Saturday, December 29, 2007
From the Daily Mail:
“The words ‘war on terror’ will no longer be used by the British government to describe attacks on the public, the country's chief prosecutor said Dec. 27.”
When I read this, I immediately thought of Jean Charles de Menezes and various of the false flag operations, but then realized that the chief prosecutor was referring to attacks on the public other than by the government.
More on Bhutto:
- Was it an inside job (i. e., did her own party, realizing she would be a disastrous leader but a wonderful martyr, do the job itself?)?
- Remember the concept of ‘triangulation’ from the “JFK” movie. Some reports, particularly out of India (and therefore possibly disinfo), are claiming multiple snipers firing at Bhutto, and multiple snipers also attacked a Nawaz Sharif rally. This appears to be standard American military procedure for a can’t-fail assassination, and is what the Pentagon (probably) used against JFK. Some have noted that the attack on Bhutto occurred immediately after Musharraf gave the Americans what they expected from Bhutto, American military access to the Pakistani border regions. Bhutto was suddenly expendable, and her death may have been the quid pro quo.
- Tel Aviv, which doesn’t like Musharraf and his ‘Islamic bomb’, is hard at work. Ten years ago Siegel was described as “a long-time Democratic activist who served as executive director of the Democratic National Committee in the mid 1970s and as liaison to the American Jewish community in the Carter White House.” He is a ‘friend of Hil’ (for a little confusion, there is also a left-coast Republican Jewish far-right activist with the same name). Of course, we know all about Mossad agent Blitzer.
Friday, December 28, 2007
My deepest condolences to the family of Benazir Bhutto, who will no doubt now have to return the Bentleys they have bought in anticipation of the billions she planned to steal from Pakistan, and will have to eke by on the billions her family has already stolen.
Reading the numerous opinions on who killed her – and by the way, isn’t she just like Hillary’s long-lost twin sister in so many ways? – is like interpreting the answers to a Rorschach test, telling you much more about the prejudices of the guessers than anything about the assassination (good predictive background here). The fact is that she was parachuted in by Washington in order to win a rigged election in a country where just about every power group absolutely hated her, a recipe for disaster. It is not so much a question of who killed her, but who got the first opportunity to succeed.
The Washington Post spins the power politics:
“For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy – and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism.”
“’The U.S. came to understand that Bhutto was not a threat to stability, but was instead the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact,’ said Mark Siegel, who lobbied for Bhutto in Washington and witnessed much of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy.”
“Bhutto's assassination leaves Pakistan's future – and Musharraf's – in doubt, some experts said. ‘U.S. policy is in tatters. The administration was relying on Benazir Bhutto's participation in elections to legitimate Musharraf's continued power as president,’ said Barnett R. Rubin of New York University. ‘Now Musharraf is finished.’”
“The turning point to get Musharraf on board was a September trip by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte to Islamabad. "He basically delivered a message to Musharraf that we would stand by him, but he needed a democratic facade on the government, and we thought Benazir was the right choice for that face," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and National Security Council staff member now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.”
“Many career foreign policy officials were skeptical of the U.S. plan. ‘There were many inside the administration, at the State and Defense Departments and in intelligence, who thought this was a bad idea from the beginning because the prospects that the two could work together to run the country effectively were nil,’ said Riedel.
As part of the deal, Bhutto's party agreed not to protest against Musharraf's reelection in September to his third term. In return, Musharraf agreed to lift the corruption charges against Bhutto. But Bhutto sought one particular guarantee – that Washington would ensure Musharraf followed through on free and fair elections producing a civilian government.
Rice, who became engaged in the final stages of brokering a deal, called Bhutto in Dubai and pledged that Washington would see the process through, according to Siegel. A week later, on Oct. 18, Bhutto returned.
Ten weeks later, she was dead.”
The big spin part of this is that the Americans were conniving to keep Musharraf in power, but even the experts cited have trouble with that part of the story. The neocons were always skeptical of Musharraf, whose balancing of various factions, including the Islamists, led the Israelo-Americans to think he was weak in fighting the ‘war on terror’, in other words, weak in assisting the Zionists in killing Muslims. The failure of the US and its allies in Afghanistan could be neatly laid at the feet of Musharraf. Bhutto, who would do anything for money, was the perfect neocon replacement, and the deal was already in place that she would allow American troops to enter the Pakistan border regions to fight those friendly to the Taliban (in stark contrast to her support for the Taliban when she was in power, and something which would have split the country apart, not a bad side-effect from the neocon point of view). A view from Pakistan:
“While the opposition resigned en masse from the parliament to block Musharraf's re-election in a year that saw a rejuvenated judiciary challenge the president's authority, Bhutto’s Pakistan People's Party merely abstained from voting providing the general an easy run.
The extremists were annoyed with Bhutto for her unqualified support to the US 'war on terror' and her willingness to play ball with the Bush administration.
This is a policy that Musharraf has found to his chagrin remains hugely unpopular in Pakistan but, which was seen by her party as a politically correct course in order to win back power.
Bhutto's apparent grandstanding in offering to give the International Atomic Energy Agency access to disgraced nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan to probe his role in nuclear proliferation, and allow American troops to enter the Pakistani hinterland to take out al-Qaeda, sparked outrage even in the intelligentsia.”
This is yet another example, akin to Wurmser’s ‘Zionist plan for the Middle East’, of the neocon view that they can defeat ‘radical Islam’ by playing the big chess board. The best thing about it, other than the fact that Pakistan won’t have to put up with the future depredations of Bhutto (not to mention the break-up of the country caused by the presence of American troops), is that the American plans have yet again been defeated by local resistance. The Americans bemoaning the ‘death of democracy’ are, as usual, full of shit, as the disruption of a rigged election stage-managed from Washington has nothing to do with democracy.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Some consumer conspiracy theories:
- In an a article on how big corporations get away with murder with respect to various ethical and legal outrages, Thomas Kostigen provides a hint on how to make money on the stockmarket:
"When charges are assailed or court cases waged and stock prices drop – it's a good time to buy. Chances are if history is any measure, those corporations won't have to pay up. Vulture investors make their money this way. And the government is good at feeding them."
- Compact digital cameras have the best picture quality at around 6 megapixels, and companies that try to sell you a higher number are scamsters (found via here). You can only pack about 6 megapixels on the tiny sensors before they interfere with each other, reducing image quality. The same analysis doesn’t apply to DSLRs, which have the space for larger sensors.
- Skiing conspiracy theories.
- Is the war on Islam really the war against Islam’s prohibition of usury? This is not my favorite type of conspiracy theory, but with the vast number of foreclosures on the horizon due to the sub-prime scam, the American public might be ready for some old-fashioned bankster bashing.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Zionist Henry the K and pre-ocon leader ‘Scoop’ Jackson threatened (link found via The Home Page of J. Orlin Grabbe) Aldo Moro, who was later kidnapped by the same Italian neofascist/intelligence elements later involved with Ledeen and the Niger yellowcake forgeries, a kidnapping blamed, almost Israeli-style (!), on the enemies of the actual perps. There were also alleged plans to kill Tunisian President Habib Bourguiba and Malta’s Prime Minister Dom Mintoff. Just as we have to rewrite Kissinger biographies to take into account that his main motivations were Zionist, we also have to rewrite American intelligence and diplomatic history of the 1970s and 1980s to take into account the hidden Zionist motives of many of the participants. Of course, the Italian neofascists weren’t Zionists, just typical clingers to what they perceived as the world power structure.
From the same Maltese source, see this.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The structure of the financial instruments that led inexorably to the sub-prime crisis that threatens to bring down the entire world banking system was plotted by a handful of men who had weekly meetings. Dinner was brought in for each meeting. It started out Chinese, but they eventually switched to deli, as Chinese was deemed not to be kosher. Note the denials at the end of the Bloomberg article that the derivative structure set up by the planners, which allowed them to bet against the sub-prime loans being good, has anything to do with the ensuing crisis. It appears that they set the whole system up in anticipation that it would collapse.
If you wanted to be a cutting-edge conspiracy theorist you would correlate the billionaires who made much of their money off derivatives related to sub-prime loans – you’d be looking at ‘real estate’ hedge finds – and donations to the major American political parties, particularly to the Democrats, and particularly to Hillary Clinton. While some find Wall Street donations to Democrats incongruous (note the code: “Hedge-fund managers tend to live near the top of cosmopolitan, culturally liberal societies.”), it is notable that the ‘tax-and-spend’ Democrats – well, at least Clinton and Schumer – have been resisting efforts to raise effective tax rates on hedge fund profits.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
There has been a considerable amount of self-congratulation amongst the lite Zionists over a recent poll which appears to support the view that American Jews are progressive, liberal and other good things, including being unsupportive of the American attack on Iraq. I was going to write about the real message, but James Petras (or here or here) has beat me to it:
“This progressive interpretation however avoids an even more fundamental question: How is it that a majority of US Jews who, according to the AJC poll (and several others going back over two decades) differ with the principal American Jewish organizations, have not or do not challenge the position of the dominant Jewish organization, have virtually no impact on the US Congress, the Executive and the mass media in comparison to the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations?”
“On the surface these polling results would suggest that American Jews would be at the cutting edge of the congressional anti-war movements, arousing their fellow Jews to join and resurrect the moribund peace movement. Nothing of the sort has occurred.
One reason for the gap between the ‘progressive’ polling results and the actual pro-war behavior of the major American Jewish Organizations is found in several of the opinions not cited by progressive analysts but emphasized by the 52 leaders of the major communal organizations (Daily Alert, December 13, 2007). Over eighty percent (82%) of American Jews agree that ‘the goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel’. Only 12% of Jews disagree. And 55% to 37% do not believe Israel and its Arab neighbors will settle their differences and live in peace. On the key issue of a compromise on the key issue of Jerusalem, by 58% to 36% American Jews reject an Israeli compromise to insure a framework for permanent peace.
Given the high salience of being pro-Israel for the majority of American Jews and the fact that the source of their identity stems more from their loyalty to Israel than to the Talmud or religious myths and rituals, then it is clear that both the ‘progressive, majority of Jews and the reactionary minority who head up all the major American Jewish organizations have a fundamental point of agreement and convergence: Support and identity with Israel and its anti-Arab prejudices, its expansion and the dispossession of Palestine. This overriding convergence allows the reactionary Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in America to speak for the Jewish community with virtually no opposition from the progressive majority either within or without their organizations. By raising the Israeli flag, repeating clichés about the ‘existential threat’ to Israel at each and every convenient moment, the majority of Jews have bowed their heads and acquiesced or, worst, subordinated their other ‘progressive’ opinions to actively backing the leaders ‘identity’ with Israel. Their franchise on being the recognized Jewish spokespeople intimidates and/or forces progressive Jews to publicly abide to the line that ‘Israel (sic) knows what is best for Israel’ and by extension for all American Jews who identify with Israel.”
“. . . a serious analyst clearly must distinguish between ‘opinions’ and ‘commitment’. While a majority of American Jews may voice private progressive opinions, their commitments based on their identity as Jews rests with the State of Israel and its principal mouthpieces in the US.
This probably explains the unwillingness of progressive Jews to criticize the principal reactionary Jewish leaders and their mass organizations, even worse to attack and slander any critics of the pro-Israel power configuration. Progressive Jews have subordinated their progressive opinions to their loyalty and identity with Israel. Organizationally this has meant that the majority of major American Jewish organizations are still led and controlled by pro-war, pro-Israel leaders. Progressive Jewish organizations are on the fringe of the organizational map, with virtually no influence in the Congress or Presidency and backers of a pro-war Democratic Party and Congress.”
“The apparent paradox of progressive anti-war Jews contributing big bucks to pro-war Democrats is based on the latter’s unconditional support for Israel which trumps any ‘dissonance’ that might exist in the head of progressive Jewish political activists.
With the American Pro-Israel Power Configuration leading the way to savaging the National Intelligence Estimate study, released in December 2007, on the absence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, progressive Jewish opinion is silent or complicit. Worse still, progressive liberal and radical Jewish peace activists have acted as gate-keepers in the anti-war movement – prohibiting any criticism of Israel and labeling individuals or citizen activists critical of the pro-war Zionist lobby as ‘anti-Semites’.
The AJC opinion poll on the high proportion of American Jewish with more progressive opinions than the leadership of all the major mainstream organizations would be officially welcomed if it led to something else besides private opinions compromised by Israeli identities.”
I’ve been denounced for writing about the ‘Jew-controlled’ media. You are not supposed to speak that way. If you must, speak of the ‘Zionist-controlled’ media, as the presence of Christian Zionists in the United States diffuses the words. But it is not the Zionists I’m worried about. Despite the power and money of the Jewish Billionaires and their employees, they would not have any power in the United States without the understanding that they represent fundamental values of the wider Jewish community. The hard-core Zionists are too small a group to have such major political importance. The people who scare me are the ‘progressive’ American Jews.
You can be the most assimilated Jew in the world, never have been within five hundred miles of a synagogue, eat swan for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and never have the slightest thought about your Jewish identity . . . and yet . . . . And yet the slightest reference to Israel, or to those purporting to speak for Israel, and you freeze up. Magical tribal thinking automatically kicks in. The unspoken but almost universal commandment amongst American Jews: Thou shalt not speak evil of Israel, or those who purport to support Israel, no matter how wicked or insane such support appears to be. This commandment extends to the fact that the most radical proposals have to receive fill airing, without censorship or the slightest criticism.
This magical thinking is the only possible explanation for the paradox of the most ‘progressive’ group tacitly supporting the vilest policies with respect to this one issue. How does a guy like Norman Podhoretz, gleefully calling for the nuclear annihilation of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people, get any platform at all? He purports to speak for Israel. Therefore, while you would normally expect universal denunciation from his nominally ‘progressive’ community, you only hear a few bleatings from a couple of blogs. The commandment prevents any criticism, and thus encourages further and further radicalization from the worst extremists. Without any criticism, the extremists appear to represent mainstream opinion.
The usually excellent blog Muzzlewatch writes (my emphasis in red):
“And still, 69% of the Jews interviewed (exactly one half of the sample is affiliated with a synagogue) agreed with the statement: ‘Caring about Israel is a very important part of my being a Jew.’ And why shouldn’t we? And what does that really mean? Caring about Israel can mean any number of things, donating money to Rabbis for Human Rights, helping rebuild homes with the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions, wanting the country to cease its destructive and self-destructive actions.”
Sorry, but you don’t get it. You are only truly assimilated when you don’t care about, or even follow, the politics of your ‘homeland’. If you give a shit about Israel, you’re not an American, you’re a Jew. You can eat the food of ‘your people’, follow the religion and culture, even watch travelogues and pine for the ‘homeland’ you’ve never been to, but once the politics has personal meaning to you, you have crossed the line into the kind of destructive thinking that has already caused too much suffering (I’ll always remember hearing the great literary critic Leslie Fiedler on NPR discussing giving up his beloved American-Jewish identity because of all the problems it was causing). The real irony is that this magical thinking is clearly not even in the real interests of the real Israel, but supports the mythical dreamland of the religious fruitcakes, both Jewish and Christian. You can’t continue to have it both ways.
William F. Buckley and Henry Kissinger were insufficiently supportive of convicted fraudster Conrad Black for Conrad’s liking, so he wrote one of the weirdest and most convoluted dissings of two prominent men that you will ever read. On the Emily Post method of approaching a fellow member of the Establishment to lie about your personal sanctity:
“The facts are that I asked a mutual friend to ask Mr. Buckley if he would prefer not to be asked to write a character reference for me to the judge. I wanted to make it easy for him to decline. He replied that he would like to do so, and so I asked him, explaining that if, on reflection, he would rather not, I would perfectly understand.”
This sounds like something Wodehouse would have put into the mouth of Bertie Wooster. At least Buckley wrote something, unlike Henry the K, who was apparently too busy fighting for the Zionist Empire to lift a pen for an old pal and employer:
“Knowing Mr. Kissinger as well as I do, I suspected that he would behave as Richard Nixon told me he generally did when a colleague came under pressure: privately declare solidarity with both sides and separate himself, so that neither side would confuse him with the other side, until it became clear which side had won. He promised more, and I hoped for more, but Mr. Kissinger is an 84-year old fugitive from Nazi pogroms, and has made his way famously in the world by endlessly recalibrating the balance of power and correlation of forces in all situations.
The correlation of forces between the U.S. government and me has obviously been generally unpromising, and Mr. Kissinger has less natural affinity for the principles involved here than Mr. Buckley does. His statements, publicly and to the FBI, that I am probably guilty of something but that he ‘never deserts a friend,’ are not heroic or even accurate, but on past form, not altogether a surprise either.”
Catty, if not altogether inaccurate! The final zinger (emphasis in red):
“For such men and for the sake of happy days gone by, that could yet return, I offer the other cheek, but not unilateral verbal disarmament. They need only survive and retain their faculties a while longer to see that my present embattled condition is not, as Mr. Buckley wrote, "the end." I wish that for them, and all other good things.”
Monday, December 17, 2007
In these days when the Israelis are offering to ‘help’ the Americans by providing lies about Iran which are in direct contradiction to the unanimous conclusion of 16 (!) American intelligence agencies, it is worthwhile to remember that Israel has a long and undistinguished history of providing lies to the United States (Abingdon is a former American diplomat):
“Abingdon said the Israelis provided intelligence to the CIA, and defense attorney Nancy Hollander asked him if he found the Israeli information reliable. ‘No,’ he answered, and she asked why not.
‘I feel the Israelis have an agenda ... they provide selective information to try to influence US thinking,’ he said.”
General Shlomo Brom, a former senior Israeli military intelligence officer, reported to the Israeli government that Israel was a ‘full partner’ in American and British intelligence failures that described Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The Israelis actually had a secret unit attached directly to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s office which fed disinfo directly to Feith’s Office of Special Plans.
From Stephen J. Sniegoski’s wonderful article “The Israeli origins of Bush II's war” (I’ve removed the footnotes that are in the original):
“Intelligence writer James Bamford cut to the core of the Israeli manipulations:
To gain the support of the American government and public, a phony pretext would be used as the reason for the original invasion.
The recommendation of Feith, Perle, and Wurmser was for Israel to once again invade Lebanon with air strikes. But this time, to counter potentially hostile reactions from the American government and public, they suggested using a pretext. They would claim that the purpose of the invasion was to halt Syria's drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure located there. They were subjects in which Israel had virtually no interest, but they were ones, they said, with which America can sympathize.
Another way to win American support for a pre-empted war against Syria, they suggested, was by drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program. This claim would be that Israel's war was really all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills, and WMD — nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
Still, in the ‘Clean Break,’ neocons were advising Israeli military action. It should be emphasized that the same people — Feith, Wurmser, Perle — who advised the Israeli government on issues of national security would also advise the George W. Bush administration to pursue virtually the same policy regarding the Middle East, but employing American armed forces. As political observer William James Martin would astutely comment about ‘Clean Break’: ‘This document is remarkable for its very existence because it constitutes a policy manifesto for the Israeli government penned by members of the current U.S. government.’ Martin went on to point out that the similarity between that document's recommendation for Israel and the neocon-inspired Bush administration policy, purportedly designed for the benefit of American interests, was even more remarkable:
It is amazing how much of this program, though written for the Israeli government of Netanyahu of 1996, has already been implemented, not by the government of Israel, but by the Bush administration. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the two-year-old house arrest of Arafat and the attempt to cultivate a new Palestinian leadership, the complete rejection by Sharon of the land for peace agreement on the Golan Heights, with little U.S. demurral, and the bombing inside of ‘Syria proper’ with only the response from Bush, ‘Israel has a right to defend itself.’
The dramatic similarities between the ‘Clean Break’ scenario and actual Bush II administration Middle East policy are evident not only in the results but also in the sequence of events. Notably, the ‘Clean Break’ report held that removing Saddam was the key to weakening Israel's other enemies; and after removing Saddam in 2003 the United States would indeed quickly threaten Iran and Syria, and talk of restructuring the entire Middle East. Evident, too, is a similarity between actual events and the Yinon proposal of 1982, which also saw regime change in Iraq as a fundamental move in destabilizing Israel's enemies.
To reiterate the central point of this essay: the vision of ‘regime change’ in the Middle East through external, militant action originated in Israel, and its sole purpose was to advance the strategic interests of Israel. It had nothing to do with bringing ‘democracy’ to Muslims. It had nothing to do with any terrorist threat to the United States. Those latter arguments accreted to the idea of regime change as the primary military actor changed from Israel to the United States. But the Israeli government would continue to be a fundamental supporter of the regional military action, even as the ostensible justifications for action changed. The Sharon government advocated the American attacks on Iraq and has preached the necessity of strikes on Iran.
It would appear that for Ariel Sharon during the Bush II administration, the strategic benefits that would accrue to Israel from such a militant restructuring of the Middle East were the same as those that Likudniks sought in the 1980s. But unlike Begin's failed incursion into Lebanon in 1982, the Bush II effort not only relied upon the much greater power of the United States but also was wrapped in a cover of "democracy" and American national interest, effectively masking the true objective of Israeli hegemony. That helps to explain the much greater success of this intervention, which has come at no cost to Israel.
Instead, it has come at a cost to the United States. The United States has tarnished its international reputation through its militarily aggressive actions in contravention of prevailing international norms. It has also had to pay significant costs in blood and money: rather, the American people have had to pay those costs. And the United States has made itself, and the American people, a major target of international terrorism. In short, the benefits derived by the United States from its Middle East military adventure are highly questionable; but that is easily understood if one recognizes that the policy the Bush II administration has pursued did not originate as one to benefit the interests of the United States but rather to benefit those of Israel, as those interests have been perceived by the Israeli Right.”
Note the pattern. Feith, Perle, and Wurmser advocated tricking the Americans into supporting the Israeli attack on Syria by creating faulty intelligence on a mythological Syrian WMD program (that approach hasn’t ended, as witness the recent Israeli lies over the unprovoked Israeli attack on Syria in September), then Feith and Wurmser directly implemented the same deception by manipulating the American intelligence, with the help of Israeli intelligence sources, to create a phony threat from a mythological Iraqi WMD program. In the absence of having direct treason agents in the appropriate places in the American government, the Israelis are now having to do the deception themselves, returning to the ‘Clean Break’ model of attempting to fool the Americans by providing bogus intelligence on Iran. In each case, the intelligence lies are intended to lead to a war that fits Israeli Empire interests, all under the guise of following American national interests in stopping WMD programs. Three proposed wars (only one of which has occurred), three Israeli-Empire motives, three Israeli intelligence tricks, all involving mythological WMD programs in target states.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
It is a mistake to quibble about the NIE on Iran. The approach of some of the viler neocons is to question the factual basis for the NIE, and even hint that the anti-Semitism of the intelligence agencies is behind it. Podhoretz even has the chutzpah to question the Iran NIE based on the unreliability of the Iraq NIE, an approach which begs readers to wonder why the Iraq NIE was so unreliable, a line of thought that leads right back to the Jewish neocons who forced the intelligence analysts to make it up. The 16 American intelligence agencies don’t know that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, any more than they knew two years ago that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. The fact remains that you can’t start a war against a sovereign country which poses no obvious threat to you based on some iffy intelligence guessing about the possibility of vague future threats, particularly if the guessing is based on a packet of lies from supremely unreliable Israeli intelligence sources. It is against international law to do so, and highly imprudent, as Americans are finding out.
The NIE on Iran is entirely political, and constitutes a statement by the Old American Establishment that it is not going to be tricked or cajoled into fighting another War for the Jews unless there is a compelling argument that such a war is in the real national interests of the United States. There is no conceivable scenario in the foreseeable future that a war against Iran could possibly be in the American national interest. As I’ve been saying all along, it is not going to happen, and the Old American Establishment, angered by the Zionist meddling to ruin the Annapolis conference, threw down the gauntlet to the Jewish Billionaires and their employees. Decades of Jewish wealth accumulation still can’t match centuries of Old American Establishment wealth accumulation, and the Old American Establishment still controls the American military (non-Jewish as American Jews wisely don’t choose to die for the gentiles), the American intelligence agencies (non-Jewish due to a history of anti-Semitism, coupled with very real – and growing more real – concerns about dual loyalties), and most of the American bureaucracy in the State and Treasury Departments. The Old American Establishment is making itself clear, and indicating that it is fully engaged on the issue. No more Wars for the Jews! Despite some rhetorical flourishes, the Bush Administration has heard the news loud and clear (as has much of the Israeli leadership).
There are indications that the wisest of the Jewish Billionaires are heeding the message, at least from a tactical point of view. The problem for American Zionism is to arrange to leave open its chances for future covert scheming. Failure to acknowledge that a message has been delivered is just going to enrage the Old American Establishment, leading to further embellishment of the real background of the Iraq war, and discussions of the entire dual loyalty problem, something which is just starting in the media, and constitutes a threat of what is to come if the Jewish Billionaires continue to press the issue of tricking the United States into attacking Iran. The Old American Establishment is telling the Jewish Billionaires, in no uncertain terms, to quote AC/DC, “Now you're messing with a son-of-a-bitch”. It would be prudent for the Jewish Billionaires to act as if they received the message.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
International war criminal Henry the K, who is Jewish, has always managed to deflect accusations of being a covert ‘dual loyalist’ Zionist, despite the fact that his advice always seemed to follow the dictates of the Israeli right-wingers, all on the basis of his reputation as the ultimate foreign policy ‘realist’. Since he was such a bastard of an America-firster, it was always assumed that evidence which pointed to his favoring certain Israeli interests was just a coincidence reflecting the Chomskean idea – now known to be largely false, and manufactured to cover secret support for Zionism – that American support for Israel was entirely based on the fact that such support mirrored the interests of the American Establishment. Not only was Kissinger responsible for the ‘special relationship’ which led directly to billions of dollars of military aid to Israel over the years, but he actually delayed telling Nixon about the Yom Kippur war so he could secretly put the U. S. on a full war footing to be prepared to fight for Israel (he no doubt feared that the ‘anti-Semite’ Nixon would nix the idea). Philip Giraldi summarizes what amounts to a treason case against Kissinger:
“In 1972, Kissinger and Nixon ceded to Israel a veto over any peace proposals that Washington might be considering in dealing with the Arab states, basically accepting the principle that Tel Aviv would call all the shots in the region without regard to American interests. In October 1973, the same duo airlifted military supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War to the tune of $2.2 billion in impromptu aid, leading to the Arab oil embargo and its catastrophic impact on the U.S. economy, which amounted to nearly $50 billion in 1974 alone (equivalent to $140 billion in 2000 dollars).
In late October 1973 Kissinger was sent to Moscow to negotiate with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev to pursue a comprehensive peace process for the Middle East, but he ignored Nixon's instructions and pressed instead for a cease-fire that left Israel dominant and destroyed any chance for a multilateral peace effort. According to Mearsheimer and Walt, ‘The American-compiled minutes of the three meetings that Kissinger attended with Brezhnev unequivocally show that he accurately and repeatedly represented Israeli interests to Moscow, almost totally contrary to Nixon's preferences.’ When the UN Security Council subsequently passed a cease-fire resolution, Kissinger allowed the Israelis to ignore it for 12 hours so they could consolidate their gains.
In 1975, while secretary of state, Kissinger signed a memorandum of understanding that pledged the U.S. to provide for Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis and to finance and stock a strategic reserve. He also agreed that Washington would not ‘recognize or negotiate with’ the PLO as long as the group refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. This made it impossible to talk to the only group that represented the aspirations of most Palestinians, a dialogue that the Israelis wished to derail but which would have served America's interests. Kissinger's last year as secretary of state also saw Israel's aid from the U.S. skyrocket from $1.9 billion in 1975 to $6.29 billion for 1976.”
You can thus blame Kissinger for the American oil guarantee to Israel, the continuing failure of negotiations with the Palestinians, the Arab oil embargo, the massive American monetary support to the Zionist Empire, and the beginnings of the United States fighting the Wars for the Jews.
Now, with his ridiculous dismissal of the NIE on Iran, he finally admits his true colors. Just as Noam’s political philosophy now appears to be a carefully constructed ruse to hide underlying advocacy for Zionism, Henry the K’s Realpolitik has suddenly been shown to be a cover for his real interests, the promotion of a Zionist Empire in the Middle East (and note that his connecting an attack on Iran to oil – not to mention Greenspan’s connection of the attack on Iraq to oil – is intentionally misleading in the usual Zionist way of hiding Zionist interests behind American interests). It is curious that Chomsky was forced to reveal himself by denying the importance of the Lobby, and Henry the K had to come out as a Zionist because of the inconvenience of the NIE for ultra-right-wing Zionist interests. In both cases, the siren lure of a Zionist Empire was so strong that it led directly to the destruction of a lifetime’s reputation. All the books on Henry the K now need to be rewritten to reflect who he is really working for.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
It has taken a long while, but the actions of the Jewish Billioniares and their employees are starting to be connected with the Wars for the Jews:
- Maureen Dowd on Feith and Wolfowitz, expressly connecting the ScareJew to the lying Zionist intelligence which led directly to the attack on Iran (my emphasis in red):
"Feith’s disdain for diplomacy and his credo that weakness invites aggression were shaped, Ricks reported, by personal history: ‘Like Wolfowitz, Feith came from a family devastated by the Holocaust. His father lost both parents, three brothers, and four sisters to the Nazis.’
Feith told Jeffrey Goldberg in The New Yorker that “My family got wiped out by Hitler, and ... all this stuff about working things out – well, talking to Hitler to resolve the problem didn’t make any sense to me. The kind of people who put bumper stickers on their car that declare that ‘War is not the answer,’ are they making a serious comment? What’s the answer to Pearl Harbor? What’s the answer to the Holocaust?’
What’s the answer to bin Laden? According to Feith, it was an attack on an unrelated dictator. He oversaw the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, whose mission was to amp up links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
It defies reason, but there are still some who think the chuckleheads who orchestrated the Iraq misadventure have wisdom to impart.
The Pentagon neocons dumped Condi Rice out of the loop. Yet, according to Newsweek’s Mike Isikoff, Condi has now offered Wolfie a job. It wasn’t enough that he trashed Iraq and the World Bank. (He’s still larking around town with Shaha, the sweetheart he gave the sweetheart deal to.)
Condi wants Wolfie to advise her on nuclear proliferation and W.M.D. as part of a State Department panel that has access to highly classified intelligence.
Once you’ve helped distort W.M.D. intelligence to trick the country into war, shouldn’t you be banned for life from ever having another top-level government post concerning W.M.D.?"
- Gary Hart as much as calls Alan Dershowitz a 'dual loyalist' for Dershie's inane comments on the NIE on Iran. Hart isn’t quite brave enough to take it all the way. He raises the issue, and then dismisses it for no good reason, leaving the motives of Dershowitz – a guy who has just made a big point of crossing a picket line protesting the illegal Israeli settlements – a complete mystery
- In Britain, a one-issue guy named David Abrahams has claimed that he gave donations to the Labour party in secret as he did not want “Jewish money and the Labour Party being put together." He is now saying he was misquoted, although the original source for the story stands by it! In other words, he is now conspiring to hide the fact that he conspired to hide a Jewish conspiracy to influence the Labour Party to engage in a conspiracy to fight Wars for the Jews.
Anshel Pfeffer writes (in Ha’aretz), in a comment which is eventually unconvincingly dismissive of the conspiracy theories:
“And although I am of course reluctant to spur on ‘Elders of Zion’ conspiracy theory enthusiasts, we should nonetheless be asking ourselves why there always seem to be Jews around when politics and funny money meet. And the standard excuse, that there are ‘rotten apples in every barrel,’ just won't do, as the involvement of Jews in these cases is hugely disproportionate to their percentage of the population.”
Finally, a comment from Andrew Winkler, completely out of the mainstream but getting closer with each passing day:
“But why, I'm sometimes asked, do I attack all Jews if I honestly only hate those Jews who do evil. Well, it’s only their skinner-box like reaction that makes them feel that way. If Jews weren’t conditioned – through over 1900 years of Talmudian indoctrination and the horror stories of the Holocult – to blindly jump to the defence of any fellow Jew – no matter how bad their sins – there would be far less reason to suspect that those evil actions had anything to do with their Jewish background. The recent debate on the illegal party donations in Britain is a good example. How do the Jewish media react to those reports? Instead of criticising the donations as criminal acts and blaming the donors for giving Jews a bad name, the majority of Jewish media criticise the reports as being motivated by and causal to more anti-Semitism.”
You may perhaps note that the mainstreaming of truth connects directly to perceptions of power. The American Establishment made a huge power play in releasing the NIE on Iran, and the predictable neocon reactions to it, reactions which were once treated as gospel truth, are suddenly being treated with disdain. Power is shifting away from the Jewish Billionaires, and the old slurs are no longer working. I’ve been saying for a long time that the wider Jewish community had to get in front of this thing, but it may now be too late.
We're still waiting for the levee to break, but you have to admit that the water is getting awfully high.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
For some reason, there are an enormous number of unflattering pictures of Hillary Clinton, and somebody has assembled a gallery (these are the legitimate ones: the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ has photoshopped a lot more). Needless to say, this is my favorite. Apropos of nothing, and via the Angry Arab News Service, here is an article on the sausage-making involved in celebrity academic research:
“Dershowitz generally employs one or two full-time researchers, three or four part-timers, and a handful of students who do occasional work – all paid at $11.50 per hour. (Since Dershowitz doesn’t get enough in the $7,500/year research budget the law school accords him, he often has to pay that hourly rate out of his own pocket.) Several students who have worked with him describe his hiring practices as almost arbitrary – barely looking at résumés, hiring anyone who asks him for a job, sometimes having his wife interview applicants, and often forgetting those who’ve worked with him in the past. One long-serving researcher was a local high-school student.
Several of his researchers say that Dershowitz doesn’t subscribe to the scholarly convention of researching first, then drawing conclusions. Instead, as a lawyer might, he writes his conclusions, leaving spaces where he’d like sources or case law to back up a thesis. On several occasions where the research has suggested opposite conclusions, his students say, he has asked them to go back and look for other cases, or simply to omit the discrepant information. ‘That’s the way it’s done; a piecemeal, ass-backwards way,’ says one student who has firsthand experience with the writing habits of Dershowitz and other tenured colleagues. ‘They write first, make assertions, and farm out [the work] to research assistants to vet it. They do very little of the research themselves.’
When one student couldn’t find a desired source for an HLS professor’s project, a Harvard research librarian commented, ‘Isn’t that the opposite of how you’re supposed to do it?’”
This probably explains the “Case for Israel’ debacle. Dershowitz listed the ideas that had to be supported for his book, but since the case for Israel is completely untenable, and there was no other support for it, Natalie Portman was reduced to retyping the universally derided Peters book, leading to all the controversy which did so much to destroy the reputation of Dershowitz.
Angry Arab commentator ‘v’ is right on the money:
“No one is saying that Dershowitz did not earn his seat in his field. On the contrary, like most predatory defense attorneys he has sought out the rich to grind his bones to make his bread. However, when he brings the same methodologies into the realm of history and political verities, he is a fish out of water, and makes a fool out of himself.”
Defense lawyers can’t win if they go into a case with the idea that their obviously guilty client is guilty. They have to assume a counterfactual, and work backwards to an acquittal. This only works because of the concept of reasonable doubt. When you attempt to apply the same methods to the real world outside the courtroom, you end up with a disaster like Dershowitz.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Speaking of the assassination, there’s a new six-part (of which three have aired) Canadian television series called ‘Across the River to Motor City’ which is based on fictional repercussions from the Kennedy assassination. The place is Windsor, Ontario, and, across the river, Detroit. The time flashes between fairly recently and the months just after the Kennedy assassination.
The story involves an old man who is losing his faculties and moves in with his semi-estranged daughter. Forty-some years earlier, on the day of the Kennedy assassination, his girlfriend/almost-fiancee, a Detroit airline stewardess, was returning from a flight from Dallas. Then she disappeared along with one of the pilots, the other pilot committed ‘suicide’, and a woman who was supposed to be the other stewardess on the flight (but was replaced at the last moment) was run down in a car ‘accident’. We see that it is the mob who killed them, and did so on behalf of the only person on the flight in the first-class section, a young Cuban (a further twist is that the young Cuban appears to have become an old Cuban ambassador, who is about to enter into business with the semi-estranged daughter!). The old man was an insurance investigator, and he set out, along with his assistant, a black woman from Windsor (there is a lot of typical Canadian fun at the expense of American racism), and his friend, a stand-up comedian, to unravel the mystery. As his business partner was involved in a racist mob-run fire-insurance scheme, he starts to unravel the mob connections. The story is told as flash-backs by the old man, as the issue has come back to life with the discovery of the bodies of one of the pilots and his girlfriend in the river, and the police are treating him as a suspect. It will be interesting to see how they explain the Kennedy assassination, as the mysterious Cuban must have had a lot to do with it.
I should write about the much more famous and lauded Canadian conspiracy-themed series, ‘Intelligence’, which about to be made as a pilot for American television (by Fox!), the reception of which will be a good test of how open Americans are to a very cynical view of intelligence and police agencies.
Somewhat miraculously, Morley won (found here, with link to the judgment) his appeal of a lower court sanction of a CIA end-run around a Freedom of Information Act request with respect to the CIA’s records on George Joannides (Morley writes about the case here, good general summary of the case here, and a long Morley article on Joannides and the newer scientific evidence on the assassination here). The Court found that the CIA technically complied with the Freedom of Information Act, but ignored the JFK Act (which was ironically enacted because the FOIA was inadequate to force documents out of the CIA!). The CIA has been attempting to weasel out of its JFK Act disclosure obligations, and, at least temporarily, until the appeal, has been put in its place. The CIA’s intransigence is telling in the light of all the publicity given to the recent voluntary disclosure by the CIA of its ‘family jewels’. When it comes to material of real interest, the CIA is much less generous with information.
The records on Joannides are a live issue as Posada Carriles is still a political problem in the United States. It is likely that Joannides handled both Posada Carriles and Bosch (Joannides’ CIA job was to destabilize Cuba – something the CIA is still at work on – and Posada Carriles was deeply involved in destabilizing Cuba), and the information the CIA is trying to hide is probably still embarrassing. Of course, the records may be doubly embarrassing depending on the involvement of Joannides in the Kennedy assassination.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
The new Zionist meme is that all 16 (!) of the American intelligence agencies that burst the Zionist war bubble by putting an end to all the ‘Iran talk’ are part of an anti-Semitic plot to attack the Jewish people through protecting the enemies of Zionism. Following up on Podhoretz’s ‘darker suspicions’ theory (‘darker’ is the code word to mean that it is actually a theory about anti-Semitism, but I note with amusement that it is not possible to point that out in polite society, and all discussions of Podhoretz claim he was just making the baffling theory that it was an intelligence agency attack on Bush), Gerald Posner is resurrecting his old Zionist propaganda that the CIA had, and is repressing, absolute proof that the Saudis and Pakistanis were behind September 11. It is not a coincidence that this theory is brought up at this time.
There is a lite Zionist theory circling that the leaking of the NIE was a Bush Administration plot to prove how powerful Bush Administration diplomacy has been in dissuading the Iranians from their nuclear program. This theory is obvious nonsense, disproved immediately by the disarray of Bush Administration officials in dealing with it (Cheney was completely surprised at the release of the NIE, although, of course, he was aware of its content, and had lied about Iran throughout), the complete shock from Israel (this story about Gates and Barak looks like Zionist mythologizing in order to minimize the rift, proven by the fact that Israel in fact was not ready for the NIE release) and the agents of World Jewry (who would have been informed if it was a Bush Administration move), the lack of foreknowledge in the American media (Blitzer’s Zionist operatives at CNN had to do a last-minute cancellation of their smear-job on Iran), and the utter horror and sputtering from the neocons (note Ledeen in particular: no women were involved in the NIE!). Even more conclusive proof is that the NIE not only destroyed the prospect of war on Iran, it completely undermined the entire stated basis of the Bush Administration for the placing of American missile sites in Eastern Europe.
I don’t buy the ‘scientific’ anti-Semitic theories that much of world history consists of a surreptitious war of the Jews against the Gentiles. However, there is simply too much evidence to ignore that current American politics does actually involve a war between the Jewish Establishment and the Old American Establishment (note that doctrinaire Noamian lite Zionism holds that no such war is possible, as the Old American Establishment runs everything). Annapolis was the last straw (can’t you just hear James Baker saying ‘Fucking Jews’?!). The NIE, which only weeks before was never going to be released, according to Mike McConnell, suddenly appears, and at a time when a coherent Zionist counterattack was difficult because of the Jewish Holidays (candle lighting interfered with propaganda!). Since everything is supposed to be about control of oil, which is achieved, according to lite Zionism, by attacks just like the one on Iraq, isn’t it odd that the intelligence agencies (all 16 of them!) of the American Establishment decided to throw a wrench in the works of such a war?
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Naqniq has been suspended by WordPress for the mysterious “violation of our Terms of Service”. Since all it did was accumulate material from other sources, almost entirely ‘mainstream’, and allow the cumulative effect of the facts to damn Zionism and its apologists, the only conceivable problem, besides some inflammatory titles, is that it was becoming too successful in its mission. It would be nice if some WordPress bloggers decided to ‘suspend’ WordPress for this egregious breach of the basic ethos of the internet.
From a letter signed by over eighty American evangelist Christian leaders:
“As evangelical Christians, we believe our faith compels us to speak a word together at this crucial moment.
The Bible clearly teaches that God longs for justice and peace for all people. We believe that the principles about justice taught so powerfully by the Hebrew prophets apply to all nations, including the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. Therefore we are compelled to work for a fair, negotiated solution for both Israelis and Palestinians. We resolve to work diligently for a secure, enduring peace and a flourishing economy for the democratic State of Israel. We also resolve to work for a viable permanent, democratic Palestinian State with a flourishing economy that offers economic opportunity to all its people. We believe that the way forward is for the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a fair, two-state solution.”
Of course, you won’t find the names of any of the bought-and-paid-for televangelist crooks on the list of signatories.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Remember all the hullabaloo about the Dubai ports deal? Almost without notice, Arabs have now obtained effective control of America’s largest bank, Citigroup (the new investment means that Abu Dhabi Investment Authority can obtain 4.9%, the largest single stake in the bank, and Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal already has 3.9%). This is described as an investment, but is actually a bailout, with the incredibly favorable terms to the investor reflecting the fact that the United States government couldn’t afford to let Citigroup fall into insolvency. It is structured as a semi-loan – with an enormous rate of interest, reflecting the ‘junk bond’ status of the largest American bank – that can be converted into equity at a price fixed at only slightly higher than its recent record low (the structuring of the deal appears to be a marvel of legal mumbo-jumbo engineered to avoid being either a loan or equity, either of which would screw up key financial ratios). We’re not hearing complaints about it as the United States is so weak it can’t afford to turn down a bailout.
The Zionist – oh, I mean Jewish! – aspects are interesting. The deal was arranged by Robert Rubin (amongst many other things co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose most recent mini-scandal involved Enron), with the messy politics handled by Charles Schumer (who railed against the Dubai ports deal, which seems positively benign in comparison). Citigroup’s ability to participate in the so-called ‘subprime crisis’ through its involvement in financial derivatives is as a result of the resistance to financial deregulation championed by . . . Robert Rubin (and Alan Greenspan), who was rewarded with big bucks by Citigroup itself, and now is earning those bucks by setting up the bailout! Isn’t it wonderful how the Arabs and Jews can live in peace and harmony when huge sums of money are involved?
From an article on whether the results of the referendum were ‘good for the Jews’ of Venezuela (more free advice for the Jewish community: casting every possible issue in the world as being either ‘good for the Jews’ or not is not ‘good for the Jews’):
“Last year, Chavez himself indirectly accused the Jews of killing Jesus Christ. Although he didn’t explicitly mention the word ‘Jew,’ his remarks left little doubt among Venezuela’s Jews that their president is an unabashed anti-Semite.”
This example of the slur is an easily provable lie (a lie from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles no less, famous for the Iranian sumptuary law lie), and a slur which the Venezuelan Jewish community itself rejected.
I’ve been complaining about the absurd over-use of the slur, but I’m beginning to see the bright side. Were it not for the slur, the tendency would be to pull punches and mislead. For example, when you really meant ‘Jewish’, you might write ‘Zionist’, as that sounds a little less harsh. Since you will be slurred anyway whenever you come close to the truth, you might as well state the truth unabashedly. The slurrers are in fact encouraging truthfulness.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
“But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. As the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding. How better, then, to stop Bush in his tracks than by telling him and the world that such pressures have already been effective and that keeping them up could well bring about ‘a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program’ – especially if the negotiations and sanctions were combined with a goodly dose of appeasement or, in the NIE’s own euphemistic formulation, ‘with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.’”
In other words, the American intelligence community has collectively conspired to allow Iran to have nuclear bombs, obviously with the long-term goal of annihilating all the Jews in Israel. Remember that this loon is the guy who is giving Rudy advice on American foreign policy!
Wonderful piece by Eric Walberg on the misuse of Biblical archaeology (my emphasis throughout in red):
“. . . it is now clear to the most respected Christian, Jewish, Muslim and/or secular archaeologists that this supposedly scholarly, rigorous and objective discipline, with its methodology of taking biblical passages and digging and poking away in likely places, looking for proof of what they say, has been a big failure, if not a hoax. While the financial benefits of tying the Bible to archaeology have increased, historical and intellectual benefits have just as rapidly diminished.
Two egregious flaws lie behind this. Firstly, it is somehow overlooked that both the Old and New Testaments were first written down only in the fourth c BC (mostly from the third c BC) to the first c AD by Hellenised Jews, i.e., over a relatively short historical period of approximately four centuries, the culmination of Hellenism as it flourished in the Middle East up to and including its manifestation under the Roman empire. The references to ‘old Israel’ of the distant past are directed at the enlightenment of people living at that time, and have much more to do with events at that time than some distant, mythical history which was never recorded in stone, so to speak, but was rather passed down from generation to generation much like other peoples have passed down the legends of their origins – orally, embellished by talented composers and poets. Furthermore, the OT and NT are closely integrated in structure, themes, and underlying philosophy, and to reject one part as heretical (as the Jews do the NT) or another part as a mere harmless introduction to the real text (as do the Christians concerning the OT) is not only unprofessional, but foolish and even subversive.
Secondly, the worldview of those recording the Biblical legends, stories, poems, philosophical essays, etc differs radically from ours. It was a product of Hellenism, where true reality is a Platonic ideal, recognising the ineffable quality of life, our overwhelming ignorance, and the fractured, shadowy nature of daily life as experienced by our senses. Our Aristotelian, materialist outlook, sees reality in hard, cold facts which we directly perceive and duly record, where the only truths are what can be physically demonstrated and/or refuted. This is quite alien to the mindset of the Biblical composers, writers and scribes. Taking the Bible literally, as a materialist recounting of ‘history’ is a classic example of misplaced concreteness. To its credit, there is no word for history in ancient Hebrew, reflecting its origins in the pre-Aristotelian worldview.
To go a step further and assume that this bogus history is the ‘real’ history of mankind, with the history of the thousands of other peoples taking a back seat, is just not on. The reality of the Bible is transcendent, universal, traditional, intuitive and emotional. To profit from it, we must rediscover this worldview, where myth is the ‘reality’ and very essence of our lives, and the dunya is a lame, pale version of the sacred myths guiding us. Karen Armstrong, who has written widely on the monotheisms and the loss of myth as a vital part of our worldview, argues in The Bible: a biography (2007) that fundamentalist religion, be it Islamic, Christian or Jewish, is a response to and product of modern materialist culture, which undermines the role of myth as a vital element in the social matrix. Myth is reduced to its literal meaning, i.e., Jerusalem is a physical location at a fixed point in time, not a metaphor for the City of God, transcending the limitations of the physical world.”
“Never was there an ethnically coherent Israel, and according to Thomson, neither Jerusalem nor Judah ever shared an identity with Israel before the rule of the Hasmoneans in the Hellenistic period of the 3rd-1st cc BC, coincidentally, when the legends were first written down. Ironically, the Samaritans, scorned by Ezra's (and today's) Jews, are the most likely Semitic ancestors of the historical Israel.”
and (“colonising a metaphor”!):
“It is impossible in the confines of an article to trace the transformation of post-Christian Talmudic Judaism, which is very different than pre-Christian variant. Though Jews continued to live in Palestine, Diaspora became its defining feature along with the ritual prayer to ‘return’, though post-Christian Jews have no more right to immigrate and live there than anyone else. Christians also continued to live there happily until the Catholic pope decided they must be liberated in the 10th-12th cc and raised a European army to invade Palestine not once but four times. But after that fiasco, Christians learned their lesson and have left Palestine in relative peace, satisfying their spiritual urges by living quietly as monks in desolate caves, making pilgrimages, and collecting souvenir bones and bits of wood which they cherished as holy relics – again guilty of misplaced concreteness, but usually harmlessly so. This blessed peaceful period in Palestine only changed with the ascendancy of the Jews in the 19th c, who all this time had been nurturing their tribal Yahweh and their dream of concretising the metaphorical promises he supposedly made millennia ago, a misplaced concreteness far from harmless, as they set about invading and colonising a metaphor.
With the eclipse of the Socratic worldview and of myth as central to society, and the ascendancy of Judaism after the reformation, the myth of ‘returning to the promised land’ took on a new concrete meaning. The actual prospect by a wealthy cosmopolitican Jewish elite of engineering a physical takeover of Palestine and populating it with Jews became an Aristotelian reality. Today, with Rome (the Catholic Church) now in disarray, a rebuilt Third Temple could become the chief shrine, not only for Jews but for Christians too, the icing on the Zionist victory cake, confirming irrevocably the cultural shift in the Western world as a whole from Hellenism to Hebraism, as argued by SGF Brandon in The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (1951). Pope John Paul II reconciled the Church with Judaism and Israel, and Christian Zionists welcome the Jewish colonisation of Palestine .
The Zionists reconvened the ancient Jewish supreme court, the Sanhedrin (which condemned Jesus), in 2005 for the first time since 425 AD, and have been plotting virtually since the creation of Israel to blow up the Al-Aqsa Mosque and rebuild a replica of Solomon's temple there. Just recently, Israeli archaeologists ‘found’ remains of a temple under the mosque, yet another astounding victory for this bogus science. Reconstruction plans are in place for the mythical and no doubt magnificent temple of Solomon, a temple that never existed except in the imaginations of dreamy-eyed Jewish scribes in third c BC Alexandria. Truly a breathtaking prospect, however mad. But nonetheless the logical culmination of the Zionist project, eagerly fuelled by the official Israeli archaeological establishment.”
“Then there's the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which sets out just such a programme in albeit an overtly grotesque form and is solemnly disowned by Zionists as a forgery, though a forgery of what is never made clear.”
I’ve been thinking about the Protocols, universally described as a Tzarist forgery. This is based on the fact that they are described in a previous French novel, from which the Tzarist agents are said to have stolen the idea. But what if the French novel was just repeating an earlier, accurate, source? More Walberg (who reminds me of a very subtle ‘scientific’ anti-Semite, which is not to say that he is in the least bit wrong):
“What is behind the Bible is not simply a record of historical facts or of even doctrines, but ultimately, the presence of God. There is much self-reference of symbols within the Bible for which the only ‘proof’ that, say, the gospel story is true is that it fulfils the prophecies of the OT, and the only ‘proof’ that the prophecies of the OT are true is that they are fulfilled by the gospel. This has absolutely nothing to do with digging up shards to establish some self-referential ‘event’ in one of the Bible's many tales. There is no temple out there (or under there, where ‘there’ happens to be the very real Al-Aqsa Mosque). The real temple exists in one's heart, though it is very unlikely that one can find it in the scheming Zionist's inflamed and secular heart. And by murdering and tormenting peaceful natives in order to scrounge some bits of a previous building and call it God's temple is unspeakable in its evil. The Naturei Karta heart has the temple in it, but for such a Jew, physical Israel itself is an abomination, and should be dismantled forthwith, or to borrow a particularly colourful metaphor of recent vintage, wiped off the map.”
If we start to see much more analysis like this, the Jewish Billionaires will have their work cut out.
The Jews pulled yet another fast one in Annapolis, getting their Christian friends to lean on Bush and sink the chances for peace in the Middle East, and a lot of important people are angry, not to mention embarrassed. National Intelligence Estimates are treated as very secret, but immediately after the Annapolis debacle the one on Iran is released, taking all the wind out of the ‘Iran talk’. The adults in Washington have finally had enough. Do you think it is a coincidence that the Jewish Billionaires get whacked upside the head with this NIE release right after they embarrass the Old American Establishment at Annapolis?