Sunday, September 30, 2007
Mike Metzger, a former believer in the September 11 ‘truth’ movement, is disillusioned by the t-shirt vendors:
“The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are ‘in on it.’ Yeah, sure. Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people. And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to ‘pull’ Building 7. The truthers' misrepresentation of Silverstein's quote is one of the most popular ‘facts’ to spit out, but in doing so, you are effectively in agreement that firefighters were not only involved in the controlled demolition of WTC7, but they are also aiding and abetting in the government's cover-up. Yeah, every firefighter who was out there on 9/11 is going to be complicit in the MURDER OF 343 OF THEIR FALLEN BROTHERS! To quote Loose Change co-creator Jason Bermas, ‘the firefighters are paid off.’
This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, ‘mutha fuckin bitch ass money.’ Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach.”
“Controlled demolitions: absolute bullshit. Now, I know there are some legitimate inconsistencies in the story that can't be proven false. My problem, and your problem as well, is that we have been blatantly misled by people who are only interested in selling dvds and t-shirts. This is supposed to be a truth movement. At this point, Alex Jones could pull every smoking gun out of ass that proves without question that 9/11 was an inside job, but it will never excuse the fact that he had lie so blatantly. Fuck you, fuck avery & bermas, fuck 9/11 mysteries, and fuck every true believer who goes out there and tells people that they've ‘done their research.’”
Free enterprise, particularly in the world of entertainment, is based on giving the buyer what he wants to buy. This means that the story that is presented is the story that will attract the most buyers. The story will always end up following the money, not the truth. Eventually, some of those working in the sausage factory become disillusioned at the quality of the sausages.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
From ‘The Victor?’ by Peter W. Galbraith (emphasis in red):
“In May 2003, the Iranian authorities sent a proposal through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, Tim Guldimann, for negotiations on a package deal in which Iran would freeze its nuclear program in exchange for an end to US hostility. The Iranian paper offered ‘full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD [and] full cooperation with the IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments.’ The Iranians also offered support for ‘the establishment of democratic institutions and a non-religious government’ in Iraq; full cooperation against terrorists (including ‘above all, al-Qaeda’); and an end to material support to Palestinian groups like Hamas. In return, the Iranians asked that their country not be on the terrorism list or designated part of the ‘axis of evil’; that all sanctions end; that the US support Iran's claims for reparations for the Iran–Iraq War as part of the overall settlement of the Iraqi debt; that they have access to peaceful nuclear technology; and that the US pursue anti-Iranian terrorists, including ‘above all’ the MEK. MEK members should, the Iranians said, be repatriated to Iran.
Basking in the glory of ‘Mission Accomplished’ in Iraq, the Bush administration dismissed the Iranian offer and criticized Guldimann for even presenting it. Several years later, the Bush administration's abrupt rejection of the Iranian offer began to look blatantly foolish and the administration moved to suppress the story. Flynt Leverett, who had handled Iran in 2003 for the National Security Council, tried to write about it in The New York Times and found his Op-Ed crudely censored by the NSC, which had to clear it. Guldimann, however, had given the Iranian paper to Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney, now remembered both for renaming House cafeteria food and for larceny. (As chairman of the House Administration Committee he renamed French fries ‘freedom fries’ and is now in federal prison for bribery.) I was surprised to learn that Ney had a serious side. He had lived in Iran before the revolution, spoke Farsi, and wanted better relations between the two countries. Trita Parsi, Ney's staffer in 2003, describes in detail the Iranian offer and the Bush administration's high-handed rejection of it in his wonderfully informative account of the triangular relationship among the US, Iran, and Israel, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States.”
“. . . the 2003 Iranian paper could provide a starting point for a US–Iran deal. In recent years, various ideas have emerged that could accommodate both Iran's insistence on its right to nuclear technology and the international community's desire for iron-clad assurances that Iran will not divert the technology into weapons. These include a Russian proposal that Iran enrich uranium on Russian territory and also an idea floated by US and Iranian experts to have a European consortium conduct the enrichment in Iran under international supervision. Iran rejected the Russian proposal, but if hostility between Iran and the US were to be reduced, it might be revived. (The consortium idea has no official standing at this point.) While there are good reasons to doubt Iranian statements that its program is entirely peaceful, Iran remains a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its leaders, including Ahmadinejad, insist it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. As long as this is the case, Iran could make a deal to limit its nuclear program without losing face.”
The idea that Iran won’t listen to reason is yet another lie coming from the Zionists in the Bush Administration, and Americans are lucky that the Zionists aren’t running things any more. Hiding the Iranian offer is even more hypocritical when you consider that the phony concern about Iran’s alleged nuclear program occurs in the context of a Middle East where the only nuclear state is Israel, and every other state has called for the Middle East to be a nuclear-free zone. Israel claims it is uniquely in danger, thus uniquely requiring nukes, and yet rejects the Saudi peace proposal which remains on the table. Unfortunately, the stranglehold over information of the Jew-controlled media means that the utter ridiculousness of the Zionist propaganda war against the people of Iran will never be mentioned.
Friday, September 28, 2007
There are three places that require energy: the United States, Europe, and the manufacturers in Asia. There are three sources of energy: Russia; the Middle East/Africa; and the Americas, consisting largely of Mexico, Venezuela, and, of increasing importance, the Canadian oil sands. As we have seen, the Iraq war was reluctantly tolerated by the American oligarchs because the oil instability and insecurity in the Middle East increased the cost per barrel to a point where the Canadian oil sands became viable. In other words, contrary to what you may have been reading, the point of the war, from the view of the big American strategists, was to increase insecurity of supply in the short run. The point wasn’t to raise the profitability of the traditional big oil companies, which are of less and less importance in the bigger scheme of things as time goes on. The attack on Iraq was not desired as they knew it would be a disaster, but they put up with it as something that could be used to reconfigure international oil and security arrangements.
Russia will supply Europe; the Middle East and Africa will supply China and Asia; and the Americas, increasingly Canada, will supply the United States. What the American oligarchs have learned in recent years is that the American media and politics has become hopelessly corrupted by the Jewish Billionaires Club, and, at least in the short run, there is nothing that can be done about it. Fear of drive-by slurring from the Jew-controlled media is so extreme that neither the Americans nor the Europeans have the slightest hope of dealing with their own self-interest in the Middle East in any kind of rational manner. On the other hand, China is completely immune to the slur. Mention the Holocaust to the Chinese and they’ll think you are referring to the Rape of Nanking. They can bat the Zionist propangandists down with a flick of the finger, and can deal with their own self-interests in energy security in a completely rational manner.
So the attack on Iraq was about oil. The Republicans used oil to prey on traditional American psychopathic selfishness, leaving the idea that the Hummer would be cheaper to fill up (at least the joke’s on the Americans!). The Zionists saw the war as the lynch-pin of the Zionist Plan for the Middle East, the ultimate goal of which is to remove the oil weapon from the Arabs (the joke’s on the Zionists too!). Finally, the American oligarchs reluctantly accepted the attack as an indirect means of making the Canadian oil sands economically viable, as part of a long term strategy of increasing American national energy security by sidestepping the unblockable and malign influence of the Zionists.
This article “Why Did Israel Attack Syria?” by Jonathan Cook has been linked to everywhere, but it seems to be fundamentally flawed. Cook writes:
“The latest accusations should be seen as an example of Israel and the neocons ‘creating their own reality’, as one Bush adviser famously observed of the neocon philosophy of power. The more that Hizbullah, Syria and Iran are menaced by Israel, the more they are forced to huddle together and behave in ways to protect themselves – such as arming – that can be portrayed as a ‘genocidal’ threat to Israel and world order.”
“The attack on Syria is part of a clever hustle, one designed to vanquish or bypass the doubters in the Bush Administration, both by proving Syria's culpability and by provoking it to respond.”
The big problem with this is that the Israeli strategists really are concerned about the new reality, learned only last summer, that illegal Israeli attacks on its neighbors come with a cost, a missile counterattack. A devastating counterattack will permanently end the Israeli dreams of empire by depriving it of the knowledge workers and leaving it with the parasitic religious nuts known as settlers. It doesn’t make sense for the Israelis to be encouraging the very thing they fear the most. We would certainly have seen this summer another illegal attack on Lebanon, or an illegal attack on Syria, had it not been for Israeli fears of a counterattack.
The fact that there wasn’t a pre-propaganda preparation by the Jew-controlled American media, and the fact that the Israelis didn’t immediately gloat over the attack, fitting it into the Jew-created propaganda campaign, but in fact seem reluctant to talk about it, are indications that the attack didn’t go as planned. An Israeli attack on Syria, by far the most likely next illegal attack, will require a simultaneous attack on all Syrian missile placements, to prevent, or at least minimize, the counterattack. This will require that Syrian/Russian anti-aircraft defenses be weak enough that Israel can complete the attacks. Israel needed to find out how good those defenses are. Contrary to the larger Jew-created propaganda message that Israel always succeeds, we have entered a new phase of history where Israel, and its American puppet, is relatively weak and always foolish.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The old stalwarts are disappointing me.
First, Engdahl unnecessarily explains his abandonment of the silly ‘Peak Oil’ theory by taking up the still very controversial – some would say ‘flaky’ – Russian theories concerning the creation of oil. The Russians may well be right, but Peak Oil falls on its own. There’s tons of oil around. In the United States itself, there is enough oil in the oil shales to satisfy current levels of American requirements for over 100 years. The problem is cost of production. Let me state it clearly: the reason why the American Establishment agreed to the attack on Iraq, an attack they knew was going to be a disaster and would indeed lead to insecurity over Middle East oil supplies, was to force the price per barrel of oil up over the amount where exploitation of the Canadian oil sands would become economically viable. There. I’ve said it. The long-term plan is to base American oil security on the sane and dependable Canadians, and not leave it to the whims of the fruitcakes in the Middle East, the fruitcakiest being the Israelis and their American ‘friends’. The Americans don’t get much oil from the Middle East, but it is important oil, and the price of oil remains dependent on decisions made by people who aren’t Americans, and don’t have America’s interests at heart. The war had nothing to do with controlling Middle East oil supplies, something which should, at least by now, be obvious. In the long term, the war was about separating the United States from Israel (the American strategists must find it funny that the neocons fell for it, as the Iraq war created the perfect petri dish to grow the new idea that American national interests are different from those of Zionist colonialists). When the oil sands peter out, we’ll need another war to force the price over the amount required for the Americans to exploit the oil shales (experimentation on oil shales development has already started).
I should note that the general lumpen-leftist view that the war was about forcing the price of oil up doesn’t make sense. The American establishment are both producers and consumers of oil. There is a ‘sweet spot’, where they maximize their profit, but a war is too blunt an instrument to get there, if you could even determine what the sweet spot is. The other point, which I keep making (to no avail), is that the American oligarchs have absolutely no interest in depriving their new manufacturers (the Chinese) from a source of energy. Globalization happened and the strategists are still writing like it’s 1970.
Peter Dale Scott continues with his theory that Cheney’s prevarications about what he was up to on the morning of September 11 relate to the fact he was hiding something, including his involvement in the shooting down of Flight 93. I doubt it. This represents a misunderstanding of the nature of the conspiracy. It was planned in such a way as to minimize – or, preferably, eliminate – connections between the operators of the conspiracy and identifiable politicians. Everybody was terrified about how Iran-Contra played out, and didn’t want to see that happen again. Important people, some of them in the Bush Administration, almost went to jail. One plane falling out of the control of the commandoes was perfectly foreseeable, and there would have been a contingency plan for it, one not involving Cheney having to ad lib a response. The reason Cheney is being deliberately confusing about the morning of September 11 has another conspiracy explanation. Continuity of government. Scott focuses on it, but then tries to tie Cheney’s actions to the shooting down of the plane, a completely unnecessary connection, and one not supported by what we know. Referring to Flight 93 actually damages Scott’s paper.
Cheney and his ilk are terrified that the next attack will involve the destruction of the United States’ ability to plan a response, so have created elaborate – and no doubt unconstitutional – plans for continuity of government, some kind of dictatorship led by people like Cheney. Those plans collapse if the enemy can determine what people like Cheney will be doing after an attack. Thus the intentional creation of confusion. There is no need to drag Flight 93 into the mix, and doing so detracts from consideration of the wisdom of allowing freaks like Cheney to take over the American government in cases where they can claim, without anything other than their own say-so, that they have to. The evidence actually supports Scott’s thesis about the key role of continuity of government better if we leave out the shooting down of Flight 93. That would leave room for reasonable discussion of the necessity of some sort of doomsday plan for when all the usual ‘deciders’ – Bush’s name for it – were dead.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
A list of “The World's Weirdest/Stupidest Conspiracy Theories”. A few comments:
- HIV can’t logically ‘cause’ AIDS, as there are a few people who have HIV but have never contracted AIDS. There is a protocol for determining causation in infectious diseases, and HIV doesn’t meet it. It is entirely possible that HIV was created in a lab. Its release may have been a mistake. Or not.
- Jim Fetzer’s stupid and harmful writing on the Zapruder film should be enough to make people run like hell away from anything he writes about September 11.
- There’s some weird symbolism going on at Denver International Airport.
- The new Middle Ages timeline takes me back.
- Aspartame, fluoride, and at least some genetically modified foods are poisons approved and promoted by governments supposedly interested in the wellbeing of their citizens. The conspiracy is not mind-control, but just good, old-fashioned corruption, politicians being paid off so corporadoes can make money.
- There probably is at least one conspiracy angle to the Atlanta child murders, which have never been properly investigated as the victims were black.
What about the idea that the Dead Sea Scrolls are medieval forgeries? There is something deeply suspicious about Dead Sea Scroll scholarship, another area, like Holocaust studies, where you have to be glatt kosher in order to sit at the table. Dead Sea Scroll scholarship is part of the pseudoscience that attempts to show the links between early Christianity and Judaism, links with an obvious political purpose. At least some of the scrolls were stolen from a Palestinian museum, and all of them are arguably the property of the Palestinian people. Their provenance is shrouded in enough mystery, with a discovery at exactly the time that the new State of Israel was building its arsenal of myths and legends, that you have to wonder what they really are.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
The Sunday Times is back to its old tricks, more of the same lies with more of the same neocon agenda regarding the Israeli attack on Syria. Had the Israelis really found anything in Syria, we would have heard about it immediately, or immediately after the attack. The Israeli lack of immediate response to allegations by Syria follows no known propaganda pattern. The Israelis are making up excuses as they have to. It appears that my original guess was right. The attack, in northern Syria, was intended to test the Russian defenses for their new port/base. Apparently, the defenses worked well, as the Israelis had to leave in an embarrassing hurry, leading to the reticence in admitting that anything had actually happened, and the ad libbed flow of excuses we are now seeing. The latest Murdoch lie is based on:
- “informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem”;
- “well-placed sources”;
- “Israeli sources”; and
- “A senior American source”.
Despite the fact the Syrians were allegedly caught red-handed with North Korean nuclear material, and the Israelis told the Americans, who blessed the Israeli attack, Condi just invited the Syrians to participate in Middle East peace talks!
Monday, September 24, 2007
It has been a good week for t-shirt slogans:
- Don't tase me, bro (for John I’d-like-to-respond-to-the-question-of-the gentleman-who-is-being-murdered-in-the-back-row Kerry).
- M-Fer, I want more iced tea.
- (for Rudy Giuliani’s t-shirt) We do not support that the tragedy that happened on a site where so many people lost their lives be used as a photo op.
Meanwhile, Scott Adams’ politics is as sound as his grasp of the comedic timing in the use of the three-panel comic strip. It’s lucky he doesn’t have to write a column explaining each one (although Ted Rall might consider doing so, as about a third of his comics are incomprehensible!).
Following the logic of the Zionist campaign to stop discussion of the Lobby issue by insisting that ‘fairness’ require that Walt and Mearsheimer carry an Israeli on their back whenever they speak in public, an oud player was not allowed to perform in San Diego because there was no Israeli available to appear with him.
There are an amazing number of loser academics from the University of Podunk associated with the September 11 ‘truth’ movement (together with a marked absence of legitimate structural engineers). For the first time, a world-class scientist has come out as a sceptic. Lynn Margulis is the real deal.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
From a short and surprisingly boring interview with Norman Finkelstein by George McLeod (emphasis in red):
“McLeod: What do you think about the recently-released book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt?
Finkelstein: Parts of it I agree with, parts of it I don’t.
For example, I don’t think there’s any evidence that the is lobby was a crucial factor in the decision for the US to go to war in Iraq and I don’t think that there is evidence that US policy in the Middle East in general is shaped by the lobby.
However, I do think that the lobby is a crucial factor in determining US policy towards the Palestinians.
I don’t think it determined US policy in Iran, in Turkey or in Iraq. But on the Israel-Palestine conflict – the building of settlements and the colonisation of Palestine, I think it is a crucial factor.”
The line in red is simply outrageous. Why does a guy like Finkelstein, prepared to put his neck on the line for the truth, balk at the most obvious truths about the very peculiar relationship of the United States to Israel? Finkelstein, for all the sense he makes, is still a lite Zionist (that’s why he can be interviewed in that hotbed of lite Zionism, ZNet).
In the bigger scheme of things, the Palestinians are irrelevant to Greater Israel. They have to be ethnically cleansed, but that is just the first step of many. The lite Zionists are, fundamentally, Zionists, i. e., advocates of an Israeli Empire. They disagree on tactics and timing, not Zionist imperialism. Blaming the Americans for what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is pure Noamism, simultaneously laying responsibility at the feet of the American Establishment while hiding the real threat to Zionism, the upsetting of the Lobby’s stranglehold over American politics. Honest people who really want to solve the problems of the Middle East have to start by dealing with the most important problem, the Lobby. Ending Lobby influence solves at least 90 per cent of the problem. If the Lobby is outed, there will be no more wars for Israel, which will constitute the end of the Zionist dream. It is thus vitally important for Zionists, and lite Zionists, to hide the truth, no matter how silly they look in doing so. Finkelstein is very useful to the Zionists, as his public fight with them has given him the credibility that crazies like Foxman, Dershowitz, and Pipes don’t have. You have to wonder what happened behind the scenes at DePaul, where Finkelstein, talking of hunger strikes and revolt, suddenly caved, and allowed DePaul to issue a self-serving press release. Was the whole DePaul mess just a Lobby stunt?
Saturday, September 22, 2007
I’ve been calling the neocon millenialist cult a Polish cult, but I’m off the mark, a bit. From an article on the next American attorney general (emphasis in red; it’s a small world!):
“Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the Mukasey appointment was ‘wise’ and he expects ‘bipartisan support’ for confirmation, but admitted to his own personal bias.
‘His family comes from the same town where I was born. My parents knew his parents over there,’ he said, referring to a town that was then part of Poland but now is part of Belarus.”
Historic White Russia covers not only Belarus but parts of Poland, Slovakia, the Ukraine, and Russia.
It is difficult not to be reminded of the group of White Russians involved in the Kennedy assassination, guys like Abraham Zapruder and Jack Ruby. Perhaps those who throw the slur around know something we don’t, which is that the conspiracy isn’t a Jewish one, but a White Russian one!
Thursday, September 20, 2007
President Ahmadinejad wanted to lay a wreath at the site of the World Trade Center, but American authorities, with typical pettiness (Rudy and Hillary leading the way, of course), denied him. Digg asks: “WHICH MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES HELD CANDLELIGHT VIGILS FOR 9/11???” The answer is here (also scroll down for more photos here; Israelis didn’t hold the spontaneous vigils, but they did build a lot of monuments to commemorate the four Jews who were killed). Needless to say, Americans have squandered every bit of international sympathy caused by September 11, and then some.
There’s always an upside, and this embarrassing incident for the American people has produced one of the most hilarious quotes in American history, from the Ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad:
“We do not support that the tragedy that happened on a site where so many people lost their lives be used as a photo op”
The comment “Why Bush won't attack Iran” is still marred by a lack of appreciation of the effects of globalization on the thinking of the strategists, and misses the Big Plan with respect to oil, but is still much better that just about anything else you’ll read on the subject of ‘Iran talk’. I like the fact he gave Bush a little credit:
“To try to discern what the president himself thinks, however, is very difficult. It's particularly hard when Bush is trying to convince Iran that the military option is real, and that if Iran doesn't work out a mutually acceptable deal with the U.S., he will launch a strike.
To date, however, nothing suggests Bush is really going to do it. If he were, he wouldn't be playing good cop/bad cop with Iran and proposing engagement. If the bombs were at the ready, Bush would be doing a lot more to prepare the nation and the military for a war far more consequential than the invasion of Iraq. There is also circumstantial evidence that he has decided bombing may be too costly a choice.”
“Even if Bush wanted to make the Iranians believe that he could go either way – diplomacy or military strike – Bush would not so clearly knock back one side in favor of the other to the point where the ‘bad cops’ in a good cop/bad cop strategy would tell anyone on the outside that they did not enjoy the favor and support of the president.”
If Bush is trying to bluff the Iranians, it would make no sense to reveal his bad hand. Unfortunately for Bush, the Iranians know his ‘tell’, and have called the bluff. In fact American belligerence has made it more difficult to deal with Iran, which is one of the reasons why we should all can the ‘Iran talk’. While we can give Bush a little credit, we shouldn’t give him too much.
Clemons also catches Wurmser – wasn’t he supposed to be gone by now? – in a little treason (oh, and here’s Glenn Greenwald catching Ledeen out on another treason):
“One member of Cheney's national security staff, David Wurmser, worried out loud that Cheney felt that his wing was ‘losing the policy argument on Iran’ inside the administration – and that they might need to ‘end run’ the president with scenarios that may narrow his choices. The option that Wurmser allegedly discussed was nudging Israel to launch a low-yield cruise missile strike against the Natanz nuclear reactor in Iran, thus ‘hopefully’ prompting a military reaction by Tehran against U.S. forces in Iraq and the Gulf. When queried about Wurmser's alleged comments, a senior Bush administration official told the New York Times, ‘The vice president is not necessarily responsible for every single thing that comes out of the mouth of every single member of his staff.’”
There is no way around it. Wurmser, within the White House, is advocating a conspiracy to trick his President and the United States – I was going to write ‘his country’, but his country is Israel – into a monumentally disastrous war. Shouldn’t he be arrested for treason?
“For about 25 minutes, they behaved liked lords of the land: One man, followed later by a young guy, descended from Mitzpeh Yair, one of the unauthorized outposts in the southern Mt. Hebron area, and prevented a United Nations jeep from traveling. UN directives prohibit leaving the vehicle in such cases, in order to avoid an escalation of friction. And so we, three Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) staffers and two Haaretz journalists, were forced to watch them demonstrate their lordliness from inside the car: The older one blocked the vehicle, in the middle of the unpaved road, with his body. Using hand movements, he ordered the engine shut down. When that didn't happen, he jumped on the hood and then on the roof and back on the hood, and finally lay back on the windshield and played with the wipers, taking them apart. The driver progressed slowly down the track, and the man leaned back on the windshield with force, until it broke and shards went into the driver's eyes.
In the meantime, the younger guy appeared. He tried opening the doors of the jeep, screaming, ‘show me your identity cards’ and placing big rocks in front of the wheels. By the time the army and police drove up, the older man yelled at Haaretz photographer Alex Levac: ‘Go back to where you came from.’ When he realized that Levac was a Jew and born in this country, he shouted: ‘Traitor, going with the UN.’ Both the older man and younger guy living at the outpost were born abroad. The younger man, a British citizen, has not yet been given new-immigrant status.
But what does that matter? It also didn't matter that the soldier described them as ‘problematic’ and that the police are familiar with the older man from previous incidents of harassment. Nor did it matter that the police officers did not believe their absurd story that we had been in their olive grove and that we had tried to run the older man over. The tactic is one that is well-known from Hebron, the same tactic that helped to cleanse the Old City of most of its Palestinian residents: Jews harass and bully and then threaten to lodge complaints against their victims with the Israeli police.”
“It is easy to blame the two men, or those like them. But they practice terrorizing Palestinians because Israeli authorities let them do so.
In their own way, they do the same thing the ‘legitimate’ occupation authorities do: They drive the Palestinians off their land to make room for Jews. In other words, they are following orders.”
The official attitude towards the UN by the Israeli government is similar. Of course, relative to the treatment the settlers give the Palestinians, the UN employees got off easy.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Pipes Lidice. After the Nazis killed the ‘murderers’ in the Czech town of Lidice, and seized many others, the rest of the population of Lidice dispersed. This is Pipes’ solution for the Palestinian villages from which – allegedly – Palestinian insurgents are firing rockets in the general direction of Israel. Pipes is now a foreign policy advisor to Giuliani. Do you think Rudy will drop Pipes for advocating Nazi-style collective punishment?
Curiously, Lidice is often listed in Holocaust commemorative websites, although the victims were not Jewish and the people hosting the websites take the position that only Jews died in the Holocaust. It is such a good story they just can’t resist deceiving people.
The Lobby, which doesn’t exist, and if it did, would have no power, never operates without a big plan, and the big plan to counter the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt paper, now a best-selling book, is two-pronged. The second prong is an attempt to pretend to battle the thesis of the book on its merits, which we can see in the efforts of Foxman and Dershowitz. The danger in the second prong is that engaging in the debate puts the silly arguments of the Lobby to the test, and at least some of the Lobby big brains – I don’t include either Dershowitz or Foxman in that number – know that the Lobby can’t meet the test.
Hence the second prong, which is an attempt at censorship. The more sophisticated form of this is a demand that any speech by Mearsheimer and/or Walt be met by an immediate chance of rebuttal by a Lobby member, who of course will be unaccountably busy that day. The less sophisticated form of the censorship consists of the usual behind-the-scenes pressure coupled with the usual slur tossing. This is a bit ironic, considering Alan ‘Free Speech’ Dershowitz:
“For responding to Mearsheimer and Walt's false charges, I was accused by The Nation contributer and Huffington Poster Philip Weiss of being a ‘vigilante’ and by Dissident Voice as being one of ‘the attack dogs of the lobby.’ So much for the marketplace of ideas! Free speech for me but not for thee!”
The reality of Lobby speech and thought control is a bit uglier. Via Informed Comment, the experiences of Richard Drake, chair of the History Department at the University of Montana, at trying to book Walt for a speech a year ago (emphasis throughout in red of the typical pattern of attack – we only see the slur throwing, but miss the real exercise of power from the dark back rooms):
“Soon after the publication of their article, I invited Walt to be the opening speaker in the 2006–07 President’s Lecture Series. I reasoned that our audience would profit from hearing a distinguished scholar’s arguments on a topic of moment. Not everyone in Montana thought the way I did. At the start of the school year, our publicity campaign for the series, announcing Walt’s participation, immediately produced a vehement reaction. In the twenty years that I have coordinated the lecture series, I have invited more than two hundred speakers to the campus. Walt was the first one to be welcomed with a preemptive barrage of defamatory invective from faculty members.
On September 7, 2006, four days before Walt’s scheduled arrival, three tenured full professors—two of them from my own department—denounced him in an open letter to the president of the university, George M. Dennison. The letter appeared in the student newspaper, the Montana Kaimin. Comparing his views to those expressed in the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, they castigated Walt as the author of an ugly racist diatribe and demanded that the university invite Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz or some comparable defender of Israel to offer a rebuttal. Failure to do so would ‘leave a dark stain on the President’s Lecture Series and the university itself.’
One of my critics told me before startled witnesses that he would not rest until I had been stripped of my position of power, which manifestly had corrupted me. Someone as insensitive to Jewish issues as I was could no longer be entrusted to coordinate a university lecture series. He initiated a campaign to bring about my dismissal.
As the controversy over Walt’s visit heated up in the campus newspaper during the next few days, a student and a retired professor publicly defended my decision to invite Walt. any people expressed their private support for me, and some of them wrote letters to the president on my behalf. He also heard plenty from the other side, as we all did, about the loosing of anti-Semitism on the UM campus. In addition to charging Walt with being a vile anti-Semite, his detractors said that he lacked basic skills as a researcher and writer. The neoconservative media had attacked Walt for carelessness as a scholar, and letters to the Montana Kaimin echoed those criticisms.”
It’s a funny coincidence that these uncoordinated letter writers seem to all simultaneously come up with the idea of a chance for a rebuttal, with the rebutter always being Dershowitz! Afterwards, the slur:
“After Walt’s visit, the seminar that he had given on the Israel lobby completely upstaged his lecture on the broader issues of U.S. foreign policy. In letters to the Montana Kaimin, to me, to the president of the university, and to the city’s main newspaper – the Missoulian – individuals who had not attended either of his presentations to hear what he actually said called him a liar and likened him to a Holocaust denier and Ku Klux Klansman. The vehemence of these attacks had no precedent in the twenty-year history of the President’s Lecture Series.
The charge that Walt was the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier seemed little less than grotesque, but there it was in black and white on University of Montana stationery in one of the many bitter letters that this affair inspired: ‘It is much as if the university had brought a Holocaust denier to campus and accorded him the honors of a respected guest.’”
“Walt was also accused of having brought to campus ‘in a suit and tie what used to be the province of those who burned crosses while wearing sheets and hoods.’ To associate this eminent scholar with the church and school burnings, beatings, castrations, shootings, lynchings, and political assassinations carried out by the Ku Klux Klan required a willingness to say anything, no matter how irresponsible, against an adversary marked not for intellectual defeat but for moral destruction.”
“The attempt to group Walt and Mearsheimer with the likes of Faurisson and Duke reveals the real aims behind the campaign of denigration that began on my campus last September: to shut down critical inquiry into the activities of the Israel lobby and to blacken the name of anyone with the temerity to speak up about them. In an open society, however, anti-Semitism cannot be made to include the public investigation of highly effective lobbies. It is long past time to part with the idea that the only foolproof method of defense against the charge of anti-Semitism is 100 percent support for whatever the Israeli and American governments want in the Middle East.
The founders of this country understood that public life must include discussion of the ways power works. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote about factions ‘who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.’ He feared that the ‘cabals of the few’ would be a permanent problem for the republic. The invasion of Iraq is not the first war in our history to have been started by ‘men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs.’ The evidence that Mearsheimer and Walt provide constitutes a reason for a civilized debate on the role of the Israel lobby in helping to bring about the Iraq war.”
Of course, this kind of thing is happening all over the United States and, in a more subtle form, has happened for decades. It constitutes one of the main bases of the overwhelming power of the Lobby. Drake is one of the few angry enough, and brave enough, to write about it.
Another very brave man to fight the slurring is Jim Moran, who received the same treatment for having the balls to state the glaringly obvious fact that the Lobby played a large part in leading to the disastrous American attack on the people of Iraq. Moran nails the issue, which is that the slur is intended to block real discussion of the power and influence of the Lobby:
“The problem with addressing the groups who have argued strongly in favor of a long-term American military presence in the Middle East is that they raise arguments that are not related to the point. I would like to have a reasonable, objective discussion about AIPAC's foreign policy agenda. But it's difficult to do that because any time you question their motives, you are accused of being anti-Semitic."
The Lobby even denied it was in favor of the attack on Iraq, a game they have been playing for some time (a particularly outrageous denial, coming at the same time we are seeing another monstrous Lobby push for an attack on Iran), but a bit of a joke to anyone who has been paying attention.
As usual, Lobby critics who make specific arguments about specific organizations, individuals and actions are met with claims that they are using “several age-old canards that have been used throughout history that have brought violence upon Jews” such as “Jewish control of the media and wealthy Jews using their wealth to control policy.” People aren’t that dumb, and the Lobby is fooling itself if it thinks that Americans are buying this (although the – ahem – Jew-controlled media will be filled with attacks on Lobby critics following exactly the same lines). The Jews do control the media, and are proud of it, and wealthy Jews did use their wealth to control policy, easy due to stupid American political financing laws and the power of a group of extremely rich ‘one-issue guys’. The slur is having to bear all the weight of protecting the awesome power of the Lobby, and it is no longer up to the task. As I’ve been saying all along, if the Lobby apologists keep pushing the misuse of the slur, they are going to permanently ruin the ability of future generations to use the term ‘anti-Semitism’ for cases of real anti-Semitism.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Note this classic Judy Miller-ish article in the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times on the latest Zionist bullshit concerning the Syrian-North Korean nuclear program. After you work your way through the main part of the story, presented as a series of undeniable facts, it turns out that the whole thing is based on;
- ‘Israeli sources’;
- ‘An expert on the Middle East, who has spoken to Israeli participants in the raid’;
- ‘an Israeli air force source’;
- ‘Israeli military intelligence sources’
- some vague ‘mights’ and ‘coulds’ from Andrew Semmel, a non-proliferation guy with the State Department, i.e., a professional neocon warmonger (more here, with the mention of the Khan network, which, typically, is started by a direct question on Khan involvement, to which Semmel then gets to respond by saying he ‘wouldn't exclude’ it!).
Note the same breaches of journalistic ethics at ynetnews.com, where the ‘anonymous Israeli sources’ receive additional credibility by being filtered through an Arab newspaper. Here is another example of improving the credibility of ‘sources’ through filtering. Once you know what to look for, the bullshit detection is easy.
This is a rather obvious lie following the usual pattern of Zionists attempting to start wars based on specious claims about WMDs. It neatly allows the Washington neocons to simultaneously undermine the recent negotiating success of the adults in Washington with the North Koreans, and keep up the pressure for an American war on Syria, a war still possible as none of the factors which conclusively prevent an American attack on Iran apply to Syria (Eliot Abrams’ fangs are tingling).
Friday, September 14, 2007
What passes for the American left has built a small industry criticizing the American oligarchs for their (obviously) evil neo-colonialist attacks on much of the rest of the world over the past fifty or sixty years. Fair enough. If you call these critics ‘anti-American’, they will quickly respond by stating that they are not attacking Americans, or the American people, but this shadowy and vaguely-defined group of top-hatted oligarchs that are really the only ones responsible.
On the other hand, if you attack the small and completely identifiable (and identified) group of Jewish billionaires and the (usually – but note that other Arab haters like Christian Zionists and falangist Christian Lebanese go along for the ride) Jewish minions that work of them, somehow you are accused of being an ‘anti-Semite’. As I’ve said before, the Jewishness is completely relevant, as it goes to motive (otherwise, people will just wonder why this random group of people is acting so oddly). "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel." is the key to understanding what is really going on. Attacking the identified group of Jewish billionaires and the identified group of employees and the identified group of media people – together with an identified list of motives, and an identified list of Jewish neocons working off an identified plan prepared for an identified Israeli right-winger – can’t possibly be the kind of racist attack that identifies all members of the group with the insane and radical ideas of the subset (unless of course the larger group wants to be identified with those ideas, which is clearly not true, and brave pioneers are beginning to point this out).
In fact, identifying the really guilty parties is the opposite of racism/bigotry, as it expressly denies that the larger group is morally responsible for the evil ideas of the identified subset. The ScareJew doesn’t work anymore. Most American Jews want to be Americans first, and see absolutely no need for an ark against the supposedly insane gentiles who Jewish leaders have always suspected of irrational genocidal rage. In fact, the American Jewish community has come to realize that trying to have it both ways won’t work, and that the real ark is the United States that has always been a true haven, and not the Israeli ark that has sprung so many leaks due to the efforts of the millenialist cult of Jewish billionaires. Accurately identifying the problem is pro-Semitism, not anti-Semitism. Anyone who uses the anti-Semite slur to attack truth-tellers is simply playing the game of the Jewish billionaires, and is thus promoting the evil that they do.
The mysterious Israeli attack on Syria, subject of much speculation – including, of course, obvious Zionist bullshit about Syrian nuclear sites (!), and the requisite connection to an attack on Iran (er . . . not to be impolite, but didn’t the ‘experts’ all tell us the American would be attacking Iran now, or, in revised version, six months from now, the infamous Tom Friedman six months that never comes?) – appears to be all about the current Israeli concern about missiles. Reading between the lines from an always unreliable source:
“DEBKAfile’s military experts conclude from the way Damascus described the episode Wednesday, Sept. 6, that the Pantsyr-S1E missiles, purchased from Russia to repel air assailants, failed to down the Israeli jets accused of penetrating northern Syrian airspace from the Mediterranean the night before.
The new Pantsyr missiles therefore leave Syrian and Iranian airspace vulnerable to hostile intrusion.”
“Western intelligence circles stress that information on Russian missile consignments to Syria or Iran is vital to any US calculation of whether to attack Iran over its nuclear program. They assume that the ‘absolute jamming immunity’ which the Russian manufactures promised for the improved Pantsyr missiles was immobilized by superior electronic capabilities exercised by the jets before they were ‘forced to leave.’
Syria took delivery in mid-August of 10 batteries of sophisticated Russian Pantsyr-S1E Air Defense Missile fire control systems with advanced radar, those sources report. They have just been installed in Syria.
Understanding that the Pantsyr-S1E had failed in its mission to bring down trespassing aircraft, Moscow hastened Thursday, Sept 6, to officially deny selling these systems to Syria or Iran and called on Israel to respect international law. This was diplomatic-speak for a warning against attacking the Russian-made missiles batteries stations where Russian instructors are working alongside Syrian teams.
Western intelligence circles maintain that it is vital for the US and Israel to establish the location and gauge the effectiveness of Pantsyr-S1E air defenses in Syrian and Iranian hands, as well as discovering how many each received.”
In other words, the attack was partly a test, and partly a propaganda exercise to reassure Israeli planners that the vaunted Russian technology isn’t all that it is touted to be. This extends beyond the defensive capabilities tested here to the offensive missiles that the Israelis are really worried about (the bigger idea is that ineffective Syrian/Russian defense systems will allow Israeli jets to take out offensive Syrian missile placements just before the Israeli war on Syria intended to force Syria to permanently give up the Golan Heights and stop supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, part of the project of building Greater Israel). This is directly connected to the big publicity around the building of new-and-improved Israeli missile defenses. Of course, missile defense is always bullshit – it never really works, but is just intended to provide civilian reassurance long enough to get the war started, when the usual jingoism can kick in (remember the ‘scud busters’ from the first Gulf War?). To put it bluntly, a 99% success rate, which they would never achieve, means that half of Tel Aviv is blown up. Israel has the additional problem that it doesn’t only have to win the war, but has to win the continued confidence of the knowledge workers, confidence that it is already having trouble maintaining.
The upshot is that the big game unfolding like a car crash in slow motion: the Middle East problem is never going to be resolved by negotiation with the insane Israeli leadership (who still, thanks to the JBC corruption of the American political system, have no incentive to negotiate, even if they wanted to), but by eventual, and inevitable, Israeli war policy decisions which will result in the effective suicide of the Jewish state. It would be prudent for opponents of Zionism to play the end game based on a realization that negotiation is not going to work, while preparing for the stupidity/insanity of the Zionists to end the problems caused by Zionism.
This stuff isn’t complicated or hidden. Why am I the only one writing about it? You could say I’m just full of shit, but why then am I consistently right and the ‘experts’ consistently wrong?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Fidel Castro has weighed in on the deceptions of the American government to the American people concerning the events of September 11 (a pattern of deception now confirmed by no less than Kean and Hamilton, who of course knew they were being deceived, chose to do nothing about it, and are now making a lame attempt to protect their reputations, such as they are; note the interview with Hamilton by a surprisingly well-prepared Evan Solomon of the CBC, with questions Hamilton would never get from the American media). What can we say about Fidel? He’s obviously one of the smartest guys in the world. When he goes out of his way to write something, he’s always right, and often profound (note his recent bit on biofuels). He has no interest in undermining the search for the truth about September 11 (just the opposite, actually). Unlike every other person who has written about September 11, he has his own personal intelligence agency, on all accounts a very good one (it has kept him alive in the face of American attacks for decades!).
With all that going for him, it is interesting what he chose to focus on:
“In an essay read by a Cuban television presenter on Tuesday night, Castro said the Pentagon was hit by a rocket, not a plane, because no traces were found of its passengers.
‘Today one knows there was deliberate misinformation,’ wrote Castro, who has not appeared in public since July of 2006 when life-threatening surgery for a secret illness forced him to hand over power to his brother Raul Castro.
‘Studying the impact of planes, similar to those that hit the Twin Towers, that had accidentally fallen on densely populated cities, one concludes that it was not a plane that crashed into the Pentagon,’ Castro said.
‘Only a projectile could have caused the geometrically round hole that allegedly was made by the plane,’ he said.
‘We were fooled like the rest of the planet's inhabitants,’ he wrote.”
According to the hierarchy of conspiracy theories, the Pentacrash theories are supposed to be the stupidest ones. I need to write more about this hierarchy, as it seems to be deeply flawed. Meanwhile, people are still backing the Official Story on the Pentacrash based on research done by . . . wait for it! . . . the Pentagon. So the people who fired the missile have scientific proof that it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. You have to laugh.
Meanwhile, it has been technically confirmed that the dark-beard bin Laden video is a fake, with a different audio track – the part containing recent events – over the portions when the video froze, and the investigator cannot rule out a vocal imitator doing the frozen-frame audio. They appear to have taken an old homily by bin Laden urging American to convert to Islam (no taxes! – he sounds like a Republican!) made at a time when he indeed had a black beard, and edited it to make it appear to be a new tape. Perhaps bin Laden isn’t around to make a new tape.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
“Of course most Jews today do not decide how to behave based on Talmudic law. The point is that whenever a Jew breaks the Sabbath to save the life of a gentile (or in general treats a gentile as an equal, regardless of whether it imperils Jews to do otherwise) he or she is acting contrary to Orthodox Judaism. For centuries the rabbis and wealthy Jews, who controlled Jewish communities in Europe, used the Talmud to inculcate in ordinary Jews a profoundly disrespectful attitude towards gentiles. This played the same role then (and now, in the case of Palestinians) as racism played in the American South. The white upper class feared poor whites uniting with blacks (as indeed happened in the 1930s on a large scale in the Southern Tenant Farmers Union) and pushed the racist idea that blacks were inferior in order turn the whites against the blacks. Similarly, the Orthodox Jewish religion helps to prevent ordinary Jews from forming relations of solidarity with gentiles against the upper class that oppresses them both.
Many Jews are as anti-racist and fair-minded as could be on every issue except one: Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, carried out to ensure that Israel's population remains at least 80% Jewish. On this one issue they put their otherwise egalitarian values aside and make a huge exception. They justify this on the grounds that Jews need a place in the world that is virtually all Jewish, so they will be safe from the inevitable outbreaks of antisemitism. These Jews believe that, for some mysterious reason, all gentiles are, and always will be, prone to an irrational and inexplicable hatred of Jews. They believe that gentiles are always antisemitic, if not overtly then latently. On the basis of this anti-gentile stereotype, they insist that Jews need a ‘nation of their own’ because they can never be secure living among gentiles, not even in the most democratic, egalitarian and enlightened society.
Theodor Herzl founded the modern Zionist movement in 1896 by writing his famous book, The Jewish State, which argued that Jews needed a state of their own because,
‘The nations in whose midst Jews live are all either covertly or openly Anti-Semitic...the longer Anti-Semitism lies in abeyance the more fiercely will it break out...Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed, it is bound to increase, because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed.’
The essence of this negative anti-gentile stereotype is the supposed permanence of gentile hostility to Jews. Its permanence, in turn, stems in large part from its supposed irrationality. If there were a rational basis for the hostility then one could imagine that under changed circumstances the hostility would disappear. If, say, the problem were that gentiles believed a lie about Jews, then education could end antisemitism. Or if the problem were that gentiles had a legitimate grievance against Jews, then a just resolution of the matter would solve the problem. But the closest that elite Jewish discourse comes to acknowledging a rational basis for hostility to Jews is the idea that Jews are superior to gentiles in some way and gentiles are just jealous; and since this Jewish superiority is timeless, so is the antisemitism.
As long as Jews accept that gentile antisemitism is unchangeable, they will be swayed by their leaders who preach the need for ethnic cleansing to keep Israel as purely Jewish as possible. They will be forced by the logic of this anti-gentile stereotype to side with Israeli leaders who carry out ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, even though these same leaders – an elite class of billionaires and generals – oppress and exploit ordinary Jews and have no concern for their welfare. The anti-gentile stereotype makes the very idea of solidarity between working class Jews and Palestinians unthinkable, and in this way functions to strengthen the Israeli elite's control over ordinary Jews.
Why do so many Jews believe the anti-gentile stereotype? To put the question more sharply, why do many American Jews believe this stereotype when they can see with their own eyes that virtually anytime antisemitic graffiti appears in any American town huge numbers of gentiles denounce it and march with Jews to condemn it?
The answer is that Jewish elites have been teaching Jews this anti-gentile stereotype for centuries. Wealthy Jews and rabbis were powerful people in feudal Europe, and their elevated position in society required preventing solidarity from developing between ordinary Jews and ordinary gentiles. The anti-gentile stereotype made this possible. This is a part of history that is not well known because the version of history that the rulers of society teach the masses deemphasizes or even excludes altogether the stories about how ordinary people challenged elite rule and how elites contrived to stay in power by telling people lies. For this reason most Jews as well as gentiles have only a vague idea about the context in which gentiles attacked Jews in the distant past. Even the more recent Nazi Holocaust is more lied about than accurately presented to the public when it comes to the role of ordinary Germans during the Nazi period.
Most Jews, when they hear about the famous pogroms against Jews, imagine the Jews in those times as having been no different from the contemporary gentiles, with the sole exception of having a different religion and being discriminated against because of that. Jews are not taught important facts of European history that contextualize violence against Jews. For example, they aren't taught that Jews occupied a very different position in feudal society from gentiles . . . “
It is curious how Spritzler uses class analysis to explain events in history which have created the ScareJew, an irrational fear fostered by the Jewish leaders for their peculiar and racist ends, and a fear created by creating a false explanation for the actions of the gentiles, while Chomsky uses a stupider form of class analysis to shield Zionism from criticism. Chomsky thus falls into the long line of Jewish intellectual leaders who have misled the Jewish people. You should read the whole posting – note how Spritzler’s posting doesn’t deny the historical record of Jewish suffering; indeed, his argument depends on the real suffering of the Jewish people, suffering which is then systematically exploited by Jewish leaders with their own agenda.
Why does the most secular, assimilated, educated, and liberal group of people in the United States, the American Jewish community, the last group of people in the world who would want to move to crazy and backward-looking Israel, consistently provide at least tacit support for the worst outrages of the Zionist State? Ronald Bleier provides the best explanation I have seen. The deception is also caused by one of the greatest propaganda machines ever created, hiding and spinning the last sixty years of atrocities. We also have to remember that the moral deterioration of Israel has accelerated since the Oslo Accords, and particularly since the elections of Sharon and Bush, and popular opinion hasn’t yet caught up with the horrors of the reality.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Nadia Abu El-Haj is the latest American professor to be finkelsteined, this time for having the bad manners to point out some of the propaganda uses by Israel of the bullshit known as biblical archaeology. The Lobby and its minions are making a big effort to deny her tenure at Barnard College. The Angry Arab writes:
“On the Pitfalls of Tenure. I was thinking about this. Of this, I am certain. If I were not a tenured professor now, and if I were on the job market (along with the Angry Arab affiliation), there is no way on earth that I would have obtained a job anywhere in the US – not even at a small community college in Alaska – not that there is anything wrong in small community colleges in Alaska. I have certainly noticed that untenured professors are today far more cautious and nervous about political advocacy (in comparison to 20 years ago or more). I often hear people say to me: I will become outspoken on Palestine AFTER I obtain tenure. I always tell them: no, you will not. If you condition yourself to be silent and passive during the tenure process, you will be changed once you obtain tenure. And some after tenure, aim higher: they harbor ambitions to move to a more ‘prestigious’ college or university, and on and on. What people don't understand is that the tenure process is a conditioning process in which one learns how to dissimulate and how to stifle moral outrage. If you succumb to it, you reach tenure damaged. I remember early on in my career when a senior (well-intentioned and well-known) person in Middle East studies, took me aside and urged me to ‘suspend’ or ‘tone down’ my advocacy for Palestine. It is an advice that I never regretted ignoring. Of course, the ironies of freedom of speech (as far as the Middle East and Arab-Israeli conflict are concerned) are such that you will have more freedom of speech if you teach at a less ‘prestigious’ college or university in a small town in the US. Thus, there is more scrutiny (and less freedom of speech) if you teach at Columbia or Harvard or Yale. So people need to decide what they want in graduate school: to decide that which is more important to them.”
The tenure battles – and when you think about it, it is nothing short of bizarre that academia has allowed itself to be so easily hijacked . . . well, unless you take into account the power of the money given by the JBC ‘Donors’ – are part of the larger campaign of Zionist language and thought control. These issues rarely occur at the ‘prestigious’ universities because they have internalized the systems of control, to the extent that, at least in these areas, they have abrogated their responsibility to produce any cutting-edge scholarship. The Lobby has very specific standards. The control is so extreme it is not even sufficient to toe the Zionist propaganda line – you actually have to be certified Kosher in order to be allowed to comment on any area which might even slightly impinge on the Project of building Greater Israel. The idea for this total control seems to derive from similar success in policing Holocaust studies. The thought control is so extreme, and the sanctions for disobeying so huge, that almost everybody simply avoids the areas considered to be under Zionist thought policing.
The control isn’t just total intellectual conformity: it extends to total control over language. It helps a lot that the American media is under a complete Jew-lockdown. We call peasants defending themselves from brutal attacks from modern armies ‘terrorists’ or even ‘al Qaeda’ (when many of them would never have heard of al Qaeda); we talk, senselessly, as if we don’t speak the language properly, of a ‘war’ on terror; we hear about ‘existential threats’ to the only country with nuclear arms in the region from children throwing stones; we hear the systematically racist state of Israel praised as a ‘democracy’; and if anybody has the temerity to point any of this out, we hop in the bulldozer and throw around the‘anti-Semite’ slur. The current spate of tenure wars is only the most obvious example of the Zionist requirement for total conformity, in both thought and language. Zionism has become a kind of intangible totalitarianism hanging over the United States and the entire Western world.
Friday, September 07, 2007
“Lebanon's Shias and Sunnis and Christians all have friends and family in Iraq. Many have visited their loved ones who have appeared amid the Iraqi refugee masses that have poured into neighbouring Damascus. For their care, of course, the Syrians have received not a scintilla of gratitude from the Americans who were responsible for creating the hell-disaster of Iraq in the first place. It's worth comparing the vital statistics (though not on CNN or Fox News): Syria has accepted almost one and a half million Iraqi refugees – caring for them, providing them with welfare and free hospital services – while Washington, when it isn't cursing Iraq's prime minister, has accepted a measly 800 Iraqis.”
Riverbend finally escaped to Syria:
“Syria is the only country, other than Jordan, that was allowing people in without a visa. The Jordanians are being horrible with refugees. Families risk being turned back at the Jordanian border, or denied entry at Amman Airport. It’s too high a risk for most families.”
“The Syrian border was almost equally packed, but the environment was more relaxed. People were getting out of their cars and stretching. Some of them recognized each other and waved or shared woeful stories or comments through the windows of the cars. Most importantly, we were all equal. Sunnis and Shia, Arabs and Kurds… we were all equal in front of the Syrian border personnel.
We were all refugees – rich or poor. And refugees all look the same – there’s a unique expression you’ll find on their faces- relief, mixed with sorrow, tinged with apprehension. The faces almost all look the same.
The first minutes after passing the border were overwhelming. Overwhelming relief and overwhelming sadness… How is it that only a stretch of several kilometers and maybe twenty minutes, so firmly segregates life from death?
How is it that a border no one can see or touch stands between car bombs, militias, death squads and… peace, safety? It’s difficult to believe – even now. I sit here and write this and wonder why I can’t hear the explosions.
I wonder at how the windows don’t rattle as the planes pass overhead. I’m trying to rid myself of the expectation that armed people in black will break through the door and into our lives. I’m trying to let my eyes grow accustomed to streets free of road blocks, hummers and pictures of Muqtada and the rest…
How is it that all of this lies a short car ride away?”
Countries like Jordan, Lebanon and, in this case, Syria, doing more than could be expected – supererogatory acts – are left with the expensive and politically destabilizing job of cleaning up the human misery caused by the Americans and Israelis. The thanks that Syria gets is being threatened with war and buzzed by Israeli warplanes (and note this little bit of typical amusement).
Remember that article by Jeffrey Sharlet, “Jesus plus nothing: Undercover among America's secret theocrats”, about what was essentially a Washington evangelical cult called, amongst other things, The Fellowship, which had attracted a considerable number of Republican lawmakers. Scary, scary stuff, which backed up the worst fears about the Republican fruitcake agenda. Now, via the Progressive Review, Sharlet and Kathryn Joyce continue the story (see also page 1 of this for more details; note also the swift beginnings of predictable Democrat rationalization), with the terrifying fact that Hillary Clinton is a member of the cult. Worse, this isn’t some election tactic – she joined in 1993, and appears to be a True Believer. At least, her fellow fruitcakes, including her close pal-in-Christ Sam Brownback (!), accept her fruitcakery as genuine, despite the fact you would think they would be very suspicious. Even worse, she’s made it to the inner circle of the cult leader, Doug Coe (she is to The Fellowship what Tom Cruise is to Scientology).
The next American Presidential election will be between a deeply conservative religious fruitcake who, for purely political reasons, has passed herself off as a liberal for most of her life, and a liberal New Yorker, who, for purely political reasons, is trying to pass himself off as a conservative. What fun for conspiracy theorists!
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Every time I think that common sense might have taken over American political discourse, we suffer another bout of ‘Iran talk’. It is still complete nonsense, of course, and is intended to accomplish a number of Zionist objectives other than an actual attack, most notably destabilizing the Middle East and playing the Sunnis off against the Shi’ites (the habitual Israeli ‘divide and conquer’). Continuing to allow yourself be sucked in puts you in the driver’s seat of the bulldozer. The best case to be scared is made by Jean Bricmont, but it is fatally flawed (unlike some phony American ‘progressives’ I could name, at least Bricmont cares):
- Bricmont mows down many of the usual obvious arguments against an attack, but fails to note the cumulative effect.
- Bricmont pays insufficient attention to the Chinese problem. Stopping an attack isn’t an option for the Chinese. It would put most of their factories out of business, which would cause the legitimacy crisis most feared by the Chinese leaders. The deal in China is that everybody gives up freedom in return for increased economic prosperity. The assumption is that the leadership will keep the factories running, which entails a constant source of energy. An attack on Iran would stop tens of thousands of Chinese factories, and destabilize the whole country. No matter how much it cost them in the short term, the Chinese would have to stop this. Standing up for Iran isn’t a ‘non-economic’ issue for the Chinese, who never really act for any reason other than economic anyway.
- The fact that an attack would cost the American Establishment trillions of dollars is also worth noting!
- Bricmont pays too much attention to the Europeans, who have completely marginalized themselves by falling in completely, against morality and their own self interest, with every evil American plan for the Middle East. The Americans don’t care what the Europeans think, nor should they. The complete absence of European objections to an attack is irrelevant.
- Bricmont seems to think that alerting people of the threat will allow American ‘progressives’ to do something about it. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!
- Bricmont rightly points out the the Democrats are worse than useless (but politely doesn’t point out that the reason for it is JBC control).
- The key point that Bricmont misses is that the adults, the old American Establishment, has re-taken control of the American government. It takes a conspiracy theorist to see the obvious. The most recent example is the settlement of the North Korean problem, a big loss for the neocons, who see tension as the key to building up American militarism, all, of course, to benefit Israeli colonialism. The adults are furious about the Iraq attack, and simply won’t allow a much, much bigger mistake. If the neocons even try it, it will be heart attack time for Dick, and Dick knows it.
The actual rumor has red flags all over it. Read it and laugh (from Todd Gitlin: emphasis in red and green):
“I don't see any point to contributing to a cycle of useless panic, but if Victor Davis Hanson is worried about war with Teheran, I'm worried and then some. ‘Don't Bomb, Don't Bomb Iran,’ wrote one of conservativedom's most interesting war analysts on Friday at National Review Online.
It was bad enough that the keen Afghanistan analyst Barnett Rubin took seriously a Washington rumor that the rollout was coming soon after Labor Day – to pick a day at random, say, Sept. 9, or 10, or, what the hell, 11. His source heard the following from ‘someone in one of the leading neo-conservative institutions’:
They [the source's institution] have ‘instructions’ (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this – they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is ‘plenty.’”
Victor Davis Hanson is one of them! He’s never worried about a war in his life! Don’t believe his phony concern. The rest is based on a third-hand account from ‘one of the leading neo-conservative institutions’. The neocons, out of real power, are trying to help Israel any way they can by stirring up trouble in the United States in order to stir up trouble in the Middle East. Even Rubin, at the end of his warning, admits he is being irresponsible (note the last paragraph here, where we see the usual intelligence technique of backing up one lie with a ‘corroborating’ lie from the same source, replete with the ‘lunatic’ comment to add credibility to the corroboration). This nature of this propaganda campaign is even more obvious, coming just before the usual AIPAC destabilization campaign. Note this attack on the curiously named Kos diarist ‘Maccabee’, and the inconsistencies noted here. Americans are being snowed, again.
There won’t be an American attack on Iran. Things might get interesting when Rudy/Hillary is elected, when something drastic might have to happen to stop the JBC. At the moment, I’d be less surprised if the United States were attacked by Martians. Americans are still suffering from the insanity of Empire. It is comforting, even to ‘progressives’, to think that the United States can still get it up enough to make another illegal attack on a non-threatening sovereign country. There isn’t enough Viagra in the world for that to happen. Take what comfort you can in the fact that the United States is no longer being run by its elected leaders.