data this month.

    It is clear to FTW that the US markets (especially the Dow and NASDAQ) are in a final pump-and-dump phase before a massive selloff and crash. We have republished recent stories suggesting that the Plunge Protection Team (PPT) is putting on its track shoes in preparation for another intervention a la 1987 and 2002. Of course, we are less than optimistic that the PPT’s actions will prevent a major collapse for one reason above all else: Peak Oil. Declining energy dictates declining economies.

    So, with regard to both oil and the dollar, we discern that it’s not big shocks we need to be concerned about, but little ones. Those little shocks might be all that are required to bring the entire global system down.

    Now let’s look at Iran’s “volte facé.”


    Not since the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979 has Iran agreed to talk at a state level with the United States. The US has taken a corresponding position since then as well. At a time when media-pumped, hostile rhetoric has reached new levels, and when conservative think tanks are frantically shoveling propaganda about how the US might attack Iran over its alleged nuclear-weapons research, a March 21st announcement by Iran’s Supreme Leader (with full authority over foreign affairs) the Ayatollah Khamenei has agreed to bi-lateral talks with the US over Iraq.

    That development is a serious inconsistency (embarrassment) for all those screaming that an attack on Iran is imminent. It is also an embarrassment for the hard-line Ahmadinejad regime in Tehran.

    CNN reported (original story by the AP) on March 21st:

    TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Tuesday that he approves of proposed talks between U.S. and Iranian officials on Iraq, but warned that the United States must not try to "bully" Iran.

    It was the first confirmation that Khamenei, who holds final say on all state matters in Iran, is in favor of the talks. His comments appeared aimed at calming criticism by hard-liners over a major shift in policy by the regime, which long shunned high-level contacts with a country Tehran brands "the Great Satan."

    Khamenei spoke hours after U.S. President George W. Bush said he favors the talks. Bush said American officials would show Iran "what's right or wrong in their activities inside of Iraq."

    Khamenei said that "if the Iranian officials can make the U.S. understand some issues about Iraq, there is no problem with the negotiations."

    "But if the talks mean opening a venue for bullying and imposition by the deceitful party [the Americans], then it will be forbidden," he said in a nationally televised speech in the holy Shiite city of Mashhad in northeastern Iran.

    Both the United States and Iran have said the talks will focus solely on stabilizing Iraq and not deal with the heated issue of Iran's nuclear program. No time or place has yet been set for talks, though the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, who is to head the U.S. side, has proposed holding them in Baghdad.

    Last week, a top Iranian official -- Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council -- announced that Tehran was willing to enter talks with the United States…

    On March 23, The Indian Express, in examining these developments observed that they were “sending a somewhat mixed message to the international community.” No kidding!

    Mixed messages can be like lit matches to gasoline in places like Iran. With its population whipped to a frenzy as the result of the months-long escalation of tensions (largely framed along religious lines), Khamenei had to know that such a sea change would risk criticism at home. The Iranian press has shown a clear slant towards spinning public reaction in the desired direction.

    Khamenei addressed these potential land mines immediately. In a story from Iran’s Irib news agency on March 21 it was reported that:

    Ayatollah Khamenei pointed to the impudent, distorted and improper attitude of American officials on the subject [of negotiation], adding that American officials both in and out of Iraq have repeatedly called on Iran to negotiate, and that these requests had fallen on deaf ears. However, as the calls were recently repeated once more, Iranian officials reconsidered the possibility that negotiation over Iraq might be effective for defusing the tragic insecurity there, and have agreed to transfer their views to the United States…

    Referring to rumors from U.S. officials that Iran wants to negotiate with America on various issues, Ayatollah Khamenei said: "Recent behavior by American officials demonstrates their domineering tendencies, and that a negotiation is the same as summoning Iranian officials. We say to them that you are damned wrong if you think you are summoning Iranian officials."

    Ayatollah Khamenei asserted that negotiations over Iraq are permissible, provided that the relevant officials can impress on the Americans Iran's views on the issue. But if this is meant to provide a venue for the deceitful Americans to continue their bullying, further negotiations with them on the Iraqi situation will be prohibited, just like they are on other issues.


    As I observed in Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, an investigator’s path from complete mystery to understanding is marked by the assemblage of facts and the construction of working hypotheses which are then constantly tested and refined in light of new facts until a degree of certainty is reached. The reason why an investigator formulates a working hypothesis in the first place is because it illuminates a path in the search for more evidence.

    What can we conclude from these major but barely-noticed events?

    Several things are given. First, both the US and Iran have adopted bellicose positions over decades and especially over the last year. Neither government can appear to be soft with the constituencies both have worked hard to inflame. Both America and Iran need their enemies. On the international front, neither can be viewed as waffling, lest both financial and military confidence, and trust from allies wane.

    It is also inconceivable that other major powers like Japan, Russia and China would not have had input (if not outright influence) in these decisions. They hold the most dollars. Clearly, with the release of the bourse stories by Russia and China, their governments were in the loop and agreements were likely reached that these exclusive stories would not trigger massive media responses in either Iran or the US. It seems that all of the European press has also committed a sin of omission by not reporting these developments. I find it hard to believe that they would not have also noticed the shift.

    Further, since the IOX was to have been (will be) Euro-denominated, the European Central Bank (ECB) had to have been watching (if not participating in) developments closely. The same is true for the world’s ultimate monetary policeman, the Bank of International Settlements in Geneva. So Europe is strangely silent too.

    Europe and Iran may still be planning for the bourse. Recently Syria switched its oil pricing from dollars to euros. And on March 24th, an announcement (posted elsewhere on this site) showed that the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia had just decided to convert 10% of their dollar holdings to Euros. This, incrementally, is how you prepare for a dollar collapse which, as we’ve written before, is inevitable. At the right moment it will be encouraged by US leaders including the Fed at the expense of American citizens. By dumping dollars slowly the biggest holders have time to get out before they become worthless. It is clear that now is not the right moment.

    Let me add one more piece before attempting to sum this up.

    It is becoming clearer on a daily basis that Saudi Arabia is approaching an imminent collapse of its major fields like Ghawar. Matt Simmons’ work in Twilight in the Desert is being vindicated with every passing second. On March 24, professor and author Michael Klare published a new article suggesting in very concise terms that a Saudi production collapse is much closer than most experts admit. So, therefore, for both oil and the dollar, it is not a body blow that is feared, it is merely a slight bump. And were the bump to arrive it would be the entire planet that went down the tubes as the dominoes stated falling.

    Peter Dale Scott once described the Vietnam War as sort of an ongoing crap game where players who were getting large payouts always stopped everything to protect the game. It is the game itself that is of ultimate importance. Players might come and go. Players might shoot each other. But the moment the entire game is threatened, all players will form a solid front to protect it from outsiders seeking to shut it down or change it, or from their own greedy actions. The “game” is self-policing.

    So it is with global economic and energy paradigms. As much as enemies may dislike each other, both the US and Iran can see the risks involved of a confrontation. Lose-lose. Zero-Sum. Not only for the US and Iran, but for Russia and China as well. A global economic collapse is just as dangerous for all parties as a nuclear exchange.

    Several years ago I wrote a story describing Mobil Oil’s bribery of Kazakh government officials which also involved an illegal oil swap through Iran. The swap had been made by an executive tied to Mobil which moved Caspian oil through an Iranian pipeline to Italy. Once in Italy, that oil was swapped for other oil which later reached the American markets. That swap was a felony criminal violation of sanctions imposed against Iran after the 1979 revolution. What it clearly showed was that energy needs, and the requirement to keep the game going trump all other concerns.

    In Paris in 2003 I remarked to Ali Morteza Samsam Bakhtiari, a senior advisor to the National Iranian Oil Company, that I thought relations between the US and Iran might normalize within five years. That would be because a short pipeline connecting Kazakhstan and the Caspian to Iran’s already existing network of pipelines would be a quick, necessary step to bypass construction of long, vulnerable, and expensive pipelines routes around Iran and too close to Russia and the instability in Chechnya, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Such a plug-in option would, in an age of ever-diminishing supplies, allow the US and the west to actually compete with China for even the limited amounts of heavy-sour Caspian oil that might come to be remembered as the last edible crumbs of global economic abundance.

    It’s very clear that all major world powers are scrambling to hold the whole planet together; a planet now more worried about bee stings than alligator bites.

    If the US and Iran do wind up gradually normalizing or improving relations to the point of lifted sanctions over the next few years, remember where you heard it first.

    Energy trumps everything, and on at least one small front, this is a sign that not all sanity and reason has left the world’s ruling councils. But until we change the way money works, all that has been done is to slow down a train headed for a brick wall at the bottom of the long, steep, downward slope of Peak Oil.

    Thursday, June 01, 2006

    well, I don't even know what to say

    Haditha: Massacre and cover-up?
    By Martin Asser
    BBC News

    Haditha is an agricultural community of about 90,000 inhabitants on the banks of the Euphrates north-west of Baghdad.
    It lies in the huge western province of Anbar, which has been the heartland of the insurgency since US troops led the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003.

    It is a dangerous place for the US marines who control this part of Iraq and for the inhabitants, caught between insurgents and American troops.

    On the morning of 19 November 2005, the Subhani neighbourhood was the scene of an event that has become like the pulse of the insurgency - a roadside bomb targeting a US military patrol.

    It killed 20-year-old Lance Corp Miguel (TJ) Terrazas, driving one of four humvee vehicles in the patrol, and injured two other marines.

    A simple US military statement hinted at the bloody chain of events which the attack started - though subsequent scrutiny showed it to be far from the truth.
    It said: "A US marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha.

    "Immediately following the bombing, gunmen attacked the convoy with small arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and marines returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another."

    Video footage

    The tragedy of Haditha may have been left at that - just another statistic of "war-torn" Iraq, a place too dangerous to be reported properly by journalists, where openness is not in the interests of political and military circles, and the sheer scale of death numbs the senses.

    However, a day after the incident, local journalist Taher Thabet got his video camera out and filmed scenes that - whatever they were - were not the aftermath of a roadside bomb.

    The bodies of women and children, still in their nightclothes; interior walls and ceilings peppered with bullet holes; bloodstains on the floor.
    Mr Thabet's tape prompted an investigation by the Iraqi human rights group Hammurabi, which passed details onto the US weekly magazine Time in January.

    Before publishing its account on 19 March, the magazine passed the tape to US military commanders in Baghdad, who initiated a preliminary investigation.

    Following their findings, the official version was changed to say that, after the roadside bomb, the 15 civilians had been accidentally shot by marines during a firefight with insurgents.

    Nevertheless, on 9 March the top commanders in Baghdad began a criminal investigation, led by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS). Its report is expected within days.

    On 7 April three officers in charge of troops in Haditha were also stripped of their command and reassigned.

    Pretended to die

    Eyewitness accounts suggest that comrades of Lance Corp Terrazas, far from coming under enemy fire, went on the rampage in Haditha after his death.

    A US soldier came in and shot at us, I pretended to be dead and he didn't notice me
    Safa Younis
    Twelve-year-old Safa Younis appears in a Hammurabi video saying she was in one of three houses where troops came in and indiscriminately killed family members.
    "They knocked at our front door and my father went to open it. They shot him dead from behind the door and then they shot him again," she says in the video.

    "Then one American soldier came in and shot at us all. I pretended to be dead and he didn't notice me."

    Hammurabi says eight people died in the house, including Safa's five siblings, aged between 14 and two.

    In another house seven people including a child and his 70-year-old grandfather were killed. Four brothers aged 41 to 24 died in a third house. Eyewitnesses said they were forced into a wardrobe and shot.

    Outside in the street, US troops are said to have gunned down four students and a taxi driver they had stopped at a roadblock set up after the bombing.


    The Pentagon has said little about the Haditha deaths publicly, and in Iraq the incident has caused little controversy - US troops there are already routinely viewed as trigger happy and indifferent to Iraqi casualties.

    But politicians in Washington who have been briefed on the military investigation say it backs the story that marines killed civilians in cold blood.

    The chairman of the Senate armed services committee, John Warner, says it will hold hearings into the incident and how it was handled.

    Media commentators have spoken of it as "Iraq's My Lai" - a reference to the 1968 massacre of 500 villagers in Vietnam.

    Democrat congressman John Murtha, a former marine and war veteran, has said the Haditha incident could turn out to be an even bigger scandal than the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.

    The Marine Corps has responded to Mr Murtha by saying it would be inappropriate to comment on an ongoing investigation, but would do so "as soon as the facts are known and decisions on future actions are made".

    1) Marine Lance Corp Miguel Terrazas dies in attack on US convoy.
    2) US military initially says bomb also killed 15 Iraqi civilians.
    3) Eight insurgents killed after attacking convoy. US later says the 15 civilians were not killed by bomb, but shot accidentally in battle.

    1) Marine Lance Corp Miguel Terrazas dies in attack on US convoy.
    2) Troops go on rampage - eight killed in one of three houses.
    3) Seven killed in a second house, including five children.
    4) Four brothers put in wardrobe and shot dead in a third house.
    5) Four students and taxi driver killed at roadblock.