Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Someone apparently forgot to tell Shell

Someone apparently forgot to tell Shell about the ‘inevitable’ war with Iran.  But hey, what the hell would Shell know?

If there is an American attack on Iran (which there won’t be), it will be the first world war where the initiator was goaded into it by ‘progressives’ pretending to try to stop it.  The neocon plan has always been to make the impossible seem possible, and then inevitable.  They do this by constantly harping on the issue  (that’s why they will lie about the facts but never about their intentions and desires).  They have no better friend than American ‘progressives’ (who, as I have already noted, have been completely infiltrated by Zionists).  Carefully consider the motives of ‘anti-war’ types who are really pushing for war while pretending to be against it.

Monday, January 29, 2007

'Stewie', the Holocaust, and the Lobby

I was watching Family Guy, the animated comedy show on Fox (of all places), last night, and caught some interesting dialogue.  Brian, the (talking) family dog, has accidentally sold Rupert (presumably named after Rupert Murdoch), the stuffed bear owned by Stewie, the one-year-old (talking) baby, at a yard sale.  The two of them set out on a road trip from Rhode Island to Colorado to recover it, but Brian soon balks at going all the way out to Colorado, and wants to turn back.  Stewie threatens him that if Stewie has to go on alone, Stewie will end up as a missing child on a milk carton, and his mother will throw Brian out of the house.  The dialogue continues:

Stewie:  You’ll wind up in a dumpster with a bunch of slow, unadoptable, grayhounds.

Brian:  Don’t joke about that.  That’s like the Holocaust to us.

Stewie:  Yeah, well, when grayhounds start running the New York Times and the World Bank, I’ll be inclined to believe you.

Deborah Lipstadt better write another article before Zionist misuse of the Holocaust in attempting to rebut criticisms of the Lobby turns into a common joke on network television.

Bloomfield archive material

I mentioned in passing that the papers of Louis Mortimer Bloomfield were being exceptionally withheld from the public, beyond the twenty year period after his death specified by Bloomfield himself, by the Archives of Canada.  The researcher who requested access, Maurice Philipps, has gone to court, and the court ruled that the basis on which access was denied, the desire of Bloomfield’s widow, had no basis in law, and put the decision back to the chief archivist (who will have a lot of nerve – and should be fired – if he comes up with another reason to withhold access).  The story is reported here (if you hit a subscription wall, the story is reprinted here; see also here).

Bloomfield was connected.  He was a senior partner in one of the leading Canadian law firms.  His most important client was the Bronfman family (now headed by Edgar Bronfman, Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress), a family which made its famous fortune – still huge, despite the fact that Edgar Bronfman Jr.’s business dealings resulted in the loss of the largest amount of money that anyone has ever lost in recorded history – breaking American laws during Prohibition (oddly enough, JFK’s father was another gangster who made his fortune in the same way).  Bloomfield had been a Major in the Canadian Army during the Second World War, and worked with William Stephenson (“Intrepid”), who ran British intelligence in the Western Hemisphere during the war.  The whole history of what Stephenson actually did is hopelessly muddled, largely by Stephenson’s own web of disinformation (this self-created confusion is part of the legacy which Stephenson left to intelligence agencies).  Stephenson’s model of a spy agency became the basis the Americans used to set up the OSS (in fact, Churchill sent Stephenson over to teach the Americans what to do, not to mention create a Britain-friendly agency in the United States at a time when it was still neutral and not yet tricked into the war, and part of what Stephenson was up to was to ensure the Americans ended up in the war through manipulation of American media figures).  The OSS later became the CIA. 

Bloomfield was the main nominal shareholder of, as well as a director of, the infamous Permindex, possibly a CIA front (allegedly also used in the attempted assassination of de Gaulle, but the allegations against Permindex remain thin, with some claiming the entire Permindex story was Soviet propaganda).  Another director was Clay Shaw, which is how Bloomfield is mentioned in JFK assassination theories.  On top of everything else, Bloomfield was a leading member, in its earliest days, of the International Zionist Cabal.  You can read some even hairier things on the internet, things which make Bloomfield out to be a key player in the biggest of all conspiracy theories (see here – scroll down to the photocopy of a page from a Dutch book – and read the caption to the first line of five photos here, including bin Laden’s mysteriously killed brother, for some of the flavor).  I doubt you’ll find any of this in the papers he handed over to the Canadian Archives, but it would still be nice to see them.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

A trick to fool the Lobby?

Israel’s demographic problem continues to worsen, with immigration to Israel hitting an 18–year low.  Anyone crazy enough to move to Israel now would have to be the craziest of the crazy settlers, meaning that the percentage of the certifiably insane continues to grow, meaning that Israeli politics will only grow worse and worse as the voting population continues to de-evolve.

Of course, there are two other parts to the demographic problem, both well hidden.  The first is the growth in the Arab population.  The second is the amount of immigration of Jews out of Israel, away from the insanity.  This latter phenomenon is obviously occurring, as the Jewish population from Israel in places like Berlin and Moscow continues to grow.  Some just quietly return to Brooklyn.  Canada is now accepting Jewish refugees from Israel (Canada should send a ship over called the ‘HMCS St. Louis’ to pick them up).  Of course, the people who are leaving are the sane and smart ones, further reducing the combined political intelligence of the remainder.  Just think what would happen if Israel were to find itself in even more dire circumstances.  Israel would be ‘wiped off the map’ not by war, but by the steady decline in population as its residents slowly come to their senses.

There is a school of thought that the United States will enter into a war on Iran tricked by Israel.  Israel will conduct an attack on Iran, another military failure, but the effective counterattack, by Iranian missiles (with the help of an insurrection by Hamas and Hezbollah missiles), will prompt the Americans to enter the fight to assist its ‘ally’ (despite the fact that the ‘ally’ would be completely responsible for bringing the counterattacks on itself).

We’ve seen this plan once before, less than a year ago.  Israel was supposed to win easily in Lebanon.  When it didn’t, the neocon/Israeli Plan II was to have the Americans enter to assist Israel, preferably by attacking Syria on the pretense that Hezbollah’s missiles were coming from Syria.  As you will remember, the doom and gloom in the neocon ranks was occasioned by the fact that the Americans did nothing, just sat on their hands and watched Israel get its ass kicked.  There were even dark conspiracy theories raised about how the Americans tricked Israel into a disaster in Lebanon, by encouraging it and giving it the green light, and then failing to support it.

What if the American Establishment – you know, the guys Noam says rule the world who were embarrassed by Bush when he refused to pay attention to the reasonable suggestions of their advisers – has a trick up its sleeve?  What if the plan is a version of Lebanon?  We know the Lobby runs Washington.  Israel is becoming an albatross to the Empire (or, rather, even more of an albatross than usual), but the Lobby is too powerful to stop.  Let the Lobby, arrogant and full of itself, shoot itself in the foot.  Let the Lobby goad Israel into attacking Iran, all on the basis that the Lobby power is so huge that it will be able to force the Americans into the war.  When the Iranian missiles start to fall, the Americans  . . .  do nothing.  There will be screams from the usual Lobby catamites, but they will fall on deaf ears, just like happened with Lebanon.  The Iranian missiles wouldn’t ‘wipe Israel off the map’, but they would go a long way to evening up the power relations in the Middle East, and would accelerate the demographic problem and cure America’s parasite problem.  Do you think Israel can afford to conduct an attack on Iran relying on American help when such help has already been denied and when its failure to appear might mean the end of Israel as a viable state?

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Where’s my infidel-beheading scimitar?

The New Yorker has now tackled the story of Adam Gadahn.  I’ve written about this at some length.  I enjoy these long, completely credulous, repetitions of the Official Story, replete with the usual nonsense, always failing to join the obvious dots.  We even learn that the Islamist terrorist, on his return from his first radicalizing visit to Pakistan, was ill, and had his medical care supervised by his grandfather, the guy who was a member of the board of the Anti-Defamation League  By convention, the story ends with the question of how these nice American boys convert to Islam and turn into crazed terrorists.  Perhaps because its hard to infiltrate al Qaeda as a Mossad spy if you are still wearing a kipa?

The al Qaeda dudes are hip to the internets, so if I smell a rat, they would too.  Blogging about Gadahn made me (almost) worry about his safety, as if Osama would be surfing the net one day, come across my posting, and go ‘Oh, shit, we’ve been punked, where’s my infidel-beheading scimitar?’  They must know exactly who he is, but don’t care.  What does that tell us about the true nature of ‘al Qaeda’?

Monday, January 22, 2007

The debt we owe to Deborah Lipstadt

Deborah Lipstadt has written a very important commentary on Jimmy Carter and his book on the Palestinians (I won’t link to it at Amazon as Amazon has been playing peculiar games with it, presumably in order to suppress its sale).  Lipstadt, a woman who until now has been famous only for having all of David Irving’s money, expressly makes the connection between Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and what was done to the Jewish people in the 1930’s and 1940’s.  This argument usually hides in the weeds.  It is the real basis behind all defenses of Israeli actions against the Palestinians, as well as many of the peculiarities of Israeli exceptionalism, such as Israel’s unique ability to shelter international gangsters on the basis that they are Jews, or Israel’s unique right to make peremptory attacks against other countries on the basis that there might be a possible threat against the state of the Jewish people.  This doctrine has now been extended, in the case of Iran, to allow for peremptory attacks even when there is no threat against the Jewish people.

In Lipstadt’s view, which is the view shared by all Jewish defenders of Israel, Carter is wrong for failing to emphasize the Holocaust in a book about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians today.  This lack of logic from Lipstadt would be the stuff of comedy if it did not form the basis for all the atrocities that Israel commits.  Most apologists for Israel are too smart to put it in so many words, so we owe a bid debt of gratitude to Lipstadt for being so fucking stupid as to let the cat out of the bag. In fact, I think many people sympathetic to Israel don’t really realize the basis for the chip on Israel’s shoulder as they can’t bring themselves to believe that the basis could be something that is so insane.

The bigger picture is that many Jews feel that the Holocaust gives Jews, and by extension the Jewish state, a permanent ‘Get Out Of Jail Free’ card.  The world stood by and let horrible things happen to the Jews, so the Jews have a unique right to obtain retribution in whatever way they see fit.  One of the main ways they have seen fit to obtain justice is to grab themselves a country.  No non-Jew has the moral right to complain about it, as every non-Jew inherits the guilt for the Holocaust.  Thus, Jimmy Carter has no right to criticize the Jewish state for what it is doing to the Palestinians.  Despite the fact the Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust (in fact hardly anyone alive today had anything to do with the Holocaust), they also have no moral right to criticize what is being done to them.  This is the kind of reasoning which makes sense to young children, and many criminals (“I have a right to rob banks because I had a sad childhood’), but doesn’t make any sense to the rest of us.

One of the peculiarities of the Jewish post-Holocaust experience is the fact that there is a certain sexual frisson created by fantasies of how the world will again conspire to destroy the Jewish people (and seeing the Holocaust everywhere can have some amusing consequences).  Benny Morris (of all people) is obviously getting off on describing how the Jews will be destroyed by the inevitable nuclear attack from Iran, while the rest of the world secretly applauds.  It’s Jewish masochistic porn.  Of course, Morris isn’t an idiot, and is perfectly aware that Iran hasn’t threatened Israel’s existence, has no nuclear weapons, and has no foreseeable chance of having nuclear weapons, while Israeli leaders have directly threatened Iran and Israel has such weapons, so Morris’ fantasy is closer to sadistic porn rather than masochistic porn.  Morris is following the same reasoning as Lipstadt.  A Jew is entitled to write propaganda advocating an attack on innocent civilians living in a country that poses no threat to Israel.  Why?  Because of the Holocaust!

Saturday, January 20, 2007

A brief history of falling off buildings

Throwing people off high buildings is one of the ways, along with drowning and shooting, that the American authorities get rid of inconvenient people (the Europeans seem to like poisoning).  From an article by Roger Bowen, the biographer of Canadian diplomat E. Herbert Norman:

“A Canadian diplomat and scholar who was serving in Japan at the onset of the Second World War, and was interned there following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Norman was accused of being a Communist in 1951 by allies of Joseph McCarthy in the U.S. Senate. Interrogated twice in secret by the RCMP at the urging of U.S. intelligence agencies, he was exonerated by Canadian authorities and allowed to resume his duties in the foreign service.

In the fall of 1956, following the Suez crisis, Mr. Norman, then 47, was Canada's ambassador to Egypt. Mr. Norman worked tirelessly to find a peaceful solution in negotiations with Gamal Abdel Nasser. His eventual success in persuading Egypt's president to admit United Nations peacekeepers into his country was, for that era, a singular achievement. Mr. Norman's boss, Lester Pearson, later won the Nobel Peace Prize, in part because of Mr. Norman's efforts.

In March of 1957, suspicions about Mr. Norman were revived by the U.S. Senate. On April 4, Mr. Norman stepped off the roof of a nine-storey apartment building in the heart of Cairo.”


“. . . it is clear that someone or some agency fabricated the details of Mr. Norman's death and ‘leaked’ them to the U.S. press in 1957, making it appear that Mr. Norman was guilt-ridden and psychologically unstable, and that he chose to kill himself rather than face additional inquiries over his alleged Communist background.

One of several suicide notes leaked to the press then seemed to imply that Mr. Norman had had a close, perhaps homosexual, relationship with the Swedish ambassador to Egypt, Brynolf Eng. The New York Daily News account in April of 1957 reported Mr. Norman as having written to Mr. Eng on the eve of his death: ‘I wanted to spend some time with you during these last few days of my life and tell you about what has been worrying me but am afraid that even in this letter I cannot bring myself to tell you [the] true reasons that impel me to commit suicide. I have decided to die near your home. I know this may cause you some trouble and I am sorry but you are my best friend. Farewell. Sincerely, Norman.’

This account stood as the ‘truth’ for 30 years, contradicted only by Canadian sources whose comments did not register in the U.S. in 1957. The actual note Mr. Norman wrote to Mr. Eng, in his handwriting and found in the RCMP files, reads: ‘Mr. Eng, I beg forgiveness for using your flat. But it is the only clear jump where I can avoid hitting a passerby. E. H. N.’”

Norman is a fairly important guy, as his negotiations invented the concept of UN peacekeepers.  Bowen has made repeated requests to the CIA to release its remaining cache of classified documents on Norman, without success.  What are they hiding?  It is clear that the Americans fabricated the released ‘suicide note’ to the press in order to create a motive for Norman’s suicide.  If they had nothing to do with the death, why did they go to all this trouble?  I note that the Canadian Right, represented by David Frum’s father-in-law, the ancient Peter Worthington, maintains the cold war interpretation of the death of Norman.

Throwing people off tall buildings is a perfect method of assassination as it doesn’t leave any forensic evidence of a crime if it is done properly (both drowning and shooting can leave inconvenient forensic evidence).  The only tricky part is forging the suicide note, or forcing the victim to write it.  Some other prominent examples:

  1. The recent death of progressive lawyer Paul Sanford.  It has been surmised that this was Karl Rove revenge for an embarrassing question that Sanford asked then press secretary Scott McClellan about Rove, but my guess would be that it related to what Sanford was working on just before his death.  From the Monterey Herald account, we learn that he was pacing the hallway of an upper floor, his car was parked next to the hotel, but he was not checked in as a guest.  It appears he was invited to the upper floor, presumably by people who had rented a room.  They could very well have tried to convince him not to publish what he was working on, ‘for the good of the country’.  His pacing outside the room might reflect his trying to make up his mind.  When he told them his conscience wouldn’t allow him to suppress the truth, they threw him out the window.
  2. The deaths of State Department official John J. Kokal, and long-time American government policy advisor Gus W. Weiss, both opposed to the Iraq attack.
  3. The amazing story of CIA victim Dr. Frank Olson (excellent coverage here, despite the crappy author, including discussion of CIA use of defenestration as a method of assassination, and the use of LSD as a truth serum regarding Olson’s knowledge of American biological weapons programs).  After years of denial, the American government finally admitted that the CIA had given Olson LSD without his knowledge, and that this led to the suicide of Olson.  It then turned out that Olson had committed ‘suicide’ by going through a closed window.  Since no one would commit suicide by jumping at a closed window, it was apparent that the U. S. government admissions were part of a ‘limited hangout’ to hide the fact that the CIA had thrown Olson through the closed window.  I assume CIA training handbooks now include instructions to open the window before throwing the victim out!
  4. James Forrestal, first United States Secretary of Defense, was almost certainly suicided, probably as a direct result of his principled opposition to American assistance in the stealing of land required to establish the State of Israel.



Friday, January 19, 2007

Incredibly low and vile, part II

Unfortunately, the Toronto local of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation has voted in favor of Apartheid.  I’m sure they will get many more chances to do the right thing,  Someday, those who voted for Apartheid will be ashamed of themselves.  In Toronto, many if not most of their students are immigrants and/or refugees.  The students would have less trouble than the teachers in figuring out which group are the victims, and which group are the violent, racist, tribal haters.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Anti-Saudi ranting

This anti-Saudi rant (found via Wot Is It Good 4), from a writer who is popular with some, is ridiculous.  A British arms company provided kick-backs to some Saudi royals, and Tony Blair is rushing to stop an investigation.  The writer describes this as Saudi blackmail, then makes the usual Zionist unsupported allegations about Saudi support for terrorism, and then raises the non-sequitur of BCCI (you’ll note that the one country not mentioned in the long quote on BCCI is  . . . Saudi Arabia).

The Saudis have been the best friend the West could ever possibly have, always stepping into the breach to ensure reliable and cheap provision of hydrocarbons.  God knows, they have their faults – personal corruption and trying to run a medieval society in the 21st century are just two of them – but to describe Blair’s actions as the result of blackmail is ludicrous.  Blair is stopping the investigation to protect Blair and the British elites.  If there is any concern for the Saudis it would more accurately be described as returning an enormous series of favors rather than blackmail.

I have been guilty of swallowing the Zionist line on the Saudis, but time and more information should have allowed us all to see that there is no evidence to support the idea that the Saudi government supports terrorism.  The Saudi government is terrified of terrorism.  The fact that individual Saudis may support terrorism does not damn the entire country, any more than the fact that individual Britons support terrorism damns all of Great Britain.  The fact that individual Saudi citizens were involved with BCCI doesn’t make Saudi Arabia guilty (but the fact that CIA was heavily involved in BCCI does make the American government complicit).  For some reason, the best friend the West has is the only country for which any and all pot shots are allowed.

Kick-backs on military contracts appear to be the norm, even in third-world countries like the United States (remember Duke Cunningham?).  All Middle Eastern states are notorious for it, and I doubt the Saudis care very much if more evidence of it is produced.  It is the British payors of kick-backs who should be nervous, and that is who Blair is trying to protect.

I’m noticing more and more a rift between what I read and what is generally considered to be the ‘Best of the Web’ by the ‘Alternative Politics’ crowd.  This kind of rant is an example of the division.

The level of discourse has been just incredibly low and vile

Two Ontario high school teachers have proposed (full story here) a motion to the Toronto district of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation criticizing the Apartheid State. and requesting that the union develop classroom materials on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and support an international boycott of Israel.  The predictable rain of criticism, described as being “incredibly low and vile”, has fallen from the organs of the Jewish Billionaires Club.  These motions, even if they fail, are useful, as they pull the tribal racists out from under the rocks and let everyone see how vile they are.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Further reflections on the 'surge'

Further reflections on the 'surge':

    1. Just as I thought, American legislators are drawing their ‘line in the sand’ at Iran.  The ‘Iran talk’ had the desired effect of giving Bush a pass on his Iraq plans, as long as he doesn’t attack Iran.  The Democrat trick is to make a big deal about Iran so Bush can get away with his Zionist plan to break up Iraq by increasing the violence levels.  Voters are supposed to forget that they voted Democrat in order to get out of Iraq.
    2. How many deadlines have we now passed that ‘experts’ assured us would be the certain start of an attack on Iran?
    3. For a supposedly important speech, Bush’s ‘surge’ speech was remarkably vague.  It is almost impossible to determine what he intends to do (which may in part reflect the fact that his military advisors were unable to tell him what they could do, especially given that there aren’t even enough additional troops for a surge-let).  The summary seems to be that the Americans are going to kill a lot more Sunnis, and the Iraqi government is supposed to rein in the Shi’ite militias, by diplomacy or otherwise (something which we know will never happen, but which appears to be a bone thrown to the Saudis).  The upshot is that the ultimate position of Iran in Iraqi politics will be strengthened.
    4. Of course, Americans have neither the technical ability, nor the motivation, to figure out who they are killing before they kill.  Sunnis, Shi’ites, they all look the same at the end of a gun.
    5. The two big fault lines in Iraq are Sunni vs. Shi’ite, and Kurd vs. Rest of Iraq.  The Zionist goal is to have both of these break, but the irony is that the second one is holding the first one together.  The Rest of Iraq (a term I’m borrowing from Canadian politics, where the division is Quebec versus the Rest of Canada) – Sunnis and Shi’ites – doesn’t want the Kurds to get away with stealing the Kirkuk oil fields.  They are thus inclined to stick together to keep the whole country together.  The Kurds themselves seem to realize that separation means defeat at the hands of the Turks (Iran also wants the Kurds to stay in an Iraqi federation, as a separate Kurdistan will want to annex northern Iran).  Despite American/Zionist violence, various pressures continue to hold the country together.
    6. Both Ronald Bleier and Jeff Wells think I am too optimistic.  Bleier writes:

“If it's not about oil, what's it about? It's about a permanent war agenda, and this includes a war against the people and the environment and the economy of the United States as well. Permanent war means the destruction of everything including eventually the warmakers.

That's why they are called nihilists.”

Jeff  Wells speaks of ‘Mansonic logic’ leading to something big, chaotic, and horrible.  These comments remind me of the good old days of Conspiracy Theory, starring the Rockefellers, the CIA, and the Trilateral Commission.  I honestly don’t think the Bushites are that sophisticated.  Their motivations are still money (personal graft), power, and Israel, not necessarily, but usually, in that order.  The Zionists think a final, violent push can permanently break up Iraq, and this meshes with Bush’s desire not to go down in history as a President who lost another war against some peasants.  No matter how much the warbloggers claim that Iraq isn’t like Vietnam, the fact is that it is fear of a Vietnam result that will continue to keep Americans in Iraq.  There is still a bit of money to be made running mercenaries and weapons, and the Republicans will argue that their Presidential candidate is the only one capable of withdrawing from Iraq ‘with honor’ (outrageous, I know, but they’ll probably get away with it).

While all the American bloviation continues, Mahmoud ‘What, me worry?’ Ahmadinejad was meeting with his fellow Time ‘Man of the Year’ Hugo Chavez.  Then he followed Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales of Bolivia to Nicaragua, to celebrate the election of Daniel Ortega.  Ahmadinejad said:

“The imperialists don't like us to help you progress and develop. They don't like us to get rid of poverty and unite people.  Iran, Nicaragua and Venezuela and other revolutionary countries are together and we will resist together.”

While Bush talks and perspires, China and Russia continue to solidify their respective energy positions, and the rest of the world unites against the United States.



Sunday, January 14, 2007

Is the United States a military dictatorship?

Is the United States a military dictatorship?  Three stories all from January 14, 2007:

    1. The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency are using ‘noncompulsory’ ‘national security letters’ to compel disclosure of private financial information about Americans.  Congress has rejected attempts by the Pentagon and CIA to be able to use mandatory versions of the letters, but the distinction is irrelevant as who is going to deny the Pentagon or the CIA?
    2. The Army has decided that it no longer has to worry about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in obtaining a wiretap.
    3. Charles ‘Cully’ Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, called for a corporate boycott of law firms who dared to represent victims of Guantanamo.  Although later rejected by the Pentagon as official Pentagon policy, the damage is already done.  Anyone representing a Guantanamo detainee has to kiss his or her future livelihood goodbye. 

The United States has been a military dictatorship since November 22, 1963, but a lot of the niceties hiding this fact are falling away all of a sudden.  Of course, the ‘rights’ of the victims of Guantanamo will be a model for the ‘rights’ afforded all Americans once the domestic detention camps are functioning.

More notes on the 'surge'

More notes on the ‘surge’ and Iraq:

    1. A number of people have commented how nervous and uncomfortable Bush looked while giving the surge speech.  Wouldn’t you feel nervous if you’d just told the American Establishment – you know, the guys Noam says rule the world – to fuck off, eat shit, and die?  Bush mentioned Baker’s suggestions and then made fun of them.  What kind of powerful hold do the Zionists have on him that Bush is prepared to give up the help of the people who have provided him with everything, up to and including a major league baseball team and the Presidency of the United States?
    2. There is still no chance of an attack on Iran, at least not by the United States (Olmert is in the middle of attempting, without the slightest success, to get Russia and China to agree to an Israeli attack).  Note what a tiny mention of Iran and Syria did.  Everybody is now on the Iran war talk bandwagon, meaning that the real Zionist aim, civil war in Iraq provoked by the American attacks (and the new, even more violent, terms of reference), will skate by unnoticed.  ‘Progressives’ in the United States will be able to slap themselves on the back for preventing an attack on Iran, while such an attack was never in the cards.  Bill Kristol is one smart speechwriter.
    3. The mere discussion of an attack on Iran – an attack which everybody knows can only be blamed on one group – is ushering in the Golden Age of Anti-Semitism.  Wesley Clark used code words for the Jewish Billionaires Club (“New York money people”), and got shushed, but the floodgates are opening quickly.  This might as well be a ‘last call’ to the North American Jewish community to stop being so tribal or face the inevitable wrath.  Once the genie of anti-Semitism is out of the bottle, it will take another holocaust to put it back in.
    4. I’ve been reading that the Bush Administration is all about oil grabbing.  This so flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary that I am now beginning to see articles wondering why the Bush Administration is unsuccessful at oil grabbing.  Enough already!  Put your big theories aside and look at the facts (for once).  The only evidence that Iraq was about oil comes from Judicial Watch (nuff said).  Now I’m reading over and over that the newest oil grabbing laws in Iraq prove that the war was about Big Oil obtaining Iraqi oil on easy terms.  One inconvenient question.  What oil?  There is no available oil in Iraq for the oil companies to grab, no matter how exploitative the concessions that they can obtain.  For the foreseeable future, sectarian unrest in Iraq, ordered by the Zionists, will mean that nobody is going to exploit anything.  If it was about oil, they would have brought Iraq back into the fold just as they brought Libya back into the fold, and kept Saddam on to keep the peace enough to protect the oil pipelines.  Big Oil never wanted the attack on Iraq, because it knew the consequences (and the even longer term consequences, a complete civil war across the Middle East, would end the gravy train for everybody).

History at Yale In the Dark Ages, 1953-76

From “History at Yale In the Dark Ages, 1953-76” by Jesse Lemisch:

“I was at Yale (BA Yale College 1957, PhD 1963), right smack between the two Bushes, who were ’48 and ‘68. (My classmates feel a shock of recognition when they look at W’s transcript and see how many courses they had in common with him. Bushes and Bushies contributed to making Yale a poisonous presence on the national and international scene. This was the period that produced, along with a few virtuous exceptions, many evil-doers, e.g.: Porter Goss ‘60 (CIA Director), John Negroponte ’60 (National Intelligence Director), Richard Posner ‘59 (free market judge), Richard Gilder ‘54 (founder of right-wing Manhattan Institute), my student Benno Schmidt ‘63, privateer of schools, warrior against CUNY as Chair of its Board of Trustees, Joe Lieberman ’64 (Bush’s American poodle), and earlier, McGeorge Bundy ’40 of Vietnam fame, and James Jesus Angleton ’41 (OSS-CIA)

The barbarities of undergraduate culture at the time helped to prepare these people to commit barbaric acts on a world scale later on in adult (?) life. The culture honored heavy drinking and public vomiting and urinating – long before the homeless picked up these virtuous behaviors from Yalies. During this period, W’s fraternity, DKE – he was President – held an annual “Pig Night.” New Haven girls – ‘townies,’ as they were called – were invited to the fraternity for a dance. At midnight, the announcement was made: they had been selected for ugliness, ‘pigs.’”

Lemisch goes on to note that Yale is no better today than it was back in its dark age.

Saturday, January 13, 2007

The anti-meritocracy

Radar has a great piece by Jebediah Reed on how the media pundits who were the most wrong on Iraq are the most rewarded, and those who were completely right are punished or ignored.  American journalism is truly the world of the anti-meritocracy, where the more stunningly inept you are the higher you climb. 

Thursday, January 11, 2007

What 'surge' really means

I thought there was at least a chance that Bush would dance with the ones who brought him, and reject the latest version of the Zionist Plan for the Middle East.  Apparently not.  Not only did Bush reject the Baker suggestions, he ran roughshod over every single one of them.   In fact, by prominently mentioning Baker’s suggestions in his speech, he managed to publicly humiliate Baker and all of Bush’s father’s friends (I wonder if Bush’s father’s hip replacement surgery removed the father’s influence at a critical time).  Bush could have, for example, called for some kind of reevaluation of American strategy while avoiding mention of Iran and Syria.  Instead, by making bellicose attacks on Iran and Syria, he rejected the entire tenor of the Baker plea for some sort of diplomatic sanity in the Middle East.  He had a clear choice between the Zionists and the American Establishment, and he chose the Zionists.

Now we will get to see the unedifying spectacle of the Democrats squirming around as they try to appear critical while rushing to provide Bush, and their Zionist masters, with everything they need for the disaster.  I don’t want to hear any more quibbling about how the ZOG isn’t running America.  We have absolutely conclusive proof.

The ‘surge’ is itself another Bush lie.  The Pentagon doesn’t have the troops, so the ‘increase’ will just be Pentagon crooked bookkeeping (crooked bookkeeping is something the Pentagon is good at).  The real plan is much worse.  It is a covert change in the rules of engagement.  From Bush’s speech (emphasis in red): 

“Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighbourhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not.

Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighbourhoods of terrorists and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned.

This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.

In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighbourhoods that are home to those fuelling the sectarian violence.

This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighbourhoods - and [Iraqi] Prime Minister [Nouri] Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.”

This is coded language, but not difficult to read.  Bush is calling for genocide against the Sunnis.  He is following the recommendation of John Podhoretz in the New York Post (note that Uruknet misattributes this to John Podhoretz’s almost equally vile father; the most infamous line is in red):

“What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?

If you can't imagine George W. Bush issuing such an order, is there any American leader you could imagine doing so?”

Now we can imagine Bush issuing such an order.  We will also see the Americans go medieval on the Sunnis in Anbar (who are called ‘al Qaeda’).  Just to confirm who is running things, there is a tiny reference in Bush’s speech to more for Israel:

“We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defence systems to reassure our friends and allies.”

Patriot air defense systems deployed in Iraq would protect Israel from attacks from where?  You do the geometry.  If Israel wants to try something awful, it would not want to face any kind of counterattack.

The neocons have been lying in the weeds, pretending to have been soundly defeated by the all-powerful American Establishment.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Bush’s speech could have been – and probably was – written by Bill Kristol.  The Zionist Plan for the Middle East continues, with the next step ensuring that Iraq breaks up.  You have to wonder what the Saudis, who have expressed concern about Shi’ite influence, will think about an American campaign of genocide against Sunnis.  You have to wonder what the American Establishment, too decadent and weak to defend itself, will do when much of its wealth is destroyed.



Wednesday, January 10, 2007

More short comments

Since I’m still sick, more short comments:

  1. Without anyone paying any heed, the United States engages in war against another sovereign nation that poses no threat to it.  This time the innocent victim is Somalia.  This is justified by using the magic words ‘al Qaeda’.
  2. The Angry Arab has assembled a fine collection of photographs of some of the head gear worn by the Maronite Patriarch.  Despite being one of the most obscure religious leaders in the world, he quite clearly has the finest collection of hats.  Do you think he has an official ecclesiastical milliner?
  3. I watched the first episode of ‘Little Mosque on the Prairie’.  It was a little forced, with the writers having to get all the terrorist jokes out of their system, but shows promise.  It seems to be receiving mostly negative reviews, as expected, except from Globe and Mail reviewer John Doyle (the guy who took on Bill O’Reilly and Fox News).
  4. One of the two men framed in the murder of New York Times journalist David Rosenbaum received 26 years in prison.  This is how its done (emphasis in red):

“Originally charged with first-degree murder, Michael C. Hamlin, 24, could have faced a life sentence had he not agreed to plead guilty to second-degree murder and testify against his cousin and co-defendant, Percey Jordan.


Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Blogging while sick

I’ve got a cold, so I want to run through a lot of stuff fast:

  1. Conrad Black appears to be trying some kind of defense based on Veblen, the idea that the shareholders benefited from his (alleged) pilfering as they could bask in the reflected glory of his, and his wife’s, conspicuous consumption.
  2. The best single thing the world could do to reduce suffering, particularly in Africa, is to greatly restrict the trade in small arms.  I can hear the screams from the U. S. gun lobby already.
  3. If you read this story about Jeffrey Epstein carefully, he appears to be using his supposed expertise in money management as a front for Robert Maxwell money, and/or Leslie Wexner money (Wexner is on the boycott list as a supporter of Zionism).
  4. After agribusiness greed gave us the mad cow (by saving a bit of money by feeding animals to animals), agribusiness will now rescue us from the mad cow by forcing us to eat frankenfoods, as they tell us frankenfoods are prion-free.   Our natural aversion to eating cloned animals will be trumped by our natural aversion to eating mad cows.  Isn’t capitalism wonderful?

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Little Mosque on the Prairie

The latest Canadian Broadcasting Corporation comedy, no doubt inspired by a combination of CBC liberalism and the overwhelming success of its main competitor’s show ‘Corner Gas’, is called ‘Little Mosque on the Prairie’, produced by filmmaker Zarqa Nawaz.  It’s a comedy about Muslims living in a small town in Saskatchewan.  It will be interesting to see if the Canadian media reviewers are ordered to give it bad reviews, as it commits the unpardonable sin of humanizing Muslims.

Health care costs explained in full

From a letter to the editor by Corky Evans, former British Colombia Minister of Health, on the question of expenditures on medical technology, an index much used by right-wingers to rank health care systems:

“‘So doctor,’ I asked, ‘they are still dying out there, aren’t they? What is it they are dying of if it isn’t trauma and disease?’

And he said ‘Alienation. Alienation is the plague of our time. The people have lost the sense of where they came from and whom they belong with and where they might be going and with whom. They are alienated from their experience and alienation is a medical condition. It makes a vacuum in their lives that they self-medicate. They self-medicate with eating too much, with drugs, with dangerous sex or risky behaviour or alcohol or overwork or with any of a multitude of behaviours that kill them. They are dying of their self-medication from the plague of alienation. We cannot cure this problem with technology.’”


Friday, January 05, 2007

Harriet Beecher Carter

The fact that Jimmy Carter is allowed to appear on the mainstream media and mention Israel and apartheid in the same sentence is something of a miracle, and represents a sea change in the representation of Israel in the United States (of course, as I’ve mentioned before, this comparison is unfair  . . .  to the white South Africans).  Until recently, you’d be more likely to see hard-core porn on the American mainstream media than you would be able to obtain a smidgeon of truth about Israel.  Now that the American Establishment – you know, the guys Noam says rule the world – have belatedly awakened to the fact that they are on the verge of losing trillions of dollars due to American official support for the racist tribal policies of the Zionists who run Israel and have taken over the American government, the taboo on truth about Israel has been ordered to be at least partially lifted.

Will Carter’s book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”, become the “Uncle Tom's Cabin” of the Palestinian people?  It is commonly acknowledged now that the American Civil War was fought primarily for economic reasons, while justified on the moral grounds of eliminating slavery.  Popular uprisings in the Middle East, caused largely by the control of the American government by Zionists (culminating in the ZOG comprising Bush and the Zionist-controlled Democrats), will cost the American Establishment much of its wealth, making it necessary to solve the Zionist problem by putting Israel in its (small) place and finally granting the Palestinians a state in the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip (a square inch less won’t solve the problem).  Justifying the protection of the contents of your wallet by doing the ‘right thing’ will require a new emphasis on the injustice that racist tribal Zionism is doing to the Palestinians, and to Arabs and Muslims generally.

Now you are called a ‘racist’ if you even dare to mention the obvious facts about the ZOG and its horrible effects on Arabs and Muslims around the world (in my view, criticizing anti-Zionists as racists for complaining about Israel and its American supporters is like calling critics of Nazi Germany anti-Aryan; in the long run the true anti-racists will be acknowledged as such, and the casters of aspersions which serve to protect oppressors will be known as the real racists).  It will be interesting to see whether criticisms of Zionism and Israel suddenly become fashionable in American life. 

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Surge Protection Plan

The Zionists are circling the wagons against the attack from the Establishment (you know, the guys Noam says rule the world).  Condi Rice has been unreliable since Israel embarrassed her and the United States by slaughtering innocent civilians at Qana at exactly the same time that Condi was trying to convince the Lebanese of American bona fides in the Middle East.  She thus is going to be given the firm hand of reliable neocon John Negroponte, just to ensure that the State Department, which shows a deplorable enthusiasm in protecting the American Empire by looking out for oil interests in the Middle East, is finally brought under total Zionist control.  His main job, already noted by the alert British press, is to protect the surge plan from the predictable counterattack from those actually concerned about the interests of the United States. 

The surge plan comes directly out of the neocon/Zionist swamp.  You can read the entire plan here (click the link for a short power-point style pdf, written by Frederick W. Kagan and some of the usual AEI suspects).  As John Murtha is aware, the only way the surge will work is through further extension of tours of duty of troops already in Iraq or just returned from Iraq.  It is going to be tremendously amusing to watch the Democrats pretend to be against the surge while secretly doing all they can to please their ZOG masters.  Their task is all the more difficult when you consider that the main opposition to the surge will be moderate Republicans.  The Democrats could stop the surge in its tracks by cutting off funding for it, but you know their Zionist masters won’t let them.

Although the surge is being presented as a fait accompli by the Zionist-controlled press, I doubt that it is.  The surge is no doubt being sold to Bush as a means of avoiding having the embarrassment of American withdrawal occur during his presidency (Giuliani can do the job, and this be to Bush what Ford was to Nixon).  Bush is torn between his desire to obey the Zionists due to whatever hold they have on him (blackmail, religion, insanity?), and his traditional debt to the friends of his father, who have, both figuratively and literally (!), bailed him out throughout his entire life. 

If the full Baker plan is followed, it is the death of Israeli colonialism, and the end of Wurmser’s Zionist Plan for the Middle East.  The surge – a completely ridiculous, completely Vietnam-esque, plan of doing more of the same thing which has caused all the problems in the first place –  is intended to slow up American withdrawal until it has been ensured that Iraq will have to break up (if American troops withdraw now, the danger is that Iraq will stay intact under Iraqi control, or – shudder – under radical Iranian control).  The surge is presented as a workable alternative to the Baker plan, and is intended to replace the other dangerous Baker ideas, including settling the Palestinian problem and making nice with Syria and Iran, all in a last-ditch effort to protect the interests of the American Establishment in the Middle East.  The stakes are thus extremely high – the death of the American Empire versus the death of the dream of an Israeli Empire.  If Bush opts for a surge, it will prove that the American Establishment is so weak and decadent that it no longer deserves its empire.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

A heads-up on the Exclusive Brethern

There is a relatively quiet but extremely dangerous group of religious fruitcakes known as the Exclusive Brethren – isn’t that just the kind of name they’d give themselves? – who are starting to attempt to influence politics, particularly in Australia and New Zealand (but are also oozing up in Sweden, Canada, and the United States).  They have a web site, but have tended to keep a low profile, and have suppressed dissent.  Like most of these holier-than-thou extreme religious groups, they have an enormously complicated history of rifts and sects, but the main group (called Taylorites) is headed by a Sydney businessman named Bruce David Hales, who they call – I kid you not! – the Elect Vessel (and definitely not the Erect Vassal – I wonder if he wears a huge phallic fancy hat like such religious leaders usually get to wear).  From Wikipedia:

“The Taylorites are a separatist Christian group whose current leader is Australian businessman Bruce David Hales, known to them as the Elect Vessel and the Man of God. Followers maintain a strict code of conduct so that they associate only with other followers and avoid activities such as watching television, listening to radio, using the internet, membership of professional or other associations, or voting. They practice separation from the world in its strictest form among brethren generally, and will not eat or drink with those not in the fellowship. Those who have departed from or been excommunicated by them are mostly ostracised, although business activities between members and those not under discipline (excommunicated) are allowed.”

Luckily they don’t associate with those lesser mortals not in the group, and can’t use the internet (they must look at their web site printed on a vellum scroll), so they’ll never be aware of this posting (if they find out about it, they are going straight to hell!).

They are buying up advertising attacking the Green Party in Australia (the Greens are fighting back), and have allegedly hired private detectives to try to dig up dirt on New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark (a ploy which backfired badly).  As with all fruitcake sects, they appear to have at least a minor pedophilia problem.

Should we be surprised that the worst people in the world always seem to gravitate to the most sanctimonious fruitcake cults?  In case you want to spend your money elsewhere, Wikipedia lists some of the businesses owned by these creeps (list is limited to Australia;  we need a world-wide list).