Wednesday, December 29, 2004

The worst year in American history

Was 2004 the worst year in the history of the United States? Unlikely. All the years of slavery go into the Worst Year Hall of Fame, and there were some pretty bad years during the Civil War.

What about the worst year in the last 100? 1963 and 1968 were bad, as were all the late years of the Vietnam War. The difference was that there was hope in all those years, and at least the illusion that, despite everything, the United States was still a democracy with a government that believed that public policy could improve the lives of its citizens. The year 2004 saw the second crooked Presidential election in a row, with the degree - tens of thousands of recorded incidents - and systematic nature - by computers which intentionally lack evidence which could be used to judge the fairness of the voting - of the fraud unprecedented in American, and probably world, history. But that's not the worst part. The worst part is that it has become fashionable, even amongst those who call themselves liberals, not to complain, and even to belittle those people who are concerned by calling them conspiracy theorists. If it wasn't for the yeoman work of John Conyers, this whole sordid incident would have been swept under the rug (I wonder if there is a racial aspect to the attitude of white liberals). The Republicans are now so expert in perpetrating this kind of massive fraud, and there is so little opposition to it, that it is probably fair to say that democracy in the United States has been permanently destroyed in the year 2004.

Oh, and what about the war? In the late years of the Vietnam War, if you can believe it, there were actually large protests against the war. That sort of thing is unimaginable now, as progressives appear to have completely given up (or maybe there are no more progressives in the United States). The utter hopelessness of opposition may turn out to be the main reason that 2004 is a real stinker. When you think of the hundred thousand or so dead Iraqis, the hundreds of billions of dollars gone down the drain, the permanent destruction of the image of the United States in the world, the thousands of dead or effectively dead American soldiers, and the fact that this sort of thing is going to go on and on and on, getting ever worse, for years and years and years, hopelessness may be the only sane approach. I almost forgot . . . Iraq is just the first war. By 'electing' Bush in 2004, the American people, in their wisdom, chose wars against Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba, and probably a few others that have slipped my mind. If you think Iraq was easy, just wait for Iran, much, much more heavily armed with more modern weapons, with about three times the population of Iraq. That's going to be fun.

Guantanamo Bay? Abu Ghraib? All the domestic errors of the Bush Administration? The fact that the United States is now officially run by religious fruitcakes? Continuing assaults on the environment (which nobody seems to notice)? The ongoing process of ensuring that every American judge is a neanderthal? The lack of any opposition to any of this? The fact that Americans seem to accept and even approve of an immoral war? The fact that many of them think Bush is a good man? You don't even want to think about the economy, and the amazing size and rate of growth of the two deficits. The only thing that 2004 has going for it is that Bush now has four more years to create another worst year in the last hundred. The draft of poor people to fight Bush's wars, the destruction of social security, and the complete rejigging of the tax system to impoverish the vast majority of the population to benefit a few of Bush's friends will probably make 2004 look good in comparison, although the seeds of all future destruction were planted in 2004. The reign of 2004 as the worst year in the last hundred years of American history is likely to be short.

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

Rummy's latest gaffe

There has been quite a lot made of Donald Rumsfeld's latest 'gaffe', where he appeared to say that Flight 93 had been shot down:

"And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten - indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.

Whether Flight 93 was shot down or crashed for some other reason remains one of the great mysteries of September 11. It is particularly odd, if Flight 93 was shot down by the U. S. military, that the Bush Administration is so shy to admit it. Given what had already happened on September 11, no one could criticize the Administration for shooting down Flight 93 and saving the lives of whoever was in the terrorists' target building, particularly as the passengers on the plane were all going to die anyway. On the other hand, leaving the issue vague has allowed Bush and Cheney to allow their supporters to assume that they did order the shooting while avoiding the obvious questions about why they did not have the other planes shot down. Rumsfeld, who at one point said that a 'missile' hit the Pentagon, may have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag. Or, since he is under pressure to resign, is this 'slip' a message that he knows too much for anyone to force him out? There is something perhaps more interesting in what he said. I can parse it like this:

". . . if we imagine the kind of world we would face if

  • the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or

  • the people who did the bombing in Spain, or

  • the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon,

  • the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten

  • . . . ."

These are obviously all different groups of people, although he may be suggesting that they are all Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. The problem with that is that the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists could not have shot down the plane over Pennsylvania. The way Rumsfeld's sentence is constructed - and perhaps I'm reading too much into it - is that "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon" are one distinct group, just as the other 'people' he discusses are distinct groups doing different bad things. Since we know it must have been the Pentagon that shot down Flight 93, is Rumsfeld saying that the Pentagon "attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon"? He goes on to say that the purpose of terrorism "is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be." Did the Pentagon stage 9-11 to alter the behavior of the people of the United States? If that was the intention, it certainly worked.

Monday, December 27, 2004

American electoral expertise

Yushchenko has already declared his victory, being ahead according to American-run exit polls, involving big-time Republican vote-spinner Frank Luntz (it was important to bring out the big guns), by no less than fifteen percent. A landslide in an election that was too close to call. The Americans really lay it on thick, don't they? The Ukraine, like Ohio and Florida, is another victim of American electoral expertise.

Sunday, December 26, 2004

The progressive choice in the Ukraine

I used to think that Stephen Zunes was one of the very best progressive writers in the United States, but this article on the Ukraine has completely changed my mind. Zunes argues that progressives must support Yushchenko, and makes a number of arguments to support this proposition, none of which make any sense. He weakly concludes:

" . . . although Yushchenko may not be particularly progressive politically or capable of completely cleaning up the system, his election is currently the best hope for establishing a more open and accountable government."

I don't know what difference it makes for progressives to support either candidate in this election, but it is completely clear that the choice of the Ukrainians is between tweedledum and tweedledee. One candidate is supported by one group of corrupt oligarchs and by the Russians, and the other is supported by another group of corrupt oligarchs and by American and European interests that want to steal whatever assets aren't nailed down in the Ukrainian economy. Some choice. The fact that Ukrainians in one part of the country may honestly be deceived into thinking that tweedledum is an improvement is no reason for progressives to make the same mistake. Zunes actually seems to think it is a good thing that his candidate is supported by George Soros, a man who has made his billions, and caused enormous suffering, through his speculating in world currencies. He also writes that American support for Yushchenko "has flowed primarily through reputable nongovernmental organizations". Could he possibly be suggesting that the National Endowment for Democracy is 'reputable'? The same organization that was set up by the U. S. government in the early 1980's - a time when it wasn't politically safe to use the CIA to meddle in the affairs of other countries - as a front to subvert democracy around the world (most recently in notoriously antidemocratic actions in Venezuela and Haiti)? As I've said before, the current fad of the Powers That Be is to subvert democracy by running opposing candidates who represent exactly the same interests. It is almost as if two guys, let's call them GWB and JFK, from the same university secret society ran against each other in an election, GWB engaged in massive and systematic vote fraud and voter suppression, and JFK immediately conceded the election to GWB before he could possibly know whether he had actually lost or not. Crazy, eh? Zunes is also a supporter of concession, when it should be clear to everyone that JFK would have won Ohio had all the votes been counted (just as Al Gore would have won Florida had all those votes been counted). Just what kind of 'progressive' is Stephen Zunes anyway? Sadly, there is no good progressive choice in the current Ukrainian election.

Friday, December 24, 2004

Christian political cultists in Norway

Remember that wonderful article by Jeffrey Sharlet on creepy Christian cult group 'The Family' (aka 'The Fellowship') and its connections to American and world politicians (referred to by me here and here and here)? It turns out that the same cult also has connections to politicians in, of all places, Norway (perhaps not so big a surprise as the cult was founded by a Norwegian, Abraham Vereide). Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik, as well as the head of his Christian Democrat Party, Dagfinn Høybraten, and Norway's ambassador to the U. S., Knut Vollebæk, are all participants in The Fellowship (see also here). The Prime Minister, during an official visit to the United States, actually had a secret meeting with John Ashcroft at the cult's headquarters in December 2001 (I wonder if they sang hymns to each other?). These revelations have caused some consternation amongst Norwegians, who are perhaps a little surprised that they are being led by members of a cult. It's as if Charlie Manson was Governor of California (on second thought, that might be an improvement).

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

The Yushchenko dioxin timing issue

The Yushchenko dioxin timing issue (or here; my emphasis):

"One senior law enforcement official said that after doctors found dioxin in Yushchenko's blood, the candidate met informally Thursday with a newly assigned prosecutor and pledged to cooperate, but only after the election on Dec. 26.

Without the cooperation, the case has taken the form of theories, and for the news media the most popular has been the dinner at the dacha. But as details and a greater understanding emerge, this version remains open to question.

First, Smeshko said, Yushchenko was ill and in pain before the meeting, and had postponed the dacha visit a day because of exhaustion and a backache. Zhvaniya confirmed this, but said Yushchenko has a history of back troubles, and his pain the previous night might not have been related to poison.

A second, more intriguing, complication is that toxicologists say that after a person is contaminated with dioxins, it typically takes three days to two weeks before symptoms appear. Yushchenko was racked with pain hours after the dacha dinner, which understandably cast initial suspicion on the meal.

But the theory was weakened this month when doctors in Vienna announced that the poison was dioxin; his would be the only known case of a dioxin acting so fast.

Dr. Arnold Schecter, a specialist in dioxin contamination at the University of Texas, said it was possible but highly unlikely that Yushchenko was poisoned on Sept. 5. 'It doesn't make sense, medically,' he said. 'I would go back 14 days before that.'"

Once you get away from poisoning at the meal with the Security Service of Ukraine, Yushchenko could have been poisoned by anybody, including members of the rather questionable group who surround him. He may not have been poisoned at all.

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Dioxin down the memory hole?

There was a story, I'm almost certain on CBS News (at this link, but the Google cache doesn't help, and other CBS News stories are not helpful), that the poisoning of Yushchenko is very suspicious as the speed that the symptoms appeared - almost immediately after the alleged poisoned meal - is not consistent with dioxin poisoning. The original story appears to have disappeared down the memory hole, perhaps more indication that what we're dealing with is not poisoning but a sophisticated American-run propaganda campaign to have the American puppet elected in the Ukraine.

Yushchenko's odd blood

From an article on Viktor Yushchenko's alleged dioxin poisoning:

"New tests reveal the level of dioxin in the blood of Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko is more than 6,000 times higher than normal, according to the expert analyzing the samples.

The concentration, about 100,000 units per gram of blood fat, is the second highest ever recorded in human history, said Abraham Brouwer, professor of environmental toxicology at the Free University in Amsterdam, where blood samples taken last weekend in Vienna were sent for analysis."

The second highest ever recorded in human history?! In human history! Sometimes they make conspiracy theory so easy. The blood sample was spiked. If he had the second highest concentration in human history months after the alleged poisoning, he would have had to have been pure dioxin on the day after the poisoning! Obvious nonsense. In their desire to make a good story, they put a little too much in. Why? To make their candidate a martyr, to put the blame on the Russians, and possibly to cover up underlying serious problems with the health of Yushchenko that would make him a bad choice to run a country.

Monday, December 20, 2004

Israel's new mack daddy

Why would Israel risk its crucial life-and-death relationship with its main protector and ally in order to transfer some American secrets and classified American technology to the Chinese? Once you ask the question, the answer becomes immediately obvious.

Every single aspect of what the Israelis do can only be understood in the light of their massive project (which I'll call the 'Project'), which may take fifty or a hundred years, to create Greater Israel in a swath across the Middle East from the Nile to the Euphrates. The coalition of Likud and Labour just clarifies that there is really no democracy in Israel, just an insane government force committed to this one goal. The hundred thousand or so dead Iraqis in the Israeli-inspired attack on Iraq are just a down payment on the millions of people who are going to have to die in the Middle East and elsewhere before Greater Israel is finished. You can't kill that many people, and cause that much disruption and destruction, without having the whole world furious with you. It is therefore imperative to have the biggest motherfucker on the block to watch your back, and the United States is that motherfucker. It would be impossible for the Israelis to treat the Palestinians the criminal way they do without the aiding and abetting of the United States, and furthering the Project would be impossible without similar help.

Problem. The United States is a giant turd circling the toilet bowl, and George Bush is flushing as fast as he can. It's funny how empires at crucial junctures in their histories sometimes find themselves with inspired leaders, and sometimes find themselves with chimps, and the United States has lucked out with a chimp. The combination of religious nuttiness, disdain for the environment, crazy class-warfare tax policy, and ruinous wars would be bad enough, but the real problem is economic, and Bush's complete disinterest in even addressing the debilitating problem of the two massive deficits, budget and trade, which are bound to become progressively worse. He has no ideas for the trade deficit, and his big ideas for the budget deficit, needless to say, involve removing what few benefits poor people now receive in return for their taxes. For all intents and purposes, the United States is bankrupt, by which I mean it will never, ever, be able to pay back what it owes the rest of the world. The only reason the rest of the world continues to fund this disaster is that it needs to keep the American economy on enough life support to maintain the value of the trillions of American dollars held outside the United States, and support the American consumer demand which keeps foreign factories running to create such massive foreign prosperity.

The American economy is just a big Ponzi scheme, with its prosperity an illusion created on its ability to borrow more and more money. Like all Ponzi schemes, this can't go on forever, and eventually the rest of the world will figure a way to get out as painlessly as possible. This will cause problems all over the world, but mostly in the United States, as the drastic decline in the value of the U. S. dollar will cause the cheap Walmart consumer goods made in China - the real opium of the masses - to become expensive consumer goods made in China. When that happens, we may get to see what revolution looks like in the surprisingly passive American poor, and those semi-secret concentration camps set up by the Office of Homeland Security may see some use.

If you're a long-range Zionist planner of the Project, you have to be alive to all these things, and be ready for the handoff of imperial power. I'm not suggesting that the United States will become powerless, but only that its economic and domestic problems will reduce it to the status of a less great power, like Britain or Russia. That much power will make the U. S. an insufficiently powerful country to provide back-up against the whole world for the Project. When the British Empire officially ended at the end of the Second World War, the Americans had Britain over a financial barrel. The British literally could no longer afford their colonial empire, and Britain handed the keys for the Middle Eastern parts of that empire over to the Americans. China will soon have the United States over the same barrel, and in return for economic concessions, will be entitled to the same prize.

The current series of American wars is just the death throes of empire, as the Americans attempt to blackmail the rest of the world into continuing to finance its profligate ways by threatening to control the entire world supply of oil. It's not going to work, as the U. S. military is simply not up to the job of winning the wars it has to win, having essentially lost both Afghanistan and Iraq. While the United States wastes money on wars, money it doesn't have, China just makes stuff, and becomes ever more wealthy.

The biggest whore in the Middle East is looking for a new pimp, and the new mack daddy is China (with India on the horizon). What better way to impress your new pimp with your loyalty than to betray the secrets of your old pimp?

Saturday, December 18, 2004

Pollard redux

Everyone expected that at some point the single-minded attention of the neocons to Israeli interests would create an insurmountable conflict with the traditional American conservatives at the core of the Republican Party, and that conflict may finally have appeared over the issue of China. Theoretically, many neocons would tell you that the main international threat to American interests is China, but that threat apparently falls by the wayside if Israel can make a buck dealing with China. Israel recently upgraded a 'sensitive weapons system' for China, no doubt using expertise given to it by the United States. Fixing weapons systems is kosher, but upgrading them is treif, and the Americans are said to be furious (or, partly, here; see heavy-duty Israeli spin here and here). It has gotten to the point where Douglas Feith actually has to pretend to be insisting on the resignation of the Israeli defense minister, Amos Yaron, which is hilarious when you consider that Feith essentially works for the Israeli defense minister (Feith and Yaron are joint chairmen of a U.S.-Israeli joint committee for planning defense policy, which makes you wonder whether there is any independent American defense policy, or whether it is all run out of Israel). The rift appears to be at a deep institutional level, with the chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, General John Jumper, cancelling a planned meeting in Israel as he refused to meet with Yaron. Coupled with the fact that rumors suggest that the AIPAC investigation may really be about AIPAC passing on classified information to China, we can see the beginnings of the inevitable rift when the treasonous neocons put Israeli interests ahead of American interests. This is all remarkably similar to the Pollard matter, where Israel dealt American secrets to an American enemy in order to obtain benefits for itself. The only reason Pollard is still in jail is that traditional American conservatives consider this kind of treason to be unforgivable, and the neocons may be headed down the same path.

Israeli spy chart

From the Home Page of J. Orlin Grabbe, the chart, I believe originally from France, depicting the Israeli spies arrested in the United States in the spring of 2001, particularly in Irving, Texas. Given the recent AIPAC investigation, and despite all efforts of the disgusting American media to stifle all discussion of it, the Israeli spy issue is not going to go away.

Friday, December 17, 2004

The abuses of 'The Holocaust'

Liat Weingart, on the political abuse by the United States of the Holocaust:

"Before 1967, it didn't fit into American strategic interests to talk about Jews or their history of oppression, particularly in the same sentence as the word 'justice.' After 1967, when Israel defeated Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, and conquered the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, Sinai and the Golan Heights, the U.S. government decided that Israel could serve as a surrogate for U.S. interests in the Middle East. 1967 was the year when the U.S. discovered Israel, and it was the year when the Holocaust was 'remembered.'
The discovery of Israel happened as selectively as the remembering of the Holocaust. The U.S. discovered Israel as a military ally, not as a country with ordinary people, and so U.S. aid to Israel reflected that. Most U.S. aid to Israel, including economic aid, has been spent for expenses related to purchasing military equipment from the U.S. In order to justify that strategic relationship in moral terms, a new history of the Holocaust was 'remembered.'
The dominant narrative of the Holocaust is that Jews were led, like sheep to the slaughter, to the gas chambers, that they alone were murdered, and that the event of their annihilation had no precedent in history and therefore, no event in the present can compare to the Holocaust. The logical moral to the story for Jews is that we are alone in the world – no one understands our suffering because no one has experienced anything similar; we can only rely on ourselves for self-defense; we will be ever-vigilant, for danger lurks around every corner. And the logical moral to the story for Americans is that Jews need a strong Israel, and because the Jews were victims of the unspeakable, it's our duty to arm Israel to the teeth."

Americans have made a fetish out of their version of the Holocaust, all in the interests of selling arms and protecting the oil supply (why do you think a Holocaust-themed movie wins a major Academy Award every year?). Of course, the flip side to the American abuse of the Holocaust is that the Zionists use the idea of 'never again' to justify the unspeakable horrors inflicted by the state terrorism of Israel on Palestinian civilians, all on the justification that the Palestinian resistance to such state terrorism represents the Palestinian desire to push the Jewish people 'into the sea' - when the Zionists are forced by their own stupidity to up camp and move to Oklahoma they will no doubt justify state terrorism against the local Indians on the basis that the Indians want to push the Jewish people 'into Texas' - and any actions, no matter how horrible, are justified by the necessity of avoiding another Holocaust. The Holocaust, which happened (the so-called 'revisionists' are the greatest friends the Zionists have as they keep the issue in everyone's consciousness, to the extent that the Zionists should erect a statue in Israel to their greatest friend, Ernst Zundel), and was very, very bad (but not uniquely bad), has been co-opted by American and Zionist propagandists to serve as the basis for the American use of Israel as its bully in the Middle East, and as the basis for the state terrorism of the Israelis against the Palestinians. We should stop talking about it until the Israelis get their moral house in order.

Neocon plans for the world

From an excellent (as usual) article by Pepe Escobar on neocon plans for the world:

"The road to Tehran starts both in Kabul and Baghdad. This requires examination of the Afghan 'model' and the Iraqi 'model'.

Afghanistan's new democracy rests on the shoulder of the world's most expensive mayor (US$1.6 billion a month and counting), Hamid Karzai, who barely controls downtown Kabul protected by 200 American bodyguards, 17,000 American troops and a North Atlantic Treaty Organization contingent. Without all this heavy metal, Karzai would never last. The country is essentially ruled by the Tajiks and Uzbeks of the former Northern Alliance - who now control most of the world's supply of heroin - powerful regional warlords and the Taliban (in the south and southeast). So much for Afghan 'democracy'.

As for the Iraqi 'model', the crucial point is that the Americans managed to turn Iraq into a replica of Palestine - the same ghastly litany of occupation, suicide bombings, streams of refugees and death and destruction. Not only was the Iraq war entirely based on neo-con lies: these lies led, among other disasters, to Iraq's infrastructure being completely destroyed and the US alienating the Muslim world. Fallujah and Baghdad are replicas of Gaza and the West Bank."

The fact that Afghanistan is an unmitigated disaster can't be stressed enough, as I note that even critics of the war on Iraq are using their approval of what happened to Afghanistan to prove that they are real manly Americans and not just commie pinko fags who hate war. I've even read that it was necessary to attack Afghanistan to eliminate bin Laden's training camps, which is funny if you read Aukai Collins' account of what a joke these camps actually were, and even funnier if you realize that all the American attack did was spread the al Qaeda fighters throughout the world. In the long run, the attack on Afghanistan, based on the completely bogus excuse of going after bin Laden, will probably be seen as a bigger mistake than the attack on Iraq. For one thing, it made the attack on Iraq, and all subsequent neocon attacks, intellectually possible. The neocons and their enablers justified the attack on Afghanistan on the need to punish bin Laden, justified the attack on Iraq on the allegations that Saddam was a bin Laden ally and was also behind 9-11, are setting up to justify the attack on Syria based on its alleged help for the Iraqi resistance, will use the same argument to justify the attack on Iran, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. To see how grim it is going to get, read Escobar's conclusion:

"With the American military in its current state, Bush and the neo-cons cannot possibly reshape the Middle East to suit the neo-con/Likud agenda. Washington is faced with two options. It could restore the draft - provoking a minor social earthquake in the US. Or it could develop - and deploy - tactical nuclear weapons, mini-nukes. Fallujah - flattened by 'conventional' means - was just a test. On the road to Damascus, the road to Tehran, the road to Riyadh, the neo-cons would be much more tempted to go nuclear."

Since there appear to be absolutely no political constraints on Bush and the neocons whatsoever, I suspect that they will have a draft and go nuclear.

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Two shots to the head

It was two shots! The Sacramento County Coroner's Office issued a statement confirming that Gary Webb committed suicide with two gunshots to the head. Note:

  • Editors all over the United States found it necessary to amend the original reports of 'shots' to the head to emphasize that he died of a single gunshot wound to the head. As we all know, editors regard themselves as the watchguards against conspiracy theory, amending the record when they feel Americans won't be able to handle the truth. In this case, they were caught red-handed.

  • The multiple-gunshot suicide occurs so often to people whose lives are inconvenient to the establishment that I regard it as not an accident or incompetence, but actually as a signal, for those in the know, that this is professional work. It's like a signature on a work of art. It is also a warning.

I'm getting sick and tired of reading people write about Webb who repeat the straw-man arguments of the disgusting American press and claim that Webb's reporting was 'flawed'. Even those who claim to be sympathetic to him seem to be unable to write about him without mentioning errors in his CIA story. He was a reporter, not God! He was trying to find out things that very powerful people were trying to hide, and he got the story essentially correct, as was confirmed later by the CIA itself. He wrote about a major tragedy in the ghettos of Los Angeles, and the cause of that tragedy, The reporters in that city apparently couldn't get up off their fat white asses to investigate the matter themselves. Any 'flaws' in his reporting were de minimus, and mentioning them just plays into the hands of those trying to cover up for the CIA and the sorry state of Los Angeles journalism.

I'm also getting sick and tired of everyone accepting hook, line and sinker the official story that each one of these writer deaths is a suicide. Steve Kangas, Danny Casolaro, Dorothy Kilgallen, James Hatfield, Iris Chang, the list goes on and on. Shouldn't the onus be exactly the reverse? In any case where a truth seeker dies, shouldn't we assume assassination, with the onus on the establishment to prove it was a suicide? I think it is particularly insulting, with the stigma attached to suicide, to assume these warriors for truth killed themselves when they in fact 'died with their boots on' in the ongoing struggle to uncover what is really going on in the world.

The CIA and Venezuela

The recent document release showing that the CIA was aware of the coup attempt in Venezuela but did nothing to alert the Venezuelan authorities is nothing less than the usual 'limited hangout' of copping to a lesser charge in order to avoid admitting the more embarrassing truth. Although the documents were forced out of the CIA by a freedom of information request, you can be sure that they would never have seen the light of day unless someone wanted them public to provide some propaganda protection (to put it into perspective, the CIA managed to 'lose' all the classified annexes to the intelligence authorization acts enacted by Congress from 1947 through 1970, annexes which they were required to produce pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the Federation of American Scientists). The assassination of the investigator who was investigating the coup, Danilo Anderson, may very well have led to fears that Venezuelan anger at this obvious attempt at a cover up might lead to substantive allegations about real direct American involvement (some believe the Mossad was behind the assassination). As William Blum writes (or here):

"How do we know that the CIA was behind the coup that overthrew Hugo Chavez?

Same way we know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. That's what it's always done and there's no reason to think that tomorrow morning will be any different."

Besides the direct involvement of the National Endowment for Democracy (the same bunch manipulating the Ukrainian election), there is reason to believe that the U. S. Navy (or here) provided direct communications assistance to the coup plotters, and that two American military attaches, identified as James Rogers and Ronald MacCammon, were in direct contact with the coup plotters just before the coup. Two of the main plotters are graduates of the School of the Americas. Hugo Chavez claims (or here) to have a video of a CIA officer giving a class to Venezuelans on surveillance. An unidentified small plane with US markings was found on Orchila Island, and three US naval vessels and three helicopters (identified by serial number) entered Venezuelan waters without permission for several hours on April 13. Perhaps the best evidence of deep American involvement is that Ari Fleischer lied about what had happened in Venezuela in order to support the coup plotters, a lie which betrays the structure of the interrelationship between the coup plotters and the U. S. government. The disgusting American press was also involved in this conspiracy, which involved the creation of a myth concerning the voluntary resignation of Hugo Chavez. This myth was key to the potential success of the coup, and was intended to allow the U. S. to recognize the coup plotters as the legitimate government of Venezuela while simultaneously deflating the hopes of the people of Venezuela who might otherwise have risen up against the coup. Fleischer's lie proves that the United States was deeply involved in the coup, and the CIA's admission of having had foreknowledge of it is just disinformation.

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Settling of accounts?

Here is an excellent summary by Robert Parry on Gary Webb and the CIA-Contra-cocaine scandal (see also here and here and here). The crack cocaine scandal was just a variation on the same theme of the more famous arms deal scandal, with both being back-door support of the same activities that the White House was prohibited from funding. I guess it is just a curiosity that Bush is 'reelected' with a White House replete with players from Iran-Contra, a scandal involving Iran and Israel, Iran is now in the sights of these same people doing the bidding of Israel, and the guy who embarrassed them all is suddenly dead. The saddest thing is that an illegal funding operation like Iran-Contra is no longer necessary as the Bush Administration can get Congress to fund whatever adventures it wants with a few key lies that no one will ever have to account for.

Monday, December 13, 2004

Dr. Kelly's blood

The two paramedics who were the first medically trained people officially to arrive at the scene where David Kelly's body was said to have been found are back in the news (see here, here, and here or here). They confirm the two main anomalies in the case - discussed by me here and here - that there wasn't enough blood present to be consistent with a suicide by a slit wrist, a type of suicide they had seen before, and that the body, although supposedly not disturbed from the time it was discovered, had been moved. There's more. One of the paramedics, Vanessa Hunt, said (or here; my emphasis):

"There were a lot of police around. Some were in civilian clothes and others in black jackets and army fatigues. I thought it might have been a firearms incident as there were the guys from the special armed response units."

Special armed response units!? What were they expecting to find? As well, an individual close to Kelly who does not want to be named - smart move! - claims that Kelly's personality made it highly unlikely that he would have attempted to kill himself in a manner which was so uncertain of success. Many experts, including a recent president of the Vascular Surgical Society of Great Britain, feel that the official story of the cause of death does not conform to medical realities. 'Experts' who have pronounced themselves happy with Hutton's conclusions appear to be less expert in vascular anatomy, and prepared to rely on the presence of amounts of blood which are expressly denied by the two paramedics who are the main witnesses to the amount of blood actually present.

We now know a lot more about the lying basis for the attack on Iraq, and in particular that Blair and Bush had planned the war months before they announced their phony concern about the supposed casus belli, the mythical weapons of mass destruction. In light of what we know about Dr. Kelly's own concerns about this issue, we can see how deeply dangerous he might have been to all those behind the lies which were intended to fool the British people into going along with the attack. I ask again: "Does anyone still really believe Dr. Kelly killed himself?"

Gary Webb

What a weekend for conspiracy theory! I don't know where to begin. Why not with Gary Webb? Yesterday I wrote about Potential Witness Syndrome, one symptom of which is "suicide by multiple gun shot wounds to the head". This is apparently exactly what Gary Webb died of (watch as the stories are refined to change 'wounds' to 'a gunshot wound'). Webb was one of the premier investigative journalists in the United States, and author of the classic book "Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion", a book that everyone should read, both for its content and as an model of how to do investigative reporting. The disgusting American press did a hack job on him, claiming that he overstated his case, an outright lie which you can see if you read his book. He was meticulous in defining his thesis, which was that the CIA turned a blind eye to the selling of crack in Los Angeles because proceeds from the sales were used to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. This thesis was true, but was deeply embarrassing to the CIA and other journalists who failed to cover the story. It was a particularly dangerous idea because it demonstrated what a crock of shit the war on drugs is, with the U. S. government allowing extremely destructive drug sales - and drug sales which were particularly destructive to one racial group - in the United States when such sales suited it for other political purposes. The San Jose Mercury News shamed itself by failing to stand up for Webb when he was attacked, and effectively constructively dismissed him by assigning him to the boondocks. Webb's death is just another nail in the coffin of investigative journalism, and thus democracy, in the United States. What he was working on that led to his being suicided?

Sunday, December 12, 2004


Jason Korsower, a healthy, athletic 29-year-old writer on Islamic terrorism, died (or here or here) in his sleep. His mother, Karen Grablowsky, said:

"It wasn't an aneurysm. It wasn't a heart attack. It wasn't the obvious things that could happen to a healthy 29-year-old."

A completely mysterious death that apparently interests the FBI. Korsower worked for the Investigative Project, the organ of radical Zionist propagandist Steve Emerson. Coming on the heels of the FBI's investigation of AIPAC, one has to wonder if this isn't another case of PWS. PWS, or Potential Witness Syndrome, affects those with information that might interest investigators in high profile conspiracy cases. As a disease, it is quite unique, killing its victims in numerous ways including suicide by multiple gun shot wounds to the head, hunting accidents, suicide by throwing oneself through plate glass windows in high-rise buildings, murders by robbers who don't take anything, hit-and-run accidents, and, as in the case of Mr. Korsower, inexplicable deaths while sleeping. The biggest outbreak of PWS occurred during the Congressional investigations of the Kennedy assassination during the 1970's, but an outbreak of this mysterious fatal disease can occur whenever there is the danger of witnesses talking to investigators.

Friday, December 10, 2004

Farking Amway

Whoever writes the lines summarizing the links on the website Fark is a genius. Here's the one on the death of conservative rat-bastard Jay Van Andel:

"Co-founder of AmWay dies at 80. Everyone in the pyramid just went up a level"

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

Bush versus AIPAC

The summer and fall FBI investigation of mega-powerful Israeli lobby group AIPAC was cleverly derailed by the neocons who leaked Larry Franklin's name along with some apparent disinformation about the nature of the investigation, and one could be forgiven for believing that once Bush was reelected (or should I say, 'reelected', or should I say 're'-'elected'), the whole thing would be swept under the rug. Instead, it appears to have been resurrected, with nothing less than subpoenas to force four top AIPAC officials to appear before a grand jury. Once a grand jury is involved, the whole matter starts to spiral out of control, as no one can predict what a grand jury might discover. I know that people like to believe that the FBI is an independent organization investigating crime without bias or political interference, but I don't believe it for a moment. It would be career suicide, not to mention possible actual 'suicide', for an FBI official to wade into a matter like this without at least a nod and a wink from the Bush Administration. The bribe recipients in Congress are already looking for the head of whichever FBI official is behind this affront to their sugar daddy, so he must be confident that he has heavy political protection. So why is the Bush Administration going after AIPAC? Are they trying to send a message to Israel of who the real boss is? Unlikely, as we all know who the real boss is. Or are they acting as agents for factions in Israel who have a problem with AIPAC, or with certain officials in AIPAC? I know it's difficult to comprehend, but is it possible that some in Israel - the extreme crazed right-wingers who pull the strings of the neocons - feel that AIPAC is insufficiently radically Likudnik for their purposes? Are we seeing played out in an American crime investigation a power struggle within the Israeli government? The Jerusalem Post has already constructed an elaborate story of an unfair FBI sting operation against AIPAC to try to spin AIPAC out of trouble, so the factions in Israel who support AIPAC appear to be mounting a counteroffensive. This could be fun!

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

The Ukrainian 'choice'

An angle of the Ukrainian election which I have not seen tackled by any of the usual anti-globalization authors is that the so-called pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko, is far more accurately described as a pro-globalization candidate. In other words, his job is to turn over the assets of the Ukrainian people to the usual multinational suspects. Far from being any kind of radical alternative to the current corrupt nomeklatura that runs the Ukraine, Yuschenko is just another part of the same group, having been the right-hand man of president Leonid Kuchma until he was fired for his right-wing economic policies, and still being closely connected to the corrupt oligarchs who are stealing from the Ukrainian people in the crooked privatization of the Ukrainian economy (he also has connections to far right Ukrainian nationalist groups which are clearly anti-Semitic (or here), which probably explains why Israel supported the official election results).

The American election manipulators - who have had a series of abject defeats in Latin America, most notably in Venezuela (!) and Bolivia - latched onto Yuschenko as the kind of candidate who could be rebranded as a populist man of the people fighting both the current corrupt leadership and the stranglehold that Russia has on Ukrainian politics. You have to have a lot of sympathy for the Ukrainians, a people who suffered the worst genocide of the twentieth century under Stalin and who are now forced to follow policies dictacted by their Russian oppressors, but I fear they are being tricked into voting for a man whose plan is to immediately sell them out. The Americans have figured out how to use a manufactured student movement together with a mass marketing campaign to control Eastern European elections. The culprits, as usual, are the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the U. S. State Department, USAid, Freedom House and the Open Society Institute. All these groups have one goal, as described by Justin Raimondo:

"The bottom line is that our oligarchs have allied with a faction of Ukrainian oligarchs, who have agreed to add Ukraine to the European Union, sabotage the free trade zone recently established between the pro-Russian nations of the former Soviet Union, and, most important of all, join NATO. The Yushchenko-Timoshenko forces want to align with Georgia, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Moldova (the other nations in the GUUAM configuration of junior league NATO aspirants) in erecting a ring of iron around Putin and the former Soviet Union."

This connects directly to the international war to control oil reserves as part of the 'Grand Chessboard' struggle (or here) between the United States and Russia (see also here and here and here).

Democracy was the worst possible tragedy for the right-wingers, until they discovered that the way to deal with it is to create a series of alternatives all of whom support the same right-wing 'consensus' of stripping the assets of the people and turning them over to big corporations. The recent American election is another example of how the two alternatives supported the same policies of the corporadoes. The mass media is typically used to brand one as the populist, the 'man of the people', who then goes on to win, probably, like Bush, with the aid of massive vote fraud. If you are a Ukrainian voter, where is your real choice? The next step in rendering democracy completely unthreatening is to attack those countries which are still lucky enough to have a first-past-the-post electoral system, a system detested by elites of all persuasions as it is too difficult to control, and replace it with various fancy new systems of voting most of which involve back-room supplied lists of those candidates acceptable to the oligarchy. Eventually, we might as well do away with human politicans entirely, and just vote for the corporations we'd prefer to be raped by.

Sunday, December 05, 2004

Paying for Apartheid

From the Guardian:

". . . government papers suggest that Israel intends to bypass the peace plan, creating a Palestinian state of enclaves, surrounded by walls and linked by tunnels and special roads.

Israel has released plans for the upgrade of roads and construction of 16 tunnels which would create an 'apartheid' road network for Palestinians in the West Bank.

Existing roads would be reserved for Jews, linking their settlements to each other and to Israel. The plans came to light when Giora Eiland, Israel's director of national security, requested international funding for the project."


"Ghassan Khatib, the Palestinian planning minister, said the proposals were at odds with everything the international community had proposed for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

'Two communities living under different laws and regulations with different standards of living and road networks: this is what apartheid is all about,' he said."

The double road system is intended to allow Israel to continue to develop the illegal settlements while claiming that it is technically establishing territorial contiguity in the parts of the West Bank still reserved for the remnants of the Palestinians. Israel's mistake was asking the international community to pay for the establishment of apartheid. Had they quietly asked the Americans, they would have received full funding with no questions asked. In their twisted minds, they somehow feel that the infrastructure of apartheid actually benefits the Palestinians, and so feel no qualms in asking the international community to fund it. This is exactly the reasoning of Adolf Eichmann, who felt that making the technical functioning of the Holocaust as efficient as possible actually benefited its victims. Two sets of roads is also reminiscent of South Africa and the old American South, where there needed to be multiple facilities to accommodate each race. The complexity and expense of establishing these facilities was regarded by the ruling race as reflecting its humanitarianism.

Saturday, December 04, 2004

Latest 'ETA' bombs in Madrid

Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar gave testimony last week repeating his story that the Madrid train bombing was the work of ETA terrorists, a story so outrageous that it led to the defeat of his party in the last Spanish elections. Within a week, five bombs explode at gas stations in Madrid, supposedly the work of the ETA due to the fact that a telephone warning was given by someone claiming to be from the ETA. From the Guardian (my emphasis):

"The bombings brought an end to speculation that Eta, which has been quiet in recent months, was planning a ceasefire. That speculation grew after it was reported last month that senior Eta members in Spanish jails had called on the group's leadership to give up the armed struggle, as the organisation was too weak to make a serious impact.

Last night's explosions showed that the group, which has been hit by arrests in France and Spain, was still able to carry out attacks in the Spanish capital."


"Two police officers who were evacuating one of the petrol stations were reported to have been among those hurt."

Hurt evacuating the area or hurt planting the bombs? This is far too convenient. The Spanish right operating through the police set off the Madrid train bombs in order to influence the Spanish election, got caught red-handed in lies about the ETA, and lost the election. Aznar gives unbelievable testimony repeating the same lies, and the ETA, which has probably decided to give up violence, suddenly reappears with more bombs. They make it easy to be a conspiracy theorist, don't they?

Hamas and the existence of Israel

On Friday, Hamas announced that it would accept the existence of Israel in pre-1967 borders, a major concession and policy shift. On Saturday, the IDF picked up Rami al-Tayah, who is described as a senior Hamas member. The Israelis had apparently been looking for him since 2002. A resident of the apartment building in which the Hamas member was staying quoted an Israeli soldier saying to his comrades: "Don't kill him, we need him alive." What do you think the chances are that Israel knew exactly where this fellow was all along and just arrested him in order to provoke Hamas into returning to its old policies, policies desired by the Israeli propaganda machine in order to continue the state terrorism against the Palestinian people required in order to create Greater Israel on stolen Palestinian lands? The Israelis simply cannot allow Hamas to make peace.

Friday, December 03, 2004

Keyser Soze in Iraq

From the latest Popbitch email:

"Spaces are now available in Guantanemo Bay 'hotel'. Finding no reason to hold many of the prisoners, the US is quietly transporting them back to the Jordanian border, dropping them off from a van.. like any terrorist group does with its ex-hostages."

They refer to the supposed leader of the al Qaeda resistance in Iraq as Abu Musab "Keyser Sose" al-Zarqawi, a good joke if you saw the movie.

Thursday, December 02, 2004

Napalming Falluja

There is more and more reason to believe that the Americans used napalm or another similar incendiary weapon - when accused of using napalm in the original attack on Iraq, the Pentagon quibbled about the name, so it is possible that the incendiary used was not exactly napalm - on the largely civilian population of Falluja. Congratulations! This is the gold medal in war crimes, so I hope all the apologists for the attack are happy that its easily predictable result, the spreading of the insurgents of Falluja all over the country where they can do much more damage, was worth it. I remain flabbergasted that the attack on Falluja occurred with hardly a whimper of protest in the United States (at least the use of napalm is becoming an issue in Britain), and indeed with many 'experts' coming up with various strained justifications for it. Again, the United States has become just like Nazi Germany, where people like Heidegger fell into line out of fear of what doing the right thing might have done to their careers. The campaigns of the Zionists against free speech on issues involving the Middle East are obviously working subconsciously to create this obsequious acquiescence to the outrages committed by the Empire.

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

Henry Siegman

This is a superb article by Henry Siegman on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the disastrous consequences for Israel if it continues on the path it is on. If you read only one article on the issue, this is the one to read. Look at a map of the settlements from May 2002, and remember it is even worse now, and try to see how a Palestinian state could be squeezed between the lands stolen by the settlers. Since there is absolutely no political will to move even one of these settlers, and no foreseeable change in Israeli politics in the future except to become even more insane, Israel is doomed.