Thursday, November 29, 2007
People will say that I’m exaggerating, but the American Empire, which started with the fall of the Berlin Wall, officially died on November 27, 2007. The Old American Establishment used all of its influence to convince Middle Eastern leaders that it could still run an empire, and demonstrate it by forcing a tiny country to do make a necessary agreement. Despite putting all its credibility on the line, and using all its resources, the United States was unable to force Israel to do anything other than follow its desired course of continuing to drag out negotiations until every last Palestinian is dead or gone. The Old American Establishment decided that it was necessary to fix the Palestinian problem, and couldn’t even come close. The abject failure of Annapolis represents the official death of the American Empire in the same way that the Suez Crisis represented the official death of the British Empire.
Bush’s behavior is telling. He hardly showed up at Annapolis, proceeded to mangle all the names, and gave a speech that was completely inappropriate, one that would have been acutely insulting to all the Arab leaders and diplomats who attended solely on the promise that something positive would come out of the conference (it has been noted that Olmert’s speech was more gracious to the Palestinians than was Bush’s speech). Obviously, the Christian Zionists got to him. The New American Establishment, the Jewish one, ran the show, even undermining Rice’s work through its agent Stephen Hadley. The results were so slanted to Israeli positions that even the Los Angeles Times gets it:
“Palestinian and Israeli representatives each said they were satisfied with the outcome of the conference, but there were clear indications that the Israelis came away with a greater share of what they were seeking. Both the Bush administration's approach to talks and a joint declaration negotiated by the Israelis and Palestinians leaned toward Israeli positions.”
“Despite statements of mutual support, the vague wording of the joint declaration signaled that the Israelis had emerged from the conference with more of what they wanted than the Palestinians. It also underscored the wide chasm separating the two sides as they begin trying to reach a deal.
The Olmert government, worried about critics on its right, appeared successful in its effort to begin negotiations without yielding on anything ahead of time. Abbas' team, by contrast, had sought some sort of Israeli concessions up front to show his public that his alliance with the West is producing benefits in the lives of ordinary Palestinians.”
International Jewry really was worried about this conference, as witness the massive amount of whining and lobbying. It needn’t have worried. Running an Empire is hard work, and the Old American Establishment is obviously neither physically nor mentally up to the task.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Annapolis was yet another huge victory for International Jewry, as witness this bizarre paragraph in Bush’s speech, setting out the obligations on Israel (my emphasis in red):
“The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin – to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion, and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel's security.”
We’re right back to the original Zionist goal of the bantustanized Palestinian ‘state’, a political entity in name only that can be whittled down as the Israelis please. The joint statement is based on the ‘road map’, which has been a process of establishing impossible preconditions to any agreement, preconditions which all lie on the Palestinians. The only substantive change is that the Americans have unilaterally assumed control of judging whether the preconditions have been met, a judgment which originally belonged to the full quartet. The standard Zionist plan of continuing to negotiate to buy more time to weaken the Palestinians is still in full force and effect. They can drag it out until Bush is a completely lame duck, claim some attack is an ‘existential threat’ making a final agreement impossible, and wait for the safer days of President Rudary.
Besides the Palestinians and the Arab States (who have suffered grievous loss of reputation by being tricked, again, by the Zionists into selling out the Palestinians through preoccupation with worrying about the phony issue of Iran), the big loser is the United States itself, an Empire with no power. Watch for the countries of the world to continue to treat American demands with disdain.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
Patrick Foy analyzes the real reason for the attack on Iraq, which has to be understood in the context of the past – the Gulf War and the sanctions – and the future – the fact that the United States is not in fact going to get any of the oil for which it has made so many sacrifices. Of course, the lite Zionists are desperate to fool Americans into thinking it was about the oil, as the truth is too dangerous to Israel.
David R. Henderson describes the economic nonsense behind most of the geopolitical writing about oil (note that the Arab ‘oil weapon’ remains the biggest ScareJew due to the Jewish belief that Arab hatred of Israel is non-rational, and that gentile Americans can be easily swayed by irrational fears of shortages):
“ . . . the case for making war for oil is profoundly weak. The pragmatic case against war for oil, on the other hand, rests on a few simple facts. First, no oil-producing country, no matter what it does to its oil supply, can cause us to line up for gasoline. Second, an oil-producing country cannot impose a selective embargo on a target country, because oil is sold in a world market. Third, the only way one country’s government can hurt another country using the ‘oil weapon’ is by cutting output, which hurts all oil consumers, not just the target country; helps all oil producers, friend and foe alike; and harms the country that cuts its output.”
Henderson considers the history of American calls for war for oil (Israeli citizen Luttwak, needless to say, is an ultra-ultra-Zionist; given the current ‘peak oil’ nonsense, Luttwak’s claim in 1975 that ‘there is absolutely no reason to expect major new discoveries’ is particularly funny):
“Consider how long the foreign-policy establishment has taken as accepted the idea that the U.S. government needs to use military force to keep the world’s oil supply flowing. In March 1975, Harper’s published an article, “Seizing Arab Oil,” authored by ‘Miles Ignotus.’ The author’s name, Harper’s explained, ‘is the pseudonym of a Washington-based professor and defense consultant with intimate links to high-level U.S. policy makers.’ Many insiders speculated that the piece was written by Edward Luttwak, still a prominent military analyst. In it, the author expressed frustration at the high price of oil and argued that no nonviolent means of breaking the cartel’s back would work. Even massive conservation, he argued, was unlikely to solve the problem. Moreover, he claimed, ‘there is absolutely no reason to expect major new discoveries.; So what options were left? ‘Ignotus’ wrote, ‘There remains only force. The only feasible countervailing power to OPEC’s control of oil is power itself – military power.’ He argued at the time that military force should be exerted on Saudi Arabia.”
The realities of the international oil market:
“In 2006, the five most important exporters of oil to the United States, in order of importance, were Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iraq. Total imports from these countries were 59 percent of U.S. imports. Of these five, the one most likely to want to hurt the United States is Venezuela or, more accurately, Venezuela’s government under Hugo Chavez. But interestingly, Chavez has done the exact opposite, actually subsidizing oil imports to the northeastern United States. But imagine the worst: imagine that Chavez wanted to target the United States using the ‘oil weapon.’ Say he cuts sales by half to 753,000 barrels a day. The U.S. will respond by scrambling to find other sources of oil. Where will it find them? Let’s go back to Chavez. He needs to find people in other countries to sell this 753,000 barrels a day to. Let’s say he ships the oil to buyers in China. Then those buyers in China will find that they want to buy 753,000 fewer barrels from their suppliers, say Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Presto! The American buyers’ problems are solved because they can get their 753,000 barrels elsewhere. In short, when the government of one country tries to selectively target people in another country, but still wishes to maintain output, it can’t succeed. The selective ‘oil weapon’ is a dud. It’s like a game of musical chairs with the same number of chairs as players. The game would be awfully boring, which is why it is not played that way. But in the case of international trade, boring is good.”
“. . . one main reason for the particular pattern of oil exports and imports is transportation cost: if you’re in New Orleans, why buy from Iran when the cost of shipping from Venezuela is much lower? It follows, therefore, that when a country’s government disrupts this pattern by cutting off oil supplies to a nearby country, transportation costs rise. The higher transportation cost acts as an excise tax, the burden of which is typically shared by the buyers and sellers. The disrupting government would be hurt by having to accept a somewhat lower price from a more distant buyer. The people in the disrupted country would be hurt by having to pay a somewhat higher transportation cost to get their oil. But the maximum hurt in either case would be no more than the difference in transport costs, and this would be a small amount, probably under $1 per barrel. For the hypothetical 753,000-barrel production cut, therefore, the maximum hurt to U.S. consumers would be $753,000 a day or $275 million a year – less than $1 per year per U.S. resident.”
“Of course, the government of an oil-producing country can do substantial harm to the people of another country by cutting the amount of oil it produces and sells. (I use the word ‘government’ here on purpose because outside Canada, the United States, and Britain, almost all the world’s oil is produced by governments.) But any government that wants to hurt a particular country by reducing its oil supply faces three huge problems.
First, an oil producer cannot single out particular countries or consumers to hurt. If one oil producer cuts supply, then, all other things being equal, the world oil supply drops and prices rise. All oil consumers are hurt, and their hurt is proportional to the amount of oil they use. Thus the ‘oil weapon’ is an incredibly blunt instrument that, when used, will hurt friend and foe alike.
Second, the oil-producing country, by cutting output, will cause the world price of oil to rise, which will help other oil-producing countries that don’t reduce their supply. So for example, if Iran’s government chooses to reduce its supply of oil to hurt the United States, it also helps its avowed enemy, Saudi Arabia.
Third and finally, to continue with the weapon analogy, the oil weapon blows up in its user’s face. Specifically, any country that produces less than about 10 percent of the world supply will find that the price increase it gets will not compensate for the reduction in revenues due to lower production.”
Note that this sensible analysis only applies to individual oil producers who control a relatively small part of the oil market. If Iran, under Israeli nuclear attack and with nothing to lose, decided to destroy all Gulf oil production, it would wreck the international economy. Also note that both these refreshingly intelligent pieces are from conservative publications, as conservatives gradually wake up to the dangers of Zionist warmongering.
Whatreallyhappened links to this utterly amazing transcript of an Oct. 22, 1992 conversation with President David Steiner (DS) of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee recorded without his knowledge by New York businessman Haim (Harry) Katz (HK). Steiner had to resign when it was released. Remember that this was ten years before the Jews officially took control of Washington (my emphasis in red and green):
“DS: Well, let me tell you what my personal position is. Okay?
DS: From a Jewish point of view, I believe in political loyalty.
DS: And if someone has been good for Israel, no matter who, if my brother would run against them, I would support them because they'd been good to Israel because that's an important message to people.
“DS: We commissioned a poll and got some people, and I've got to raise $27,000 to pay for the poll . . . so I have, so what I'm trying to do is make a priority list, because I don't know how far you want to go. . . how old are your kids by the way? . . . You had three children that could write checks, do they have their own checking accounts?
DS: Oh, so that's not going to be. . .
HK: How old do they have to be?
DS: They can't be one year old.
HK: I mean, could they be 18, 17?
DS: Sure, no problem, so they could make, nobody's going to bother you, but if you had infants, a four-year-old, let's say, it's not a contest.”
“DS: Yeah! Well, we might lose him. There's been such a sea change, such trouble this year, I can't believe all our friends that are in trouble. Because there's an anti-incumbency mood, and foreign aid has not been popular. You know what I got for, I met with [U.S. Secretary of State] Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear. . .
DS: Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about.
HK: Such as?
DS: $700 million in military draw-down, from equipment that the United States Army's going to give to Israel; $200 million the U.S. government is going to preposition materials in Israel, which Israel can draw upon; put them in the global warning protection system; so when if there's a missile fired, they'll get the same advanced notification that the U.S., is notified, joint military exercises – I've got a whole shopping list of things.
HK: So this is from Baker?
DS: From Baker and from the Pentagon.
HK: So, not so, not.. .
DS: Why did he do it, you know, why did he do it? Last year I was a bum. This year I said look Jim, we're going to fight on the F-l5s. Israel doesn't want to fight, I said, but some people on it are going to come up on the floor of the Senate and the House and they're going to fight. If you'll do this, I think I can hold them back. But you've got to do it right away. They didn't want to fight. I said, ‘You don't want a fight before the election. It's going to hurt Bush. We don't want a fight before the election. We don't want to fight at all. Why can't we work something out?’ So we cut a deal. You can't repeat this.
HK: You're right. But you met with Baker. . .
HK: Personally. Because you know, he's the one who cursed, who cursed the Jews.
DS: Of course, do you think I'm ever going to forgive him for that?
HK: Unbelievable. I said...
DS: Do you think I could ever forgive Bush for what he did September 12th a year ago? What he said about the Jews for lobbying in Washington?
HK: Do you think that Baker has a legitimate concern for the Jews? From what I hear, do you think he's anti-Semitic?
DS: I wouldn't go so far as to say that. He's a pragmatic businessman, he's a very tough lawyer. He does whatever it takes.”
“DS: We'll have to get you involved. I like you, we have a lot to talk about, about real estate, you know, I have so many great activities going on at AIPAC, you ought to think about coming to some of these things. I'll have a dinner this fall. I'll have 18-20 senators there. I run programs in Washington. We just had a, I had at Ted Kennedy's house last month kosher dinner. I brought foremost caterers down. I had 60 people on the couch for dinner. Last year, I did it in Al Gore's house.”
and (obligatory Polish connection!):
“HK: Let me ask you, [talks about getting cheated in business by Gentiles]. Let me ask you, Clinton, if he becomes, I mean what will he do for Israel, better than Bush, if he becomes, I know Bush gave you a hard time, this and that. ..
DS: I'II tell you, I have friends on the Clinton campaign, close associates. Gore is very committed to us.
HK: Right. Clinton if he, have you spoken to him?
DS: I've known Bill for seven, eight years from the National Governors Association. I know him on a personal basis. I have friends. One of my friends is Hillary Clinton's scheduler, one of my officer's daughters works there. We gave two employees from AIPAC leave of absences to work on the campaign. I mean, we have a dozen people in that campaign, in the headquarters.
HK: You mean in Little Rock?
DS: In Little Rock, and they're all going to get big jobs. We have friends. I also work with a think tank, the Washington Institute. I have Michael Mandelbaum and Martin Indyk being foreign policy advisers. Steve Speigel – we've got friends – this is my business.
HK: I understand, David.
DS: It's very complicated and the more you get into it, you'll love it. You sound like a smart guy.
HK: I'm a smart guy, but I have a, maybe because I'm more orthodox than you are, I've had bad experiences with Gentiles. Let me ask you, you know what ‘tachlis’ means?
DS: Yeah, sure.
HK: From a practical point of view, if Clinton wins the presidency, and I'm sure he will, I hope so at least, what will be the benefits to Israel better than Bush? From a very practical point . . . I mean, you just told me that Bush gave you everything you wanted. . .
DS: Only, not everything, at the end, when we didn't want the F-15s, that's a terrible thing.
HK: Selling the F-15s? If Clinton is elected. . .
DS: Let me tell you the problem with the $10 billion in loan guarantees, right? We only have the first year. We have authorization from Congress, but it's at the discretion of the president every year thereafter, so if Bush is there, he could say, you know, use it as a club, you know. 'If you don't give up Syria, I won't give you the money. If you don't give up the Golan Heights.' It's at the discretion of the president. And that's why we need a friendly president and we have Bill Clinton's ear. I talked to Bill Clinton.
HK: And Bill Clinton has made a commitment that if he's elected . . . ?
DS: He's going to be very good for us.
HK: And he'll go ahead with the loan guarantees?
DS: We didn't talk about that specifically, listen, I didn't ask him that, but I have full confidence that we're going to have a much better situation. He's got Jewish friends. A girl who worked for me at AIPAC stood up for them at their wedding. Hillary lived with her. I mean we have those relationships. We have never had that with Bush. Susan Thomases, who's in there, worked with me on the Bradley campaign. We worked together for 13 years. She's In there with the family. They stay with her when they come to New York. One of my officers, Monte Friedkin, is one of the biggest fund-raisers for them. I mean, I have people like that all over the country.
HK: So, I mean from a practical point of view. . .
DS: He's going to be with us.
HK: I don't say, this business, you say, Bush only went ahead with the loan guarantees for one year.
DS: We only have. It's mandatory they give us the $2 billion for one year. After that it's subject to the discretion of the president.
HK: You mean the other $8 billion?
DS: That's correct. On an annualized basis.
HK: Also, I heard that. . .
DS: They don't have to give it to us.
HK: But if Clinton is elected. . .
DS:... feel reasonably certain we're gonna get It.
HK: He's made that commitment?
DS: Well, he said he's going to help us. He's got something in his heart for the Jews, he has Jewish friends. Bush has no Jewish friends.
DS: Reagan had something . . . meshuga, but at least he had a commitment. He knew Jews from the film industry, he was one of the best guys for us. He had an emotional thing for the Jews. Bush doesn't have it. That's what it is really, if you have a feeling for our people, for what we believe in. Bush is, there's a man with no principles. Absolutely no principles.
HK: I heard something about, but I never really understood it, with the scoring. One of my friends told me there's a difference in the scoring, but I don't understand. . .
DS: Scoring is like points that you pay.
HK: So let's say, if Bush is elected on the loans . . .
DS: No, we've got the scoring arranged, it's four and a half percent. It's all done.
HK: That's all done, even with Bush?
DS: Even with Bush. I've got that worked out.
HK: So that's all done.
DS: It's in the bill. It's all passed. He signed the bill. It's a matter of law.
HK: So it's already four and a half percent?
DS: We could've had it less, but then we couldn't. . .
HK: And Clinton, if he was president, he would give...?
DS: He could not change it, you cannot change it.
HK: No, but I'm saying, if he was president now, before the bill was signed, he would've given you the four and a half percent. . .
DS: I would've gotten less.
HK: I'm sorry?
DS: I would've gotten it cheaper.
HK: How much? Even two percent?
DS: Yeah, we thought we were going to get two percent. But Rabin gave it away.
HK: You mean Rabin didn't bargain as good as he could have?
DS: That's right.
HK: Unbelievable. So, if Clinton is elected, that will be the best. ..
DS: I think that will be the best we could do.
HK: You know, I just want to tell you one last thing. Do you have parents that come from Europe?
DS: Yeah, of course, from Glolitzano, near Krakow. ,
HK: You're kidding, your parents are from Krakow?
DS: Near Krakow.
HK: Guess what?
DS: You too?
HK: My parents are from Krakow.
DS: Well, we're not from Krakow, but from near Krakow. My mother's from Rudnick, my father from Gruns, near Tano. Do you know where Tano is?
HK: Yes. Let me tell you. . .
DS .. don't have many left. Everybody got
HK: Let me tell you. The same with me. Let me tell you, my parents were the only ones who came out. Let me tell you, my. . .
DS: You're a Holocaust survivor?
HK: Yeah, no, not me, my parents.
DS: That's some experience, I've got two cousins, I've got one in Israel and one in France that came out of Mauthausen, I'll tell you, and everybody else dead on my father's side, in Russia. I just brought six of them from Koshkent to Israel last year.
HK: Right. Let me tell you that, you know what my father always says? My father was a rich man in Poland, and he says, he says, ‘Economic power is very good. You have to have money, but if you just have economic power and you don't have political power. . .’
DS: ‘You've got nothing.’
HK: You've got nothing.
DS: If we had AIPAC in the '30s and '40s, we would have saved millions of Jews. We would have the political power. But Jews were afraid to open their mouths. They didn't know how.
HK: AIPAC started after WWII?
DS: Oh, sure.
HK And if you would have had AIPAC in the
DS: I feel we would've saved a lot of Jews. HK: And Franklin Roosevelt, he could've done a lot better?
DS: Sure, he could. The Jews never opened their mouths. They were afraid. We're not afraid. They can curse me out, I don't care if they hate me, just as long as I get what we need for our people.
HK: So if you had a little lamp, a wishing lamp and you could wish for either Bush, Clinton or Perot. . .
HK: Clinton all the way? And in terms of Israel having political power, between the three candidates, the one who will give us the most political power?
DS: Clinton is the best guy for us.
HK: He's the best one.”
“HK: If Clinton is elected, who do you think will be secretary of state?
DS: We don't know yet, we're negotiating.
HK: Who are you hoping for?
DS: I've got a list. But I really can't go through it. I'm not allowed to talk about it.”
All you need to know about American politics is that AIPAC is about a million times more powerful now.
Out of nowhere, Canada suddenly has a spate of murders by police using Tasers, the most famous being the youtubed death of Robert Dziekanski. I’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop, and here it is (emphasis in red):
“Three months before Robert Dziekanski was tasered, the RCMP adopted a change in force protocol that allows officers to fire multiple shocks to control people under certain circumstances.
Police say medical evidence shows that, without tasers, prolonged and dangerous struggles occur with people suffering from what they term ‘excited delirium.’ It prompted the force to release new rules in August allowing officers to use tasers multiple times to more quickly gain control.
The RCMP define excited delirium as a potentially fatal ‘state of extreme mental and physiological excitement that is characterized by extreme agitation, hyperthermia, hostility, exceptional strength and endurance without apparent fatigue.’
Until August, officers trained to use stun guns were cautioned to avoid using them more than once because of concerns about health effects.”
“The most current policy was relaxed after the force said it came across new medical information about how to best handle people with symptoms of excited delirium.
Cpl. Gilles said officers are taught to get people suffering from excited delirium under control as quickly as possible in order to get them into a state where they can safely get medical help.
‘They can't be treated until they're controlled,’ he said. ‘Taser is the tool that gives us the best option.’
But the term ‘excited delirium’ is not formally recognized by the World Health Organization nor the American Medical Association as an actual psychological or medical condition.
However, the condition is being used increasingly by coroners tasked with attributing causes of death among victims in police custody. David Evans, Ontario's regional supervising coroner for investigations, described it as a ‘forensic term’ not a medical one.”
While we can and should condemn the individual police thugs who use violence to kill people, this is primarily a head office issue. The RCMP head office made up a medical condition, and then changed their policies and training to allow multiple jolts. I wonder if it was the Taser manufacturer who supplied the ‘new medical information’.
Removing Tasers from the arsenal without improving police training, which appears to be the easiest political solution, will just lead to police killing people in other ways, including using guns. The Taser issue is a medical one. People in the form of emotional distress which tends to attract police attention are also often going to be in acute physical distress, and applying an electrical jolt to the heart can’t be the preferred medical solution. The only testing such devices receive is done by the manufacturers, or by researchers paid by them. Proper research may very well show that the people who attract the Taser attention are the very people for whom Tasering is medically dangerous. There should be a moratorium on Taser use until the proper independent studies are completed. The knee-jerk reaction of banning Tasers outright seems dumb, as there appears to be a real need for forms of restraint less final than the use of guns, and forcing police to rely solely on muscle to restrain violence is unfair to the police, whose physical safety should also be protected to the extent possible.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
The ‘American peso’ meme hasn’t yet taken off. I remember buying something at a corner store in Buffalo and accidentally handing over a Canadian penny. The clerk threw it back at me as if it were depleted uranium, or something. The owner of the local newsstand jokingly (I think) said he was no longer accepting American change.
Meanwhile, Ecuador makes fun of the impotence of the Empire, and the Empire fights back the only way it can, with rough airport screening.
Mossad agents are gathering in the United States for the Annapolis meeting.
It is important to remember that Zionism is, at its heart, a conspiracy, one managed by a very small number of people. There were two schools of thought in the Jewish community: sane and crazy. Guess who won! William A. Cook (or here; my emphasis in red):
“In a heretofore unreleased file housed in the Rhodes archives of the Bodleian Library at Oxford (MSS.Medit. S. 20 (1), the Palestine Government (the British Mandate government) submitted a most secret report to the British Secretary of State through its High Commissioner, Harold MacMichael. The document labeled ‘Jewish Approaches to the Question of Jewish-Arab Co-Operation during the period 1919-1941’ covers the early attempts by Jewish leaders, before the takeover of the Jewish population by the Zionists from Europe, to find accommodation through agreements and assimilation with the much larger Arab population. The report outlines two ‘schools of thought’ among the Jews: a majority opinion that regarded Jewish Agency co-operation as an ‘instrument, which can be picked up and set aside as needed, for establishing a Jewish state in Palestine,’ and a minority opinion that regarded co-operation with Arabs as essential to the continued existence of the Jews in Palestine.”
and (note that the ‘the closed oligarchy of the Jewish official organizations’ is still in full force and effect in both Israel and the United States):
“Dr. Chaim Kalvarisky, working on behalf of the Brith Shalom, the Kidma Mizrahi, and the Jewish Arab Co-operation groups, and at the invitation of a Feisal advisor, outlined a plan based on the historical affinity of the two peoples that could serve as a foundation for collaboration, that both groups would have opportunities to administer the country, and practical measures for education based on the ideal of close co-operation and freedom of immigration into Palestine by Jews could work. The Zionists wanted a National Home supported, not by the Arab Federation, but by Europe and the United States. This plan was submitted to the Zionist Council in 1936 and was rejected out of hand. That rejection doomed the dreams of Dr. Kalvarisky for a state where Jewish and Arab cultures could develop ‘side by side in perfect and undisturbed harmony.’
The British report notes the Royal Commission had determined by 1937 that Jewish Arab co-operation was not possible, indeed, that the two sides were irreconcilable. ‘The Jewish desire for a National Home in fact excluded Arabs and this was the main objection of Arabs to further co-operation.’ It's important to realize that the conclusion arrived at in this report comes after the Zionist organization had taken absolute control of the Jews in Palestine. ‘The Zionist organization, the whole social structure which it has created in Palestine, has the trappings but none of the essentials of democracy. The community is under the closed oligarchy of the Jewish official organizations which control Zionist policy and circumscribe the lives of the Jewish community in all directions The reality of power is in the Agency, with the Hagana, the illegal military organization, always in the background.’ (MacMichael, 2).”
and (nothing has changed!):
“The report itself, accompanied as it is with documentary evidence from the Jewish organizations detailing their activities, demonstrates that the Zionists had created ‘(1) a secret army and espionage system, (2) utilized smuggling, theft and the manufacture of arms (3) illegal immigration, (4) violence and civil disobedience, (5) seditious and hostile propaganda, and (6) encroachment upon the civil rights of Jewish citizens to force their will upon the Jewish people and undermine the legitimate government in Palestine.’ This last item is perhaps the most telling and the least known or understood. The Zionists controlled the Jewish communities by intimidation, coercion, physical harm and even death. (Evidence, based on seized documents from the Jewish organizations, presented in the appendices of the report (see appendices XXXVII, XLb and B among others) reveal these methods of handling uncooperative Jews.”
and, an honest appraisal of the essential problem (the interview with Rabbi Beck is here; the quote in Cook is a bit mangled):
“We must not overlook the initial impetus of the Jews, the real Jews, to further their condition by full co-operation with the Arabs that inhabited Palestine when the British were in charge of the Mandate. ‘Since authentic Jewish people are opposed to the notion of a State altogether, there would be no problem whatsoever in Jews living in the area of Israel and Palestine. For hundreds of years there were Jewish communities of Prayer and study in the area that the State of Israel rules today. These communities lived in complete peace with the surrounding Arabs. The hatred between Jews and Arabs in Palestine was caused by Zionism.’ ‘The true definition of a Jew is faith and Torah. Zionism says it is nationalism.’ (Pat Harrington interview with Rabi Beck of Neturei Karta, 1991).”
and, describing the conspiracy, known from the earliest days (note the citation of a Revisionist publication!; the words quoted by Palestinian-Canadian writer Sami Hadawi are also available at a ‘True Torah’ site, along with a lot of other good quotes; the quote is also here, with another enormous collection):
“To what extent will Zionists go to attain their predetermined ends? Theodore Herzl in 1895, founder of the Zionist movement, made clear the original intent: ‘We should try to spirit the penniless Arab population across the borders by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.; Thus begins the deception that has characterized the ethnic cleansing and genocidal actions of the Zionists ever since. ‘In 1921, Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission in Jerusalem, told the British court of enquiry appointed to investigate the causes of the first riots to break out between Arabs and Jews that 'There can be only one national home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equity in the partnership between the Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the (Jewish) race are sufficiently increased.'’ (Sami Hadawi, Journal of Historical Review). ‘One National Home without equity,’ so has it been ever since.”
A conspiracy led by a ‘closed oligarchy’ picked the route of establishing a Jewish Empire, as opposed to getting along with the indigenous population, and has used every conspiracy trick in the book to further their plans. The conspiracies that now involve the United States are only part of as long series.
The latest in the dance of the seven veils from Sibel Edmonds:
“’When you have a publication like Vanity Fair, running a piece and naming someone like Dennis Hastert [as being allegedly involved in bribery by shadowy Turkish interests involved in narcotics trafficking] and nothing happens with it, you think they are going to pay attention to YouTube?’ Edmonds explained when we asked why she didn't release the information herself as a video on the Internet.
Readers around the web have asked the same question in the wake of our previous story, which climbed to the top ranks of most linked and recommended at a number of Internet sites such as Digg.com, Reddit.com, DailyKos and others.
‘Listen, I'm willing to have these people come after me with a prosecution – they [the media] should be willing to do their part.’
‘This is the biggest risk that a citizen has ever taken...I guess, after Ellsberg...And I know why he did that with the New York Times,’ she explained referring to his giving thousands of pages of documents to the paper, who, at the time, went all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for their right to publish them, as they eventually did.
‘What about the BBC? Would you do that?,’ we asked.
‘Why am I going on BBC? This is about this country! This is about this country, and more of America needs to know the true face of the mainstream media,’ she exclaimed.”
In other words, she’ll tell Americans everything, but only through the American mainstream media, which she knows won’t have anything to do with her. She thus manages to keep her conspiracy cred over a story which is probably just going to be an insult of Turkey, while having no risk of actually having to play her hand. While she’s being petulant, hundreds of thousands are dying. The commentators suggest Keith Olbermann, Greg Palast, Amy Goodman, and Michael Moore as the people she should be talking to. We can only laugh.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Richard Silverstein cites Bernard Avishai and Sami Bahour on what has to happen for Annapolis to succeed. There is only one possible settlement out there, and the Americans have to tell both sides – who am I kidding, has to tell Israel – that the one possible deal is the one they are going to accept, or else. Continuing to play the Zionist game of endless mediation and negotiation, while Israel has more time to build more settlements and more walls, is caving in to the Likudniks, again.
We will get a good opportunity to see the bona fides of the American position. If the Americans don’t put an ultimatum to the Israelis, they haven’t got the balls to run an Empire, and American irrelevance will continue to spiral out of control. It has become an international hobby to defy the testicle-less laughing stock called the United States (see, for example, recent defiance by Turkey, the Iraqi government, Pakistan, Venezuela, Syria, Ecuador, and, of course, Iran, all of who laugh at American ‘demands’, knowing the Americans have neither the will nor the ability to enforce their demands, a failure exemplified by the American impotence concerning Israel), and if an Empire can’t follow its clear national interests and tell its most obvious vassal state what to do, Annapolis will be regarded by future historians as the official end of the very short-lived American Empire.
Watch out for the lite Zionists, who are preparing to blame the inevitable failure of Annapolis on lack of Palestinian unity. This is nonsense, of course. If Abbas comes away from Annapolis with an agreement like the one that came out of Taba, the Palestinians will be so pleased with it that Hamas would destroy all its political power if it attempted to undermine it. You can be sure that there won’t be an agreement at Annapolis, but the failure will be Israel’s fault, and probably the fault of the emasculated Americans as well.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
“Unfortunately, even the failure of Condi's Folly at Annapolis is likely to be a very bad outcome. To the extent that her actions are raising unwarranted expectations on the part of Palestinians and their Arab friends, past practice suggests it will translate into a pretext for new violence against Israel. That will be especially true if, as is also predictable, the Israelis are blamed for the outcome for not being sufficiently willing – in the face of Palestinian intractability – to make what are euphemistically called ‘painful’ moves for peace. Another way to describe such moves are as reckless concessions that are certain to jeopardize Israel's security, and quite possibly ours.”
It has been decades since the Zionists have been this nervous. Zionism is dead once Israel has to set its borders.
“The dire situation facing Democrats is masked currently by the fake ‘excitement’ being generated by all the corporate media coverage of the so-called ‘race’ for the Democratic presidential nomination – coverage that is artificially skewed towards just two or perhaps three of the candidates, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. This coverage creates the illusion of some kind of groundswell of public excitement about the Democratic candidates. In fact none of them fares particularly well against Republican candidates, At this point, given the disastrous history of seven years of Republican rule in Washington, with the economy staggering, the dollar in freefall, oil prices at record levels, the country $8 trillion in debt, mortgage defaults at depression levels and the war in Iraq still without an end in sight, any Democrat should be trouncing any Republican candidate in the polls. Instead, the so-called ‘leading’ Democrats are all neck-and-neck with their potential Republican opponents. (Evidence of how out-of-whack the corporate media coverage of the Democratic campaign is was provided at the CNN debate in Nevada last Sunday, when even in an auditorium packed with supporters of Clinton and Obama, the biggest applause came when Dennis Kucinich, a candidate almost ignored by the moderator Wolf Blitzer, when he called for impeachment, and for ending the war immediately.)
The reason for this disconnect from reality is that while Democratic voters, as always, can be expected to go dutifully to the polls next November and cast their votes for whatever compromised and weak candidate their party puts up to run, the independent vote which put Democrats over the top in the 2006 off-year congressional elections is gone.
Those voters, many of whom have long harbored a powerful antipathy towards both parties, towards the government, and towards the corporations that dominate the political process, came out in record numbers and voted Democratic in November, ’06 because, sick of the Bush/Cheney administration, sick of five years of a phony ‘war’ on terror, and sick of three years of the Iraq War, they turned to the Democrats, even in traditional ‘red’ states and congressional districts, in hopes that the Democrats would do what they were promising to do: end the war and defend the Constitution.
Now they have seen that this hope was misplaced.”
“In 2008, independents and even many Democratic voters know that the Democrats will not be different from Republicans in any meaningful way on the two key issues – ending the war and restoring the Constitution.”
“As for Congress, Democrats may be in for a big shock in 2008. Expecting major gains in both houses, they may find themselves surprised if the independent voters who came out for them in 2006 stay home, and leave the field to Republicans and nativist independents who base their votes on issues like immigration and an unreasoned fear of terror – both issues that the Republican candidate plan to stoke.”
This is about as good as it is going to get from someone who, for political correctness reasons, can’t spell out the real reason for baffling Democrat ‘strategy’, Jewish Billionaire control of the Democratic Party. Supporters of the Democrats who think they can bluster their way to an easy victory in the next American election cycle, while providing pitiful excuses for Democrat wrongdoing, or denying that the key issues are really important to Americans, are asking for a disaster. People will vote ‘none of the above’ by just staying home, while the Christian Zionists will be bused in by their pastors to vote as they are told.
You can only win one election by claiming to be the alternative to the disaster incumbents. Once you prove yourself to be a phony alternative, you lose all your advantage, and then some. You need a positive story to win an election when you are no longer assisted by the example of your opponents. Again, the Democrats are lining up as a somewhat less committed version of the Republicans. They are offering the same story, just a less interesting version. Once the media starts to fire up the Hillary Clinton scandal stories – and Clinton’s life-long history of what amounts to kleptomania will give them plenty of ammunition in addition to the stuff they just make up – all the disadvantages of being in the same party as Bush and Cheney will disappear.
Sibel Edmonds is again offering to tell her full story to the American media, or, preferably, Congress. Predictably, she has received no offers from either the Jew-controlled American media or the Jew-controlled American Congress. If her mission was to demonstrate that the Jewish Billionaires didn’t want to hear the story of the perfidy of their employees, and how personal corruption connects to Israeli colonial interests, well, as George Bush might say, ‘mission accomplished’. Lukery attempts, and fails, to answer the question, 'Why doesn't she just talk already?' It is time to put up or shut up. The foreign media, most of which is not under Jew-control, is dying to hear the full story, and there is this thing called the internet that will instantly convey it back to Americans, or at least those who are prepared to hear it. If this story fades away again, we will not be receptive to any other doomed attempt to revive it.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
We weren’t supposed to find out. It was supposed to remain a secret. Vanity Fair, a magazine which fetishizes power, made a list of the most powerful people in the world (of course, most are American). An unscientific list, perhaps, but Vanity Fair does know power. Then the Jerusalem Post came along and used its exquisite sense of Jewdar to determine who on the list were Jewish. It turns out that 50 to 60% of the power-brokers were Jewish (with a higher percentage if you look at the up-and-comers). Michael Collins Piper has done a masterful job of analyzing the power, and annotating the Vanity Fair list.
Suddenly, out of serendipity and Jewish arrogance, we learn that there are in fact two American Establishments, the old, tired, and predominantly WASP one, and the new, striving one, all Jewish. Considering that Jews make up between 2 and 3% of the American population, this is quite an accomplishment. The Jewish Establishment would have to be an improvement over the old American Establishment – they could hardly be worse! – except for one factor: Zionism. Of course, not all the Jews are Zionists, but enough are, and coupled with the odd American Jewish terror of being seen by the ‘community’ of making any criticism of Zionism, we are left with the fact that the second American Establishment is making its influence felt by controlling the American government on all issues even remotely connected with Israeli colonialism.
Neocon influence in Washington should not be a mystery. Nor should the single-minded Zionist American media. Politicians are acutely sensitive to power, and the new American power block is Zionist. Therefore, the United States attacked Iraq, refuses to leave until that country is broken up, and continues to support Bibi’s ‘war on terror’ and the particular terror being imposed on the Palestinians by the Jewish State. All of these positions are clearly against real American interests, but are encouraged by the new Zionist-American Establishment.
It is too early to count out the old American Establishment. Blocked from control of the White House, either political party, and the media, it has nevertheless managed to wrest control of the American government away from the Jews, at least temporarily. Thus, the lack of military support for the Israeli attack on Lebanon, the impossibility of an attack on Iran, and the new-found interest in creating a Palestinian state. It is more evidence of the sad state of the United States that it is only saved from absolute disaster by the fact it is being run as a dictatorship by the old American Establishment. It remains to be seen whether they can keep this up under President Rudary.
Monday, November 19, 2007
“Austin Area Interreligious Ministries, the city's largest interfaith organization, announced Thursday that its annual Thanksgiving celebration Sunday had to be moved because Hyde Park Baptist Church objected to non-Christians worshipping on its property.
The group learned Wednesday that the rental space at the church-owned Quarries property in North Austin was no longer available because Hyde Park leaders had discovered that non-Christians, Muslims in particular, would be practicing their faith there. The event, now in its 23rd year, invites Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Bahais and others to worship together.”
The church issued a statement saying (emphasis in red):
“Hyde Park Baptist Church hopes that the AAIM and the community of faith will understand and be tolerant of our church's beliefs that have resulted in this decision.”
Congregation Beth Israel, Austin's largest synagogue, offered to host the celebration.
Rationale of occupation (my emphasis in red):
“Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday.
The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad's Green Zone.
"We thought, 'If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?'" Binns said.
Britain's 5,000 troops moved out of a former Saddam Hussein palace at Basra's heart in early September, setting up a garrison at an airport on the city's edge. Since that pullback, there's been a "remarkable and dramatic drop in attacks," Binns said.
"The motivation for attacking us was gone, because we're no longer patrolling the streets," he said.”
Sunday, November 18, 2007
I’ve been writing too much about American Jews these days, forgetting my own reasoning that the Middle East problem is essentially a power game. Israel would be occupying southern Lebanon by now, building settlements and stealing water, had they not had their asses kicked by Hezbollah. Thinking about that vile Cohen essay, I can only come to the conclusion that American Jews, for whatever reason, have decided to make themselves irrelevant to any sane discussion of the Middle East. There is only one possible peace agreement, the one proposed by the Saudis, and unless and until we get to that agreement, there will be no peace. That agreement can’t be obtained as long as Israeli politicians or American Jews have even the slightest say in the matter. You wouldn't ask mentally retarded people to do research in physics, and you shouldn’t ask morally retarded people to come up with a peace agreement. Engaging them in any way is wasting time, which is exactly what they want.
Lawrence of Cyberia considers (or here) the latest in the never-ending Israeli list of preconditions placed on the Palestinians before the Israelis will even consider discussing peace. Why do we even bother? Knock down one illogical precondition, and they’ll just come back with another. It’s obvious with all the bloviation about the Annapolis conference: the Israelis will never voluntarily enter into discussions over a bona fide peace agreement. Never. If there is going to be peace, they are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming. The Americans will have to put it point blank: accept the Saudi proposals, or we will consider you to no longer be an ally of the United States.
Philip Weiss considers the Cohen slurring of the left. Note some of the comments to his posting to get a hint of the mess that American Jews are in. While there are some excellent American Jewish writers on the politics of the Middle East, they are overwhelmingly outnumbered, and overwhelmingly outshouted, by the haters. The growth in sanity in American Jewish opinion is so slow that it will never be a relevant force, at least not within a helpful time frame. If American Jews want to make themselves irrelevant, we have to oblige them.
This is not a pessimistic posting. History is not on the side of Zionism. Israel moves from one disaster to another. The neocons will attempt a comeback in Washington, and will partly succeed under controlled President Rudary, but the American Establishment is finally alive to the problem and is working against it, and real American opinion, as opposed to what you will see in the chattering classes, is rapidly – more rapidly than most people realize – moving to a firm anti-Israeli position. The Zionists should know they are in trouble when a discussion at TPM Muckraker is more overtly ‘anti-Semitic’ that you might find at a forum at a traditional ‘anti-Semitic’ site (the new ‘scientific’ anti-Semites consider themselves to be doing research in sociology, which leads to the necessity of objective, unemotional discourse!). The war in Iraq has been extremely helpful in that regard.
Annapolis won’t directly lead to progress, but it will force Israel to embarrass the Americans in public, an action which the Israelis know will be the beginning of the end of the weird special relationship, especially in this climate where it has become commonplace for vassal states to disrespect the United States. When the state that depends the most on the United States for its very existence chooses to make Americans look like weak fools, the patronage won’t last much longer.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Bush gave (found via Naqniq, with lots of good stuff today; also see the story of how an Israeli hospital has a separate and antiquated cancer treatment system for Palestinians, a system that the Zionists will no doubt cite as an example of Israeli humanitarianism) a flurry of medals to some of the worst American Judeonazis: the smart Pipes, Wisse, Ozick, a guy who fights liberalism in American universities (as a cover to prevent discussion of what Israel is up to), and a funder of the American edition of Der Stürmer. When Reagan laid a wreath at the SS graves at Bitburg it amounted to his tip of the hat to his old Nazi – I’d say ‘neo-Nazi’, but these guys were the real deal, going back to 1940s Central Europe – friends at the top of the Republican Party, who were being cleansed by Bush’s father in the prelude to the new Republican-Zionist era in American politics. Are these medals a tip of the hat by the younger Bush to the Zionofascists, who will now have to be removed from American politics in the light of the new awareness in Americans of the nature of their real problem? Don’t count them out yet – I expect to see a renaissance of neocon-jobs under President Rudary – but things aren’t looking quite as good for Jew-control of Washington.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Sam Smith considers (scroll down a bit) one of the many problems with Bibi Netanyahu’s ’war on terror’:
“The journalist Bernard Fall noted that the French, after Dien Bien Phu, had no choice but to leave Southeast Asia. America, with its vast military, financial, and technological resources, was able to stay because it had the capacity to keep making the same mistakes over and over. Our war against ‘terrorism’ has been in many ways a domestic version of our Vietnam strategy. We keep making the same mistakes over and over because, until now, we could afford to. One of these has been to define the problem by its manifestations rather than its causes. This turns a resolvable political problem into a irresolvable technical problem, because while, for example, there are clearly solutions to the Middle East crisis, there are no other solutions to the guerilla violence that grows from the failure to end it.
In other words, if you define the problem as ‘a struggle against terrorism’ you have already admitted defeat because the guerilla will always have the upper hand against a centralized, technology-dependent society such as ours. There is one way to deal with guerilla warfare and that is to resolve the problems that allow it to thrive. The trick is to undermine the violence of the most bitter by dealing honestly with the complaints of the most rational.”
You have to remember that the ‘war on terror’ was invented by Israel thinktankers as a war that could not be won. In fact, winning it would end its usefulness from the Zionist point of view. It is intended to be lost, creating more ‘terror’, leading to more ‘war on terror’, and so on.
It is curious that the American Establishment has suddenly, if belatedly, reached the conclusion that an enormous number of American problems could be simultaneously fixed by solving the Palestinian problem. Once the Palestinian problem is solved, Israel has fixed borders, and thus no chance of colonialism. There would be no need to break up Iraq. Therefore, American troops could leave Iraq (giving American power-brokers an army back which they could then use elsewhere, and saving a shitload of money that won’t have to be borrowed). Once the Palestinians are reasonably happy and American troops are out of Iraq, much of the anger that causes terrorism disappears, along with the need for American Zionists to demonize Muslims (‘Islamofascism’), and suddenly almost all of America’s lost reputation returns. People will start paying attention to American leaders again. At the same time, the anger simmers down and much of the risk of terrorist attack disappears. There would be no more need to manipulate Americans, so the Zionist stranglehold over American politics and media would fade away, and (almost) everybody would stop hating the Jews. Unfortunately, the one-stop shopping of ending the Palestinian problem is not going to happen, at least not yet.
As Israel and its apologists continue on their moral decline at increasing speed, with the effects felt around the world, the ‘left’, such as it is, becomes increasingly preoccupied with the plight of the victims of Zionism, particularly the Palestinians. This has led to a new genre of writing, attacks on the left for being anti-Semitic. Mitchell Cohen (take a wild stab at what particular group he might belong to, or read to the end here) adds to the pile with “Anti-Semitism and the Left that Doesn’t Learn”. This is pretty vile stuff, and I don’t recommend that you waste time reading it. I have just one question. Does Mitchell Cohen actually believe that anybody on the left who feels for the plight of the victims of Zionism is actually going to read Cohen’s piece, suddenly exclaim “OMG, I’m an anti-Semite’, and run off to join the IDF so he or she can shoot innocent Palestinians and steal their land? If this piece is really directed at the left, it is not just a failure, but is an outright insult that will only make those people fighting the hatred of Zionism even more angry. Surely Cohen isn’t too stupid to realize this.
The answer is that the real intended audience isn’t the left, it is American Jews. American Jews are naturally feeling intense guilt at the horrors being perpetrated in their name. The job of people like Cohen is to make them feel better by misdirection. The slurring of those who describe the problems of Zionism is intended to buck up the sagging morale of the wider American Jewish community. Cohen, and all similar aiders and abetters of the system of hatred that is Zionism, should be ashamed of themselves.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
In my last posting I wrote Feingold when I meant Feinstein, a mistake not lost on the commentators, and a particularly silly slip as Feingold is consistently one of the best Senators, and Feinstein one of the worst. Feingold voted against Mukasey, but his excellent voting record is largely irrelevant. He is just a ‘progressive’ whose background isn’t relevant. Once Schumer and Feinstein received their orders from the Jewish Billionaires, and made a public spectacle of their decision, the issue was decided. The main point of the posting was that you cannot possibly make any sense out of the political decisions of the Democratic Party unless you accept that their political instincts are being consistently undermined by the orders of the Jewish Billionaires. You will note that on issues other that those concerning Greater Israel, the Democrats make proper decisions. Unfortunately, issues which involve Greater Israel have a very wide reach, and include appointment of the Attorney General.
I thought I was being mischievous when I referred to a Mukasey conspiracy theory, but the posters at TPM Muckraker were way ahead of me (found via a semi-dismissive comment at Mondoweiss). Note how many of the posters make an express reference to AIPAC, not to mention referring to ‘gang loyalty’, and ‘the NY boys club’, and the ‘finance train’, and asking what Feinstein, Schumer and Mukasey all have in common. They get it (note the comment of ‘eric’ on November 2 at 8:54 p. m., not to mention ‘improper’ at 9:40 P. M.; ‘nrglaw’ refers to the issue at 12:58 a. m. on November 3, followed by ‘JSinAZ’ at 7:15 a. m., but it gets no traction, and note the comment of ‘Official A’ at 11:54 a. m.; ‘S. Lyons’ finally states the traditional – and very old-fashioned – objections at 9:00 p. m. on November 4). Six months ago, many of the comments in the thread would gave been quickly knocked down by most of the other posters, or would never have appeared (or would have been edited out as ‘hate speech’). Now they are treated as common sense. We really are entering the Golden Age of Anti-Semitism. This is what happens when a group of Jewish Billionaires conspires to trick the United States into a disastrous war in Iraq (despite the denials, Americans aren’t fooled), the same group of Jewish Billionaires, without the slightest shame, starts the same trick with respect to Iran, and the wider American Jewish community makes absolutely no complaint or protest (although I note the start of the idea that the Iran campaign should be more deceitful).
TPM Muckraker is not some hate site. You’re seeing the opinions of mainstream committed Democrat supporters. I’ve been saying this for some time, but here I go again: unless the wider Jewish community takes immediate steps to denounce the anti-American actions of the Jewish Billionaires, the problem is only going to get worse.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Was Mukasey allowed to be installed as AG by the Democrats – particularly Schumer and Feinstein (corrected), who are similar in what particular way? – for the specific purpose of ending the AIPAC trial (for what it is worth, note that Pearlstine has a personal connection to the Plame outing, being the guy who decided to turn over Matthew Cooper's notes, and a guy whose sense of being ‘above the law’ seems to depend on the context)? It would have been easy for the Democrats to block the appointment, and politically popular – those who think Americans love being associated with torture are simply America-haters (the America-hating inherent in Zionism is something Americans are going to have to learn about) – so why did they fold up, yet again, like a cheap suitcase?
Speaking of the real interests of the American people, why don’t the Democrats stop the war in Iraq and impeach Cheney? Cheney has about 10% popular support. How many of that 10% would ever vote Democrat? None. Not only is impeachment a political no-brainer, it would effectively stop the Bush Administration in its tracks. Perhaps even more importantly, it would be the first time in years that the Democrats were acting, taking it to their opponents, rather than constantly reacting to Republican proposals.
There is an answer to the mystery. The Jewish Billionaires own the Democrats. They want Mukasey as he will continue Bibi Netanyahu’s ‘war on terror’ (necessary to continue to provide a reason for American support for Israel), they want the war in Iraq to continue until Iraq is broken into three parts, and they want to keep Cheney, who is the last bastion of neocon, i. e., Israeli, power in the White House.
Somebody has decided to polish the reputation of Jill Dekker by making it appear that the Powers That Be are threatening her, thus adding credibility to the truths which they are apparently trying to suppress. She is even comparing her potential fate to that of Dr. Kelly, particularly ironic as she is part of the same group of ‘experts’ who are paraded around by the warmongers as part of the propaganda battles leading to various wars. Kelly’s problem was that he actually believed the crap he was selling, and only became dangerous, and needed to be killed, when he became upset that there were in fact no WMDs in Iraq.
I realized this was part of a disinformation campaign when I read about the hearse. These guys can’t resist over-extending the story.
Watch for Dekker’s newly-created credibility to be used to scare up some phony bio-threat from the next victim of war. After all, if the Powers That Be want to stop her from speaking, what she says must be true, right? I’ve already expressed caution about Norman Baker. I have no reason to doubt his bona fides, but it is apparent that some intelligence agency has decided to use his research on the death of Dr. Kelly to further their own agenda.
The Lobby works in mysterious ways. A professor at the University of Ottawa named Denis Rancourt is being harassed by university officials for attempting to teach deep political truths in a physics class. It turns out that the attacks on him are by the Lobby, turning largely on the fact that he had as a guest lecturer Michel Chossudovsky (whose famous site is here). I personally don’t think Israel had any direct involvement in September 11, but it is peculiar that it is the Zionists who seem particularly touchy about this connection, raising it even when nobody else has. It is almost as if they have something to hide. The issue is being raised by the excellent alternative historian (and anti-Zionist) David Noble, and is covered in Yayacanada.
I’m surprised the blogs aren’t all over the developments concerning the West Memphis Three, three ‘outsider’ teenagers who were caught up in the CIA/tabloid hysteria concerning Satanism – it is a lie that promulgating this crap has no consequences – and ended up charged with, and convicted of, murder (one is on death row). Now the defense has introduced evidence described as showing that “there was no DNA from the three defendants found at the scene, the mutilation was actually the work of animals and at least one person other than the defendants may have been present at the crime scene.” This should at least get the one kid off death row, and will hopefully lead to new trials for all.
There are three big CIA/tabloid lies:
- UFO stories;
- child day-care centers are all run by pedophilia rings; and
- Satanic ritual abuse (2 and 3 overlap).
The UFO stories were used to turn night light anomalies into cover for the military research which started at the beginning of the cold war. The stories about day care have an obvious right-wing motive: if women stayed at home and raised their children like Jebus wanted they wouldn’t be turning them over to kiddy diddlers. The Satanic abuse stories seem to be simply the need of fascists for an outsider enemy. Misfit teenagers are no longer necessary as Americans can now fear ‘Islamofascists’.
Michael Lewis analyzes the (largely racist) economics of American college football (emphasis in red):
“College football’s best trick play is its pretense that it has nothing to do with money, that it’s simply an extension of the university’s mission to educate its students. Were the public to view college football as mainly a business, it might start asking questions. For instance: why are these enterprises that have nothing to do with education and everything to do with profits exempt from paying taxes? Or why don’t they pay their employees?
This is maybe the oddest aspect of the college football business. Everyone associated with it is getting rich except the people whose labor creates the value. At this moment there are thousands of big-time college football players, many of whom are black and poor. They perform for the intense pleasure of millions of rabid college football fans, many of whom are rich and white. The world’s most enthusiastic racially integrated marketplace is waiting to happen.
But between buyer and seller sits the National Collegiate Athletic Association, to ensure that the universities it polices keep all the money for themselves – to make sure that the rich white folk do not slip so much as a free chicken sandwich under the table to the poor black kids. The poor black kids put up with it because they find it all but impossible to pursue N.F.L. careers unless they play at least three years in college. Less than one percent actually sign professional football contracts and, of those, an infinitesimal fraction ever make serious money. But their hope is eternal, and their ignorance exploitable.”
“Last year the average N.F.L. team had revenue of about $200 million and ran payrolls of roughly $130 million: 60 percent to 70 percent of a team’s revenues, therefore, go directly to the players. There’s no reason those numbers would be any lower on a college football team – and there’s some reason to think they’d be higher. It’s easy to imagine the Universities of Alabama ($44 million in revenue), Michigan ($50 million), Georgia ($59 million) and many others paying the players even more than they take in directly from their football operations, just to keep school spirit flowing. (Go Dawgs!)
But let’s keep it conservative. In 2005, the 121 Division 1-A football teams generated $1.8 billion for their colleges. If the colleges paid out 65 percent of their revenues to the players, the annual college football payroll would come to $1.17 billion. A college football team has 85 scholarship players while an N.F.L. roster has only 53, and so the money might be distributed a bit differently.
‘You’d pay up for the most critical positions,’ one N.F.L. front office executive told me on the condition that I not use his name. ‘You’d pay more for quarterbacks and left tackles and pass rushing defensive ends. You’d pay less for linebackers because you’d have so many of them. You could just rotate them in and out.’
A star quarterback, he thought, might command as much as 8 percent of his college team’s revenues. For instance, in 2005 the Texas Longhorns would have paid Vince Young roughly $5 million for the season. In quarterbacking the Longhorns free of charge, Young, in effect, was making a donation to the university of $5 million a year – and also, by putting his health on the line, taking a huge career risk.”
Professional athletics requires a development system. Football has a system that puts the cost of player development on students, who generate the income to pay for the system. What American pro football should have is a system like baseball, a minor league professional system.