Saturday, June 30, 2007

Gay Bombs

A few days ago, an Orthodox Jewish suicide bomber was apprehended by Israeli officials before he had a chance to set off his bomb at the Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade (Orthodox Jews have a problem with gays).  We didn’t hear a lot about this, as Jews are always supposed to be victims, and by definition can’t be terrorists.  Had he succeeded, he no doubt would have been described as the victim, and an Arab body would have been chosen to be the terrorist.  Then the usual typists would have written their opinion pieces wondering what is it in the ‘Arab mind’ that makes the Palestinians so prone to suicide bombing.

It is the gay press that has noticed that one of the latest London ‘bombs’ was on the route of the Gay Pride Parade, and the other parked nearby.  The parade was scheduled for the day following the parking of the two cars (although the gay press is downplaying the obvious connection, presumably not to reduce attendance).  The car on the route of the parade had been seen being driven ‘erratically’. presumably so it would be noticed (it actually drove into garbage bins in front of a busy nightclub), and had gasoline inside in full view (with labeled containers in case anyone was really slow).  The shrapnel was spread on the floor, where it would have had no or little effect, and the police seem to be having difficulty describing the detonator, leading me to believe there wasn’t one.  These weren’t bombs, they were warnings.

Needless to say, the cars were described as bombs placed by ‘al Qaeda’, before anyone could have determined who was responsible.  I’d be looking for religious fundamentalists, most likely Christian, who have orientation issues (i. e., fear of catching ‘teh gay’).

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Debunking left-wing conspiracy theories

Gabriel Ash attempts to explain the seemingly inexplicable love of European politicians for the worst ideas and plans of the Zionists:

“. . .  protecting profitable business falls short as an explanation. The strong support for Israel by leaders such as Blair and Sarkozy threatens Europe’s relations in the Middle East and perilously alienates its large immigrant communities. It is not driven by business as usual. On the contrary, it is led by an ideological kinship animated with revolutionary zeal and supported by the needs of financial capital to liberate itself from the chains of the welfare state. It is guided by a renewed desire to melt all that is solid into thin air. Israel’s great friends in Europe – Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, Bernard Henri-Levy, Angela Merkel, Joschka Fisher, Lord Levy, and many more – are the shock troops of the neoliberal assault on European society, its workers and public services. What’s left of Palestinian land is on the breakfast menu. But dinner’s piéce de resistance will be served from the butchered European welfare state – education, high wages, job security, followed by healthcare and retirement.

Is this a ‘conspiracy?’ Not in the cinematic sense of a powerful cabal meeting in secret and issuing marching orders. But there are plenty of secret and public conversations taking place through which the different elements of financial and political elites – the institutions, the corporations, the media, the civil society pressure groups, etc. – hone their common interests and learn to align and ‘conspire’ – to speak in the same language and rally around common causes and strategies. Describing exactly how this alignment takes place is important and difficult. My purpose here is limited to the easy part – to sketch this ideological front and to identify its purpose by recognizing the historical patterns it repeats.”


“What then lies at the root of this quite natural alliance between Christian fundamentalists, market fundamentalists, billionaires, Zionists, islamophobes, and garden variety warmongers? Karl Schmitt, the Nazi philosopher of law who theorized the way to defend the Christian state from the twin evil of communism and liberalism, identified the essential basis of political authority in the power to name the enemy. For Schmitt, while leftists see the enemy across town, in the ruling class and the state, the problem with liberals is that they see no enemies. Communism must be opposed; but the liberal alternative is not up to the task, since, without enemies, politics degenerate. To defeat the liberal atrophy of politics as well as labor’s militant tendencies, Schmitt saw the necessity of having an existential enemy, one that the whole state can be fully mobilized against. The enemy creates the conditions for the exercise of decisive state power, free from the restraints imposed by law and the deadlocks of parliamentary politics. Although the debt is rarely acknowledged, that has been the guiding principle of right-wing reaction. One could read Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilization’ thesis as the globalization of Schmitt’s insight. While originally presented as descriptive, the ‘Clash of Civilization’ has been so influential because it is in practice a political program, one tailored to combat what Huntington himself called elsewhere ‘an excess of democracy.’ Does one needs to mention that Huntington also looks askance at unions? The raw Schmitt, however, is too clearly reactionary. The new Schmittianism of the Islamophobic front is a rightwing reaction veiled in the trappings of the traditional left.

Having an enemy across the border – alien, total, menacing – helps the right assert political power domestically, the power it now needs to liberate stock markets from the fetters of the welfare state. This is the revolution’s goal, and support for Israel is right at the center of it. Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ thesis is manna from heaven for Israel because it places its fight against the Palestinians in a larger struggle that includes the whole West. This was always a conscious and important Zionist goal. Two examples of many: Max Nordau addressing the crème of British Imperialism at Albert Hall in 1920. ‘We know perfectly well what you require of us. We are to keep guard over the Suez Canal for you. We are to act as sentinel over your route to India and Asia …’ And a short century later here is former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu capitalizing on 9/11: ‘What is at stake today is nothing less than the survival of our civilization.’ And ‘The international terrorist network is thus based on regimes Iran, Iraq, Syria, Taliban Afghanistan, Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority and several other Arab regimes such as the Sudan … the Palestinian groups cooperate closely with Hezbollah, which in turn links them to Syria, Iran and Bin Laden.’ Of course, Hezbollah and Bin Laden’s affiliates are sworn enemies, and Arafat was connected to neither. The other thing worth noting about Netanyahu is his neoliberal zeal in cutting welfare, and the fact that during his tenure as Finance Minister the poverty rate in Israel rose 15%.

Radicalizing Europe’s Muslims therefore serves Israel’s purpose. But it is also, in line with Schmitt’s and Huntington’s ideas, a blessing for the neoliberal assault. Western support for Israel inflames Muslim public opinion and produces instances of fanaticism that in turn help inflame popular animus against Muslim immigrants. Practically all organized support for Israel is involved in demonizing Islam. The demonization of Islam strengthens the appeal of the most radical Islamists and increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks. Terrorism breeds fear and fear breeds obedience to authority and conformism. Divide and conquer. (Take, for example, Margaret Hodges recent foray into anti-immigrant xenophobia to cover up for New Labor’s policy of shafting its constituents) It works in the US. It works in Israel. Why shouldn’t it work in Europe? Needless to say, a state about to go smash labor and destroy public services needs all the obedience it can generate. It also needs vast police powers, and what better way to justify curtailing civil rights than a frenzy surrounding terrorism?

Furthermore, war and fear of terrorism require the transfer of funds from social services to defense and security. This is a bonanza for Israel since Israel specializes in selling security and defense wares. But spending on defense and security is also much better than spending on welfare from a neoliberal perspective. First, it is a way for the state to fund corporate profits directly, and therefore dear to the heart of financial capital. Second, the shift in priorities leads to dislocations that are in themselves useful for precipitating changes in the rules of work in favor of higher profits and lower wages. Third, social spending increases labor’s bargaining power. Defense spending doesn’t. It is pure waste, which is an advantage from the point of view of profits under current conditions. War, fear of terrorism, and immigrant bashing also bolster the legitimacy of the EU. Cross-border arrest warrants, mobile joint border policing, anti-terrorist task forces, are easier to justify than higher prices and lower wages.

Finally, in terms of talking left and walking right, Israel is indeed a ‘light onto the nations,’ and a successful controlled Schmittian experiment ensconced within a formal parliamentary democracy. Today, Israel is the second most unequal society in the developed world. The silver medal status, however, depends crucially on not counting Palestinians under occupation. Taken as a whole, Israel is in fact the industrial world’s indisputable leader in inequality. But even that doesn’t quite capture its unique achievement. Consider that this inequality is the result of a century of economic development during which, most of the time, Israel was under ‘socialistic’ leadership! Europe had to wait for the ’80s and ’90s to find socialist leaders whose real motto is ‘investors of the world unite!’ Israel already had such leaders in the ’20s. (See Zeev Sternhell, The Founding Myths of Israel) This ‘socialist’ and ‘democratic’ legacy of Zionism must offer an appealing roadmap for the Tony Blair left. Unlike most European countries, Israel developed as a capitalist country without going through the menace of a radical-left alternative. The nationalism of the historic labor party (Mapai) precluded it. The existential enemy authorized a secure zone for the unhindered development of capital”

Clever as this may be, trying to fit the Israeli-European relationship into the Procrustian bed of a traditional socialist analysis is very strained (it is even more strained to suggest, as Ash does, that supporting the boycott is a way to attack the general anti-welfare plans of the new European right).  It is curious that both political considerations, and economic considerations, together with the more humane attitude of Europeans towards human rights, all point to a European policy base that should lead to exactly the opposite of the current European slavish following of Bush Administration policies in the Middle East.  Thanks in large part to Hitler, most European countries don’t even have a Lobby to worry about!  So what gives in Europe?

Socialist reductionism misses the big role of other factors in the world other than control of the means of production.  Ash correctly identifies the corruption of Israeli politics through its overwhelming need to hate Arabs, which has led all major Israeli political parties to the extreme right (and, I might add, has correspondingly destroyed American ‘progressive’ politics, leaving the Americans with Noam).  In other words, Ash correctly identifies the basis of Israeli political thinking in factors other than class, but then tries to use class interests to completely explain the translation of Israeli ideas to the European forum (I suppose the socialists would just say that the Israeli empire building is the level at which we should do the class analysis, but this is just another level of reductionism, ignoring the more obvious factors that motivate human beings). 

Ash starts out well on the misuse of the Holocaust:

“The way Israel deliberately confounds the left-right distinction is also reflected in the internal politics of the West. While it is not difficult to discover the hands of wealth and reaction behind pro-Israel bodies, much of the Western left is congenitally paralyzed on the subject of Israel. The common attitude is silence or mealy mouthed half-criticism. The most significant agent of this debility is the cult of the Holocaust. Pre-war communists correctly saw Zionism as a colonial and racist enterprise. In the struggle against fascism, however, the left won the war but lost the peace. The apotheosis of the Holocaust and the enshrining of an idealistic, nostalgic anti-fascism was their sop. Israel sought and was accorded the guardianship of European guilt. Holocaust kitsch and the attendant sanctification of Israel is now the West’s alibi against all charges of continuing racism. In addition, Jewish community organs, captured by wealth, built their power on the cult of the Holocaust and now use it to de-legitimize criticism of Israel and drum up Islamophobia. Support for Israel is therefore a crucial element in preventing the articulation of a coherent social-democratic opposition to racism.”

The last line is too much of a stretch.  The general point – that Israel’s peculiar issues related to empire building led to the destruction of meaning to the left-right distinction, a destruction that has been jumped on by Euro right-wingers as the new model for welfare-state destruction, circumventing all the difficulties posed by class consciousness – goes too far.  It is also too far to say that the Zionist idea of Islamofascism is being used as the basis for the identified enemy to distract the victims of the new reconfigured Europe away from the real culprit.  This analysis is far too contrived, and somewhat typical of left-wing conspiracy theory. 

Right-wing politicians in Europe like Israeli politicians because they share a general political culture.  This culture is necessary in Israel in order to build the empire (you have to lack empathy in order to kill and displace Arabs).  The European politicians aren’t up to some Noamian conspiracy theory involving class interests.  Being overly specific about the plans of the conspirators isn’t necessary and makes the theory implausible.  The simple answer is better:  birds of a feather flock together.

The Western right-wing was in a horrible state in the 1970s, in full political and intellectual crisis.  At the same time that Israel was planning its historic tactical alliance with American Evangelicals, it was also planning how it was going to get away with all the human rights abuses that would be required to realize the Project.  If you line people up from most empathetic to least empathetic, the right-wingers will all be at one end of the line.  These are the people who don’t care about human rights, and thus would allow Israel to do what the Zionists felt they were going to need to do.  It was thus necessary to assist in jump-starting the return of the right.  Jeff Halper wrote:

“Although hardly a fan of Christians, Menachem Begin and his Likud colleagues appreciated their ideological similarities and the dovetailing of their political worldviews, especially since a militarily strong Israel able to use its Occupation for expansion was at the common center of their concerns. In order not only to strengthen the right-wing position at home but to influence policy towards Israel deriving from the US-led international community, Israel's right wing has worked diligently to insert itself into the global right alliance.

The Likud has long courted the Christian Right. In 1980, Falwell became the first non-Jew to be awarded the Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky medal for Zionist excellence by Begin. It was well known that Benjamin Netanyahu, when visiting Washington as Prime Minister, used to first meet with Falwell, and The National Unity Coalition for Israel, a gathering of more than 500 fundamentalist Christian leaders, then with the President and Congressional leaders. That continues: Pat Robertson received Israel's Freedom Award in 2004, and both Netanyahu and Benny Alon, the leader of the extreme right National Union Party, conduct extensive and ongoing contacts with them. It is a case of strange bed-fellows of great use to each other: Alon and other xenophobic orthodox rabbis who hold Christianity in contempt embracing dispensationalists who look forward to the End of Days and the end of the Jews. Yet each has its own interest in using Israel as a vehicle for its political program and of course the Jewish neo-cons lend a legitimacy to the relationship. All use the other.

Another interesting wrinkle is provided by another xenophobic and in principle anti-Christian community in Israel, the leaders of the Russian immigrants in Israel, such as Nathan Sharansky and Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu's former office chief. United by their fierce anti-communism and similar neo-con views of the world (Sharansky, who has been called "Bush's guru," was instrumental in getting the US to isolate Arafat), the Russian immigrant leaders carry on an intimate relationship with Washington through both the neo-cons and the Christian Right, while ensuring through their mobilization of the one million-strong Russian community in Israel the continued rule of the Likud (even though they actually stand to the right of it).

Through their control of the organized Jewish community in the US and elsewhere, demonstrated most openly in the work of the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), the Likud and Russian elements in Israel have even succeeded in turning what was historically a liberal Jewish Establishment into another uncritical arm of Israeli policy, and thus of the extreme right.”

and (emphasis in red):

Just as it has benefited from the rise of the Right in the US and elsewhere in Europe, Israel under the Likud (though not exclusively under the Likud) has become a center for mobilizing right-wing ideological and political forces on a global scale. Most visible in this regard is the annual Jerusalem Summit (actually held in the Israeli city of Herzliya), where the neo-con tribe gathers and galvanizes its plans for world domination around their concern for Israel. We are not speaking of marginal ‘kooks,’ but of top right-wing political leaders from Israel, the US, Europe and other parts of the world, high military officers and leading academics. Its leading lights include: Baroness Caroline Cox, Deputy Speaker of the U.K. House of the Lords and the non-executive director of the Andrei Sakharov Foundation (I wonder what Sakharov, who spent his whole life upholding human rights, would think of that!); Sam Brownback, Republican U.S. Senator from Kansas; Prof. Moshe Kaveh, President of Bar-Ilan University; Prof. Daniel Pipes, Board Member, United States Institute of Peace; Director of the Middle East Forum; Initiator of CampusWatch; Dr. Yuri Shtern, Knesset Member, National Union; a leader of the Russian community and a member of the extreme right;

Their worldview and agenda is summed up in what is called the ‘Jerusalem Declaration.’ It covers a range of issues of concern to the global right: But it also brings Israel into the center of the global right-wing agenda, suffusing it with Israeli claims and terms. Thus, Israel and its exclusive ‘right’ to the entire Land of Israel is inserted into the very center of the neo-con agenda.”

The process of fostering and bolstering the ‘new Right’ was started by Israel in the late 1970s, at just about the same time it was starting its unlikely relationship with the American Christian Right, and for the same reasons.  It so happens that the ‘new Right’ politicians share qualities with the Israelis that lead them to have similar ‘values’ (if I can use that word).  It is not exactly a coincidence that these qualities lead to both Zionist Empire building and the destruction of social welfare programs in Europe, but it is not a conspiracy either.  The factors that really tie all these seemingly diverse people together are personal and cultural.  Of course socialist reductionists would say we are confused – our class consciousness is wonky – but we know better.


Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Lies and truth

Contrast this steaming pile of Chomskean lies by Ron Jacobs with a clear statement of the truth by Jean Bricmont (both from Counterpunch; more excellent Bricmont, who is a real progressive, not a phony Zionist one, here).  Notice how the lite Zionist approach intentionally leads you to hopelessness (classic Chomsky), while Bricmont provides a relatively simple way out.

By the way, under the weight of the anti-Semite slur, the current code word for the de-Jew-ification of Washington is the removal of Cheney.  Cheney goes, the VP’s office (the “Occupied Territories”) is cleaned up, and much of the problem disappears.  The fact that the problem is so easy to fix is the ultimate refutation of lite Zionism.

The reckoning

The New Republic, of all places, recounts a confrontation between Norman Podhoretz and William Buckley on a right-wing cruise promoting the slaughter of Muslims (American like cruises with a theme!).  It is hidden behind a subscription wall (added:  the whole thing is reprinted here), but James Wolcott excerpts the best part:

“Buckley . . . united with Podhoretz in mutual hatred of Godless Communism, but, slouching into his eighties, he possesses a worldview that is ill-suited for the fight to bring democracy to the Muslim world. He was a ghostly presence on the cruise at first, appearing only briefly to shake a few hands. But now he has emerged, and his is fighting.

‘Aren’t you embarrassed by the absence of these weapons?’ Buckley snaps at Podhoretz. He has just explained that he supported the war reluctantly, because Dick Cheney convinced him that Saddam Hussein had WMD primed to be fired. ‘No,’ Podhoretz replies. ‘As I say, they were shipped to Syria. During Gulf War One, the entire Iraqi air force was hidden in the deserts in Iran.’ He says he is ‘heartbroken’ by this ‘rise of defeatism on the right.’ He adds, apropos of nothing, ‘There was nobody better than Don Rumsfeld. This defeatist talk only contributes to the impression we are losing, when I think we are winning.’

The audience cheers Podhoretz. The nuanced doubts of Bill Buckley leave them confused. Doesn’t he sound like the liberal media? Later, over dinner, a tablemate from Denver calls Buckley ‘a coward.’ His wife nods and says, ‘Buckley’s an old man,’ tapping her head with her finger to suggest dementia.”

You can’t get any more old school American Establishment than Buckley, and he is here reflecting the incomprehension at the evil of the Jewish neocons, the fury at their continued lies and warmongering, and the frustration at the impotence of the traditional American power structure to do anything about it.  The Noamian idea that the Israeli right and its American traitor-agents are just a front for the American Establishment is a contemptible lie.

As the Establishment is boxed in on all fronts  – the Jew-controlled media, the Jew-controlled Democrats, the Christian-Zionist-controlled Republicans, and a President who is religiously insane – they have had to run the American government without recourse to the traditional reins of power.  Noam is right in one, and only one respect:  the American Establishment is extremely powerful, so powerful that it can run the American government by proxy, using various levers of influence to work around the ZOG.  It is only their ability to do this that will save the American Empire from complete destruction.

The neocons, and the two-faced official American Jewish community generally, seem to feel that they have gotten away with one war, and are possibly going to get away with more wars and destruction, all without anybody noticing what is really going on.  This is a tragic mistake.  The average American can see the common denominator in the ritual murderers.  The American Establishment are foaming-at-the-mouth furious about it.  The reason we don’t hear too much of the fury is the fear at being labeled an anti-Semite (which prevents official expression of truth, but not private expression of truth), but the fury is there.  Had the neocons left well enough alone and slinked off after Iraq, they may have escaped retribution, but the constant provocation of more warmongering, with a complete lack of comprehension at the anger it is causing, is going to lead to a reckoning.  I’ve said this before, but it would be extremely prudent for the wider Jewish community to get in front of this thing, and start vehemently denouncing those traditional instruments of power who purport to speak for them, before something happens that takes the issue out of the control of the community.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

You can't get there from here

Have you noticed that the lite Zionists all think that the victory of Hamas is a ‘disaster’?  Of course, they immediately add ‘for the Palestinian people’, as they are famous for always ostentatiously looking out for the Palestinians.  All the reports of vicious retaliations by Hamas against Fatah members have turned out, naturally, to be lies (of course, the Israeli collaborators working for Dahlan haven’t had it so good).

It would be better if the Palestinians didn’t have to fight each other, but fighting is probably the only way to end the culture of collaboration.  Sometimes, you can’t get there from here without a fight.  As it happened, this was yet another miscalculation by Abrams, who thought he could stage a coup in Gaza, remove Hamas entirely, and sabotage the Mecca agreement (which the Israelis and their minion Abrams felt gave too much power to the non-collaborators).  The coup attempt forced Hamas to fight back, which led to the reestablishment of the elected government in at least part of the country.  The predictable efforts by the Zionists to prop up Abbas will just reinforce the idea in the Palestinians that collaborators are working for their enemy, an idea which they will need to have if they are to start to fight the oppressor.

It has become completely clear, from recent history in Lebanon and Gaza, that the Arabs are only going to get justice if they fight for it.  The singular lack of grace in the Jewish psyche means that the Jews never give anything up, even what they have stolen, unless you take it from them by force.

The Dahlan incident also reinforces the idea that one of the two archetypical Israeli tricks is paying people to turn against one another (the other is the ‘false flag’ operation, and the two tricks are often combined).

Is it all about the Messiah?

Thinking about the spate of recent opinion pieces, all by prominent Jewish writers, advocating a nuclear attack on Iran, and damn the anticipated horrible consequences for the United States (with no mention of the slightest moral qualms about the damage to the Iranian people, or the world), I can’t help but wonder if we are not in the middle of some kind of ritual.

There were two lies told to cause the attack on Iraq:  the Saddam-al Qaeda connection, and the WMDs.  Now we see two lies told about Iran (are two lies important?):  the alleged claim that the President of Iran called for Israel to be wiped off the map, and the claim that Iran is about to have nuclear weapons.  As in the case of Iraq, the liars know that these stories are outright lies, but persist in telling them as it is the only way they can encourage an attack on a sovereign country which is no threat to the United States.  The parallel in the lies makes them particularly outrageous (fortunately, the American elites are saying ‘fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me’).  Since there is no threat, and the writers know this, why do they keep calling for an apocalypse against the Iranian people?  Why do they keep calling for it when they know how unlikely it is?  Why are they giddy with self-righteousness over mass murder?

Could we be seeing a Jewish ritual to cause the Messiah to appear through the slaughter of the requisite number of Muslims?  What are the portents of the coming of the Messiah (emphasis in red; Rome = Washington?):

“The portents will be as follows :

(1) The rainbow – which is now tarnished, because it serves only as a memorial that the world will be destroyed no more by a deluge – will shine with very brilliant dyes, like a betrothed lady adorning herself to enter into the presence of her spouse.'

(2) A star will rise in the East and swallow up seven stars in the North.

(3) Presumably after a period, a fixed star will appear in the middle of the firmament and will be visible for seventy days. It will have seventy rays and will be surrounded by seventy other stars.

(4) The city of Rome will fall to pieces – an intimation which should be of moment to the hot gospel of certain protestant second-advent preachers, whose vestiges remain among us.

(5) A great King will rise up and will conquer the world. There will be war against Israel, but the chosen people shall be delivered. According to one account, the seventy celestial chiefs who rule the seventy nations of the earth will marshal all the legions of the world to make war on the sacred city of Jerusalem, but they will be exterminated by the power of the Holy One. It is written:   And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble. As such stubble, by such fire and flame shall the nations perish. Thereafter the King Messiah will cause Jerusalem to be rebuilt; the Holy One will remember that Covenant which He has made with Israel; and in such day will David be also raised up. The Messiah will draw to him the whole world; it shall be so to the end of the century ; and then the Vau shall be united with the HE.”

We spend a lot of time on the apocalyptic visions of the Christian Zionists, but perhaps we should be thinking about the Kabbalah.  The Polish Zionists seem fixated on causing a world war and killing millions of Muslims in the most horrible way possible.  Is the murder part of a ritual to bring forth the Messiah?  Norman Podhoretz actually ‘prays’ for it.  Is calling for an unlikely attack part of the faith – together with, ahem, ‘active preparation’ – that the elect feel will actually cause the Messiah to appear? It sounds crazy, but we may need to find a mystical source of the bloodthirsty craziness of the neocons.

Mainstream reinforcers

From a comment by Helen & Harry at Unknown News about an alleged attempt to censor a story about a very relevant scandal involving the similarities of stock touting and political manipulation (although in fact the details of the scandal may be bogus; as I’ve noted before, Mother Jones is a highly questionable source):

“I've always hesitated to say the following 'cuz it'll sound like sour grapes, but today, let's say it:

There certainly are occasional newsworthy nuggets that surface at ‘big league blogs’ like Daily Kos, but just in general, the fame and popularity of some of the giant blogs – Daily Kos,  AmericaBlog,  Atrios at Eschaton,  MyDD,   etc. – has always seemed exponentially out of proportion to how worthwhile they are. Or how worthwhile they aren't.”

So true.  In fact, the only one of the blogs that I call ‘Democrat camp followers’ that is of any real interest is Talking Points Memo, but you still have to wade through an enormous pile of partisan crap to find anything worth reading.  Both the mainstream media, and the mainstream bloggers, have the same purpose, which is to reflect and reinforce the prejudices of the elites in their audience.  Juan Cole wrote (emphasis in red):

Jebediah Reed at Radar Magazine makes the point that pundits who were wrong about the Iraq War have been well rewarded, whereas those like Bob Scheer and others who warned about its dangers have been fired or marginalized even though they were right.

This is because punditry is not about being right or wrong or exhibiting good judgment. It is about producing and reproducing elite American political discourse for the masses. It is more important that they can continue to justify changing elite policy than that they supported past policies that didn't work out very well. All the real reporters I know at all well are deeply unhappy at their workplaces, where they typically have wealthy far rightwing bosses who interfere from time to time in the newspaper or magazine and make the reporter's life hell. That is why it is unfair (as I have been reminded when I fall into it) to criticize reporters for where they work. Good reporters work for the Washington Times or UPI, i.e. for the Rev. Moon. But ultimately it is the Rev. Moon who decides who gets to be pundits for his media outlets. Apparently almost everyone in the news business is in pretty much the same position.”

I’m not so sure they care about the ‘masses’, but the mass acceptance of the lies is a welcome side effect (reflected in the fact that soldiers in Iraq claimed they were there to avenge September 11).  The real point of much of the mainstream chatter appears to be to justify the decisions already made by the government (we tend to forget that hardly anyone except the elites actually watches most of the shows that are the subject of so much discussion).  The repetition of the justness and good sense of the decisions already made seems to be some kind of psychological counseling for elites who may not be feeling entirely comfortable (this is particularly true when the decisions were stupid ones made as a result of a Zionist conspiracy, as we have recently seen in American decisions concerning the Middle East).  The media – controlled by you-know-who – creates a phony consensus.  Having every talking head, every ‘expert’, comment positively on the decisions makes everybody feel better about them. 

I can detect no difference between the mainstream media and the mainstream bloggers.  Both exist to make their important consumers feel comfortable about their decisions and prejudices.  Truth only appears as an occasional by-product, or by accident.

Monday, June 25, 2007

Truth accident at CNN

The Angry Arab conveys an amazing accident that occurred on CNN, when Nir Rozen blurted out the truth and explained concisely and accurately what just happened in Gaza.  CNN must have a censor for such accidents to prevent them from being aired, a censor who is now being tortured to death by Wolf Blitzer.  It is interesting how these accidents are multiplying as the fury of the people builds. 

Thinking of Wolf, it is also interesting that almost all – in fact, maybe all – the neocons are of Polish-Jewish descent.  The ‘progressive’ Jews were traditionally European, supported Labour, and stood at the top of the racist Israeli pecking order.  Under them were the ‘Oriental’ Jews who originated in the Middle East, were Likud supporters, and, of course, are genetically identical to the Palestinians who they ironically treat with racist contempt.  With the extreme shift to the right in Israel, the Labour-Likud difference doesn’t matter anymore (though, of course, the European Jews are still the ‘whites’, and the ‘Oriental’ Jews are the under-race).  In America, the most racist and conservative and genocidal Jews are all, or almost all, European Jews whose forefathers came from Poland.  A Martian who just landed in his spaceship and didn’t know the nuances might think he is witnessing a Polish campaign of genocide against the Arabs.

Don't breathe while Rudy is around

I’m working on a posting on ritual mass murder (so what else is new?), but in the meantime . . .  I love this stuff (my emphasis in red):

“Former Environmental Protection Agency boss Christie Whitman says she urged Ground Zero workers to wear respirators, but then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani blocked her efforts.

She also said city officials didn't want EPA workers wearing haz-mat suits because they ‘didn't want this image of a city falling apart.’

In an interview scheduled to run the day before Whitman testifies in front of Congress on Monday, she told WNBC-TV she warned the city of the risks almost every day.

And she said she believes illnesses killing first responders can be blamed on the city's lack of action.

‘I'm not a scientist ... but I do [believe that],’ she told WNBC's Brian Thompson.

‘I mean, we wouldn't have been saying that the workers should wear respirators if ... we didn't think there might be health consequences.’

She said the city had the responsibility to make sure workers wore respirators. But many took them off, complaining of heat. She said workers without respirators were barred from cleanup efforts at the Pentagon.

Presumably, the Pentagon officials knew about the DU in the missile nose!  Giuliani had more tricks up his sleeve for the anthrax clean-up workers:

“Whitman also criticized Giuliani's handling of a suspected anthrax attack at NBC's Rockefeller Center headquarters weeks after 9/11.

There was concern by the city that EPA workers not be seen in the haz-mat suits,’ she said. ‘They didn't want this image of a city falling apart. I said, 'Well, that's not acceptable.'’

Giuliani's former Deputy Mayor Joe Lhota rejected Whitman's claims.

‘As the incident commander, F.D.N.Y.’s response was exemplary. They coordinated, conducted and affected a multi-agency response in a timely, safe and efficient fashion," Lhota said.’”

Note the typical non-denial denial.

Even the dumbest of bloggers could see this coming.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Inane conspiracy theories

Cannonfire says my theory on the Judicial Watch story is a “a particularly inane conspiracy theory”, and then – presumably to demonstrate his expertise in particularly inane conspiracy theories – goes on to consider a theory connecting Osama to Promis.  The first comment to the posting pretty much nails it (I can’t get the link to work, so just click on ‘comments’ at the end).  As to Judicial Watch, you can judge for yourself who funds it.  I hardly need point out the importance of Scaife:

“People for the American Way estimates that the Scaife Foundations have channeled in excess of $340 million to right-wing groups over the last thirty years, more than any other individual.”

On the proposed sale of arms to the Saudis:

“A high-level Israeli delegation will meet with officials in Washington this week and demand that restrictions be clamped on the proposed US sale of state-of-the-art weaponry to Saudi Arabia, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The talks are expected to center on the US decision to sell Joint Direct Attack Munition satellite-guided ‘smart bombs’ to Saudi Arabia. The sale has caused consternation in Jerusalem over concern it could tip the balance of power in the region.

If the sale does go through, Israel has expressed interest in acquiring the F-22 stealth bomber – a plane that can avoid radar detection and is the world's most advanced fighter jet – to maintain its qualitative edge. In April, the Post reported that the IAF had inquired about obtaining the aircraft and had requested that the Defense Ministry present the request on its behalf to the Pentagon.”

Remember the F-22?  The Acting President of the United States, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is behind the proposed sale to the Saudis, representing yet another instance of the reoccupation of Washington by the American Establishment.  But wait, there’s more (neat-o Lobby – you know, the one with no power – reference in red):

“A mini-crisis is said be brewing between the US and Israeli defense establishments over the sale of advanced American ‘smart bombs’ to Saudi Arabia.

Two Israeli generals returned from Washington on Monday after failing to sway Pentagon officials with their government's concerns over the deal, which is worth billions of dollars to US defense contractors.

Putting these weapons – which are similar to the smart bombs used by the Israeli Air Force – in Saudi hands ‘damages Israel's qualitative military edge in the Middle East,’ warned defense officials cited by Israel's Ma'ariv daily newspaper.

Other security experts have cautioned that while the current Saudi regime may never use these weapons against Israel, there is no telling who will be in control in Riyadh in five, 10 or 20 years.

In the unstable political atmosphere that characterizes much of the Arab Middle East, successive American administrations have vowed to help maintain Israel's qualitative military edge over its enemies.

The current backtracking on that promise has elicited threats from Jerusalem to call into action the pro-Israel lobby on Capitol Hill in order to scuttle the Saudi arms deal.

US defense officials have responded angrily, and have banned Israel from participating in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter next-generation fighter jet in retaliation.”

Actually, as my inane conspiracy theories go, this one’s got legs.  Dredging up a silly story connecting the Saudi royals to Osama just at the time the Saudi royals are trying to buy arms from the Americans in a sale the Israelis vehemently oppose?  Sounds like a conspiracy to me.  Judicial Watch is, essentially, Scaife, and Scaife is a rabid Christian Zionist.  QED.

A university run by the Lobby

The Jewish Cabal made one huge mistake – typical, for them, a mistake of overreaching – when they instructed their minion, DePaul School of Typing President Father Dennis Holtschneider, to deny tenure to Norman Finkelstein:

If Finkelstein's tenure bid was always controversial because of the intervention of Dershowitz and other pro-Israel ideologues, the rejection of Larudee was a shock. Her application had been unanimously approved at every previous level of the tenure process, and she was preparing to take over as chair of the university's International Studies program.

Larudee's supporters among faculty say the only reason they can think of for the decision is that she spoke out in defense of Finkelstein – and her brother is also involved in working for justice for Palestine.”

Larudee received the same kind of letter from Father Holtschneider as Finkelstein received.  What are the chances that there would be two prominent Middle East scholars at the same two-bit university, both approved for tenure by the appropriate academic committees, and both mysteriously rejected for tenure, with the only conceivable reason for the rejection of Professor Larudee being her support for Finkelstein?  The stated reasons for the rejection of Finkelstein – basically relating to his tendentious relationship with the orthodox Zionists – can’t possibly apply to Larudee, a fact which proves the utter bullshit behind Holtschneider’s stated reasons for denial.  The ‘take no prisoners’ attitude of the Cabal has again led to the kind of overreaching which reveals what this is really about.

This is a blatant attack on the right of every academic in the United States who dares write anything that does not conform to the murderous ideas of the Cabal:

Holtschneider claimed in his statement that ‘academic freedom is alive and well at DePaul.’ The truth is the exact opposite – academic freedom has been dealt a serious blow, and not just at DePaul. Holtschneider's decision was greeted with joy by various attack dogs opposed to critical thinking and academic freedom in general, and in relation to Israel in particular. Dershowitz ‘applaud[ed] the University for its actions.’ In keeping with his habit of turning reality upside-down, he claimed that DePaul had reached the correct decision despite being inundated by a massive pro-Finkelstein campaign from the ‘hard-left.’

The denial of tenure to Finkelstein gives inspiration to the right-wing program which seeks to turn universities into zones of uncontested indoctrination, free of outspoken dissident professors and with little in the way of a commitment to an atmosphere which fosters critical thinking and open debate. Raul Hilberg, one of the most distinguished historians of the Nazi holocaust who had called Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry ‘a breakthrough,’ was quoted in the Chicago Tribune saying that ‘I have a sinking feeling about the damage this will do to academic freedom.’”

Dennis Holtschneider needs to be fired or forced to resign, and these wrongs righted, or DePaul will always be considered a laughing stock, a university run by a Lobby.

Judicial Watch, up to its old tricks

Judicial Watch, one of Christian Zionist Richard Mellon Scaife’s propaganda outlets, suddenly pops up with some old FBI documents which indicate (or here) that Osama may have been behind one of the flights that extracted the Saudi royal children, and some bin Laden family members, from the American lynch mob in the wake of September 11.  The timing of this revelation is odd.  It is even odder that Osama would be so kind as to leave some sort of paper trail connecting him to the extrication.  Did he use his laptop in that cave in Afghanistan to charter the flight?  Remember how much Michael Moore’s movie fixated on the relatively unimportant issue of the rescue flights?   Remember that Michael Moore’s agent is Rahm Emanuel’s brother? 

The key in figuring this out is to concentrate on the fact that the Saudis are just concluding very delicate negotiations to buy a huge amount of sophisticated arms from American arms companies, and the Israelis want to block the deal.  Christian Zionist Richard Mellon Scaife wants to help Israel block the deal.  Judicial Watch, which used to have a terrible reputation, has been rehabilitated in recent years by catering to the needs of the lite Zionists and those Americans who like a certain kind of conspiracy theory, the one that believes that the American oil government is in cahoots with the ‘Islamofascists’.

The shape of Israeli false flag operations in the years to come

An Israeli think-tanker polishes up Bibi Netanyahu’s ‘war on terror’, an idea manufactured in Israeli think tanks in the 1980s, and prepares us for the shape of Israeli false flag operations in the years to come.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Conspiracy

Here’s what happened:

  1. The American Establishment knew that Bush wasn’t qualified in any way to be President of the United States.  On the other hand, he appeared to be electable, and carried with him the promise of lower taxes and the end of the few regulations on corporations that were left.  The giddy days of American power from the days of the Clinton Administration also led to some negligence about the use of such power, stemming from the idea that the United States controlled the world so thoroughly that it could afford to have a buffoon as President. 

  2. The American Establishment took considerable comfort in the fact that the real acting president would be Dick Cheney, a reliable right-winger with decades of service, in various capacities, to the Elites.

  3. The American Establishment failed to account for the emotional control over Bush by the Christian Zionists, and the fact that Dick Cheney’s sole belief was in a doctrine called dickcheneyism, the advancement of power and wealth for Dick Cheney.

  4. Cheney realized that a Middle East war would increase his personal power to levels never matched by any Vice President (or President, for that matter).  Thanks to his Halliburton shares, it would also increase his wealth.  He could also see how the Bush Administration was stocked with Israelis, fresh off the plane from advising Netanyahu to arrange for regime change in Iraq.  Going with the flow of an Administration stocked by Christian Zionists with the express purpose of creating an apocalypse in the Middle East meant falling in with the plan to attack Iraq.  Despite the fact that Cheney had been the one arguing the stupidity of an attack on Baghdad at the end of the Gulf War, dickcheneyism, the advancement of the power and wealth of Dick Cheney, made his support for the attack on Iraq easy for Cheney.

  5. The presence of Cheney (and Rumsfeld) meant that the attack was saleable to the American Establishment, despite profound doubts about all the Jews hanging around the White House  There were also repercussions of the attack which fit in with large geopolitical strategies of the American Establishment (I still owe you a report on this).  Therefore, despite the doubts, they let it happen.

This is how conspiracies occur.  In fact, it is almost a classic example.  Even those with all the power can lose it, at least for a significant moment, if the wrong people working semi-clandestinely for a particular conspiracy are allowed to roam free for a period of time.  The standard lite Zionist line, that the Elites run everything so they must have been behind everything that happened, is obvious nonsense, particularly in times when empires are in decline.  My interest in things Zionist stems from the fact that Israel is attempting to build an empire by piggybacking on the power of the United States, thus leading to the rich ground for conspiracy theorists that surrounds Israeli-American relations.

It’s funny how hard it is to sell an obvious conspiracy to conspiracy theorists, when the American Establishment itself has no doubt about what happened.  They are furious, and frustrated at their relative impotence.  I’ll bet if you could get them to speak frankly you would hear some of the choicest and most colorful bits of anti-Semitism you can imagine.  We’re now seeing the Empire strike back a bit, with sales of arms to the Saudis, failure to help Israel out of Lebanon, talks with Syria and Iran, and a general disinclination to attack Iran.  Of course, Bush carries on regardless, and the neocons around Cheney are still up to no good (the current projects include arranging for the civil war in Gaza, disrupting Lebanon by conspiring for the Lebanese army to slaughter Palestinian refugees, pushing for an attack on Syria, and, through Israeli David Wurmser, trying to have Israel attack Iran to suck the United States into war).

You can detect a hint of the fury in the conduct of the Libby trial.  Judge Walton threw the book at Libby, refused to censor the names of the Jews who embarrassed themselves in the sentencing letters, and essentially made fun of the legal brief he received on sentencing (written by a list of ‘experts’ led by, you guessed it, Alan Dershowitz) .  The anger amongst the Americans Establishment is building so fast that even the conspiracy theorists are going to be left in its wake.

Whose side is he on?

Norman Podhoretz admits that an American attack on Iran would result in “a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.”  He calls that a worst-case scenario, but seems to believe it is the most likely scenario. Guess what?  He hopes and prays for the attack anyway.  Whose side is he on?  Israel’s.

General Thoughts on the Longest Day

A wide-ranging rant, “General Thoughts on the Longest Day” from To The Audient Void.

Northern Light

From the sublime to the ridiculous, Flemming Rose (remember him?) has a blog.


There are already an enormous number of big ideas at Naqniq.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

More on the J-word: a call for the plain-spoken truth

From a comment by Sean McBride:

“Xymphora is not addressing this complex and volatile issue with sufficient rigor or attention. Is it not a fact that the ‘J-word’ has often been used by bigots and anti-Semites throughout history to stir up genocidal hatred of all Jews, of Jews as a whole? Shouldn't one be exceedingly careful about not playing into the hands of such haters? Shouldn't one take pains not to use the J-word loosely, without making careful discriminations about which particular Jewish individuals or Jewish factions one is talking about? Of course real anti-Semites will dismiss these concerns with contempt, and speed right on through the red light with their reckless and deliberately inciting rhetoric.”

As far as I can tell, the only good reason for not using the J-word is that irresponsible and evil people have misused it in the past.  On the other hand, it is undeniable that the main protagonists in the manipulation of the United States to assist in the building of the Zionist Empire are Jewish.  More importantly, their Jewishness isn’t a coincidence, and pointing it out isn’t a slur.  It goes directly to motive.  Their actions are motivated by their irrational belief that building a Jewish Empire is necessary to the survival of the Jewish people.  They are convinced that the Holocaust will reoccur unless there is a safe haven just for Jews, and the present State of Israel is insufficient to be that haven.  Due to the dire and immense nature of the threat, they are completely unmoved by the moral implications of what they are doing.  Conspiring to lie to start a war which results in the deaths of a million people in Iraq is of no more moral consideration than are the lives of Palestinian civilians who live in an apartment block bombed by the IDF on the possibility that there might be someone described as a ‘terrorist’ living there.

One of the reasons we have difficulty with this concept is that this ScareJew is so irrational that we can hardly believe that 21st century human beings can actually think this way.  Unfortunately, the suspicions in the group mean that they share their paranoia only amongst themselves, which tends to reinforce it.  Philip Weiss, whose blog is a must-read, is very good on this (paranoia in red):

 “My posts became more thoughtful, and on occasion I got more than a hundred comments. My editor said nothing, but I ascribed Peter’s silence to the fact that he had enough on his hands just to compile the paper every week. He has a stronger Jewish identity than I do. A few years back, we were sitting in his office when he said, ‘You know what the most important question is about your wife’s family?’ ‘What?’ I asked. ‘Would they hide you?’ ‘Huh?’ ‘Would they hide you?’ he said again. Oh. He meant if there were pogroms in America. I said they would, even though I was a little offended by the question. Jews had achieved great power and privilege in America. I did not see pogroms as a realistic possibility.

But Peter thought that American ethnicities could turn on one another like Sunnis and Shi’ites if the circumstances were right. One of his strongest intellectual influences was the late Eric Breindel, a neoconservative writer and the son of Holocaust survivors, whom we had met at The Harvard Crimson. I always thought Eric had a paranoid streak, but Peter saw him as brilliant. He took Eric’s views of the Middle East more seriously than my own. One of those views was mistrust for the ‘guys in the striped pants’ (as Peter put it) in the State Department, who sold out European Jews during the Holocaust.

This is a familiar Jewish conversation, one that takes place often, even among affluent and prominent people. In his recent book Prisoners, The New Yorker writer Jeffrey Goldberg relates that in the 1980s he came to feel that Gentile society was dangerous for Jews and that the Diaspora being the ‘disease,’ Israel was the ‘cure.’ So he moved there. A Harvard friend who had gone on to media renown once related to me a visit to an ancestral village in Eastern Europe where no evidence remained of Jews. Not a grave, not a synagogue. He said, ‘How can you expect to engage in discussions of Jewish privilege when we know how the last such conversation ended?’

My answer is that America is different from Europe, and I thought journalists were demonstrating bad faith in our democracy when they declined to talk about real issues surrounding the power structure – say the Israel lobby or the predominance of Jewish money in Democratic Party giving – out of fear that their group would suffer.”

I know what happened to cause the attack on Iraq (and similar mistakes made by the United States concerning the Middle East).  A small group of Israelis made an extremist plan for Israel to arrange for regime change in each of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.  The plan was rejected by Israeli politicians as being too radical and impractical.  As a result of a ‘perfect storm’ of events, the simultaneous control of the Presidency by the Christian Zionists and of the Democratic Party through the donations of Jewish Billionaires (the latter proven conclusively by the failure of the Democrats, elected for the sole reason of extracting the U. S. from Iraq, have been completely unable to do so, led by Israeli military vet Rahm Emanuel), it was decided that the plan could be implemented all at once during the course of the Bush Administration, and had to be implemented in a hurry as the stars might not be so aligned again for generations.  The same Israeli planners who made the plan were injected into the American government, and set up institutions and procedures specifically designed to bypass the usual checks and balances of American strategic planners, who would have rejected the attack out of hand as being dangerous for American Establishment interests, a fact demonstrated beyond argument by what has happened since (the structure of the stovepiping, and the fact that the neocons spent considerable effort setting up structures to bypass the usual checks and balances, directly disproves the lies of the lite Zionist who want to blame the attack on the American Establishment).   The Feith-Libby meetings described in Feith’s sentencing letter were an important part of this, representing the special delivery of the lies from the manufacturing plant to the distribution center, Office of Special Plans to White House Iraq Group.  There had to be a special delivery system simply to make the conspiracy work. 

So should I lie about it to avoid offending?  I have this predilection for the truth.  I also know that pointing out the Jewishness of the protaganists isn’t a bigoted attack.  It is explanatory of what they are doing, and why they are doing it.  I can cover it up by calling them ‘Zionists’ rather than Jews, but isn’t this just another euphemism?  We have appropriated the old term ‘Zionist’, which used to just mean benign Jewish nationalism, for our own purposes.  Why not be honest about it?  Their peculiar ideas and actions come directly out of the Jewish experience, an experience horrible enough to cause a form of mental illness.

The other reason given for lying is strategic.  The lite Zionists seem to want us to lie out of fear that if the American people knew the truth they would rise up and start a pogrom.  We can give Americans a little more credit than that.  We can also assume that informed Americans, despite the Jew-controlled (sorry!) media, pretty much know what happened to cause the attack on Iraq.  Lying about it isn’t going to fool anyone who has been paying attention.  Using plain-spoken words which reflect the facts of the matter can do no harm.  I know we’ll be called ‘anti-Semites’, but that is always their response to the truth anyway.  Pandering to the apologists for the Israeli Empire has helped nobody, and it is time to stop.

The additional danger is that lying may implicate the wrong people.  The guilty group is very small:  a handful of Jewish Billionaires and the ideologues, usually Israelis living in the United States, who worked for them (together with a few guns-for-hire like Cheney who were engaged as cover).  These are the only guilty people, not the average Jewish American.  If we continue to lie about what happened, the danger is that the dumber Americans will come to believe we are covering up for the larger, innocent, group.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Mushrooming opposition

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, has there been a more poorly governed former Soviet client state than Poland?  The Poles are falling all over themselves to help the American neocons restart the nuclear arms race (which, btw, directly connects to the Israeli right’s desire for increased American militarism, something else we can – and must – blame on the American Jewish establishment), while the Czechs – at least the Czech people – are a lot more circumspect.  People in Europe are going to have to realize that their main source of energy for the foreseeable future will be Russia, so unless they want to freeze in the dark . . .

A Czech hacker group called Initiative Ztohoven has somehow managed to manipulate a live weather television feed from a Czech resort area to include an atomic mushroom cloud explosion.  Besides admiring their technical skill, you also have to admire their Guerrilla Theater politics.

The dreaded J-word, and other truths

Robot Wisdom auxiliary notes the continuing increase in Google search results for ‘israel lobby’.  My general optimism – except for a possible attack against Syria – about things in the Middle East is connected to the increasing honesty we are starting to see – even creeping into the mainstream media – about what is going on in the Middle East and who is really behind the problems.  Even our ability to speak the truth and use the dreaded J-word – rather than using various euphanisms; or avoiding the issue entirely, the usual way out – is improving at an accelerating rate.  You will now see truths, even in the mainstream media, that as recently as a year ago would have resulted in ‘Hitler’ or ‘Nazi’ slurs flying all over the place (though you will note the predictable, and rather funny, defaming – or here – of Brzezinski for having the temerity to point out the Lobby connections to what Joe Lieberman is publicly advocating, an attack that is not just a war crime, but is considered to be the supreme war crime, the one for which people have, rightly, been hung).  It is imperative to nail the real culprits, as their protection behind the veil of political correctness is the only thing allowing them to continue to carry out their misdeeds.

(Don't) Support Our Troops

I’m thinking it would be easier to stop the longer postings with a number of items, and do many more individual postings.  Here’s a short one from The Onion (which has been relatively boring recently):  “I Support The Occupation Of Iraq, But I Don't Support Our Troops”:

“I'd like to ask those currently trumpeting their support for the troops a question: Have you ever actually met any of these soldiers in person? Well, I have, and believe me, they are no more impressive than any other low-level functionary of a large institution.”

 I’d vote for politicians who were as honest as this.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Monday, June 18, 2007

Monday, June 18, 2007:

  1. Via Boing Boing, thoughts on how the physics/economics of space colonization make it impossible.  This is important, as a lot of people on the right claim that we can screw up the environment of this world as we always have the safety net of a space colony.  Improvements in technology won’t change the laws of physics.  We’re stuck with this world, so we have a duty not to wreck it.

  2. Archetypally dumb DU thread on Nifong.  There are a few astute comments, but for the most part DU is neither democratic nor underground, and can hardly be called liberal.  The complete failure to understand power/race relations – the failure which was also behind mischaraterizations of the Danish cartoons issue – is one reason why the U. S. is so fucked up.

  3. Sudan has backed the African Union peacekeeping force which will be funded by the UN.  This is another disaster for Zionism, one in an ongoing series.  Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon correctly identified the Darfur problem as primarily an environmental problem, and correctly noted that the same type of conflict will occur elsewhere for the same reasons.

  4. The Abrams/Israeli plan to use Mohammad Dahlan’s Fatah troops to destroy or weaken Hamas is yet another in the series of Zionist losses.  The Zionists will try to spin it all they want, but this isn’t what Israel – or Israel’s traitor-agents in the American government – wanted.  Some of the Fatah forces fled out of Gaza, knowing what the Palestinians do to collaborators, and the Hamas victory is actually a victory over Israeli collaborators.  Whatever happens in the short run – probably separation of Gaza from the West Bank and further efforts to ‘support’ Fatah which will backfire – the Hamas victory was a good thing, and a necessary thing.  You have to love Fisk’s question:  “How do we deal with a coup d'état by an elected government?”

  5. Racism and TV in Venezuela”.  It is a point of ongoing interest, unnoticed in official circles, that the ‘establishment’ in South American countries is invariably of European descent, and the ‘radicals’ are from the majority indigenous population.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Bandar Blair BAE Bush

Bandar Blair BAE Bush, or a Combination of Allegations:

  1. Tony Blair has the usual ‘Jewish problem’, in that his personal version of the Jewish Billionaires’ club has been illegally slipping his party campaign contributions.

  2. Blair and his party have been covering up the BAE bribery, allegedly to protect the reputations of some unnamed Saudi Royals, which cover-up in turn is allegedly to protect the British arms industry, as the Saudis are the only people stupid and corrupt enough to buy the junk the British make.

  3. It turns out the big recipient is Prince Bandar.

  4. Prince Bandar has been scheming with members of the Bush Administration, particularly the craziest Zionist of all, Elliott Abrams, to fund Sunni militias in the Middle East to combat the influence of Iranian-sponsored Shi’ite groups.  In particular, funding of tiny Sunni militias in Lebanon was supposed to provide opposition to Hezbollah (an unlikely prospect).

  5. The net result of such scheming in Lebanon, to the certain delight of Abrams, is the slaughter of completely innocent Sunni refugees, and more destabilization of Lebanon.

Bandar is said to be on the outs with Saudi King Abdullah, who favors a plan of rapprochement with Iran.  If you follow the connections of all the allegations, you can see why he might be a bit pissed.  Jew-controlled Blair hides Bandar’s bribes, while Bandar is scheming with the Zionist Cabal in a plan that results in the slaughter of Sunni refugees.  When will Arabs learn that they never come out ahead when they deal with Zionists?

The Old South rises again

The racist American Southern establishment has laid down the law in North Carolina and has made it abundantly clear that Southern white dominance isn’t something to be trifled with.  The long lynching process of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong has begun by forcing him to resign and then disbarring him.  More punishment is to come.  Reading the blogs and the American press, it appears that there is universal approval of the basic American principle that the legal system is there only to oppress, and never to help, niggers.  The strangely-monikered Talk Left is filled with self-righteous gloating at the fate of Mr. Nifong, and the only blog I’ve read that sees the big picture is Cosmic Iguana.

Outsiders like myself are always a little surprised – shocked even – at the extreme pro-prosecution bias of the American legal system.  Innocent until guilty my ass!  The Conrad Black trial is a good example.  Much as I hate Black (and would like to see him jailed for the next century or so), I have to say he is getting a rough ride in Chicago.  He brought in a famous defense lawyer from Canada with a reputation for having mad skillz as a cross-examiner.  In Canada, defense lawyers are allowed a large leeway by judges in cross-examining prosecution witnesses, as the system seems to realize the huge advantage that Crown prosecutors have.  Canadian defense lawyers are allowed to really lay into prosecution witnesses.  In the American system, this is called ‘badgering’, the successful subject of prosecution objections, and the net effect was that the main prosecution witness, David Radler, had his credibility increased as a result of the failed cross-examination.  This failure was caused by the combination of the fact that Radler is a bit of a genius, and the fact that the defense lawyer had his hands tied by a legal system that is overly protective of prosecutors.

Nifong was aggressive, but no more aggressive than most American prosecutors, who get away with it every single day of the year.  The difference, of course, was that he used his aggression to assist a black complainant against white privilege.  Much is made of the fact that he was fishing for votes in an upcoming election, which is a polite way of pointing out all the problems that have occurred as a result of allowing black people to vote (fortunately, gerrymandering, ‘caging’, systematic disenfranchisement, failure to provide sufficient voting machines, and outright vote fraud in the American South – not to mention many other places, including Ohio – have largely alleviated this serious problem!).

Just imagine what would have happened if Nifong had tried the same tricks with a white complainant who alleged rape at the hands of black basketball players from a lowly underfunded state college?  Nothing would have happened.  I guarantee it.  No resignation, no disbarment, no civil suits.  In fact, after the railroading, the populace would have held a parade for Nifong and named a street after him.  The hypocrisy of white privilege is outrageous.

I can’t comment on the merits of the case itself, as we’ve never had a trial.  The whole thing has been tried and adjudicated in the court of public opinion, and clever people have arranged for that to happen.  The point of a trial is to find the facts, and successful media manipulation by the white establishment has ensured that we will never actually see the allegations tested. The judge and jury was a politician, the North Carolina Attorney General.

Just think of the message being sent to prosecutors across the American South.  If you take on a case with a black complainant, and white, privileged defendants, no matter what you feel about the credibility of the complainant, and no matter what you feel, as a professional prosecutor, of your duty to stand up for the rights of the oppressed, your career, and your life, will be ruined.  It seems to me that underprivileged black people have the right not to have crimes committed against them by white elites, but the people who run the ‘justice’ system in the American South don’t agree.  As time goes on, not much has changed.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

The big lie that defines Zionism

The big lie that defines Zionism is that Zionists generally, both before and after the creation of the State of Israel, and Jews who support the State of Israel – whether Zionists or lite Zionists – are not, have never been, and never will be, interested in building a Zionist Empire across the Middle East.  There are examples of this lie too numerous to mention, but they all relate back to the original lie that Israel is not building an Empire.  The lie takes the form of hiding inconvenient facts like the Nakba and the attack on the Liberty.  It takes the form of the series of lies told by the lite Zionists to hide the huge role played by the Jews who took control of American foreign policy in order to trick the Americans into attacking Iraq.  It also takes the form of barefaced lies told about the honorable intentions of the Jewish people as expressed through their most righteous state, the State of Israel. 

Perhaps the biggest and most obvious of the lies is that the Six Day War was fought for purely defensive reasons, out of fear of an imminent ‘existential threat’ to Israel from the Arab States.  The statements of Israeli officials themselves completely and conclusively refute this lie.  Israeli leaders knew there was no ‘existential threat’, and started the war purely for the purposes of territorial expansion, intending, from the outset, to seize the Golan Heights, the Sinai, all of Jerusalem, and what is now known as the ‘Occupied Territories’.  The territorial expansion of Israel is part of an ongoing plan, a conspiracy, if you will, which dates back to the earliest days of the concept of Zionism.  Everything that Israel does, and all the lies told by Zionists and lite Zionists, are part of a conspiracy to hide the plan.  The plan needs to be hidden as it is utterly illegal under international law, and revealing what Israel is up to would force the world to put a stop to it. 

The big lies are all-pervasive, particularly in the United States, where American sponsorship of Israel is necessary to carry out the plan.  The American network PBS recently broadcast a documentary about the Six Day War titled "Six Days in June."  The same documentary was shown all over the world.  It was produced in Canada with an Israeli director.  The United States version was the only version that was censored of any reference to the suffering of the Palestinians.  Antonia Zerbisias writes (my emphasis throughout in red):

“The perfect illustration is a stunning $1.2 million Canada-Israel-France co-production, Six Days in June. Fast-paced and rich with archival footage, its stories are told not by ‘experts,’ nor pundits, nor academics. The people who we see are witnesses – as fighters, journalists, politicians, diplomats, refugees or survivors.

Two not-so-subtly different versions have already aired this week. Both about two hours in length, one ran in French, on CBC's sister networks Radio-Canada and the all-news RDI, the other in English on PBS. (A three-hour edition also aired to rave reviews in Israel.)

The PBS version repeats Sunday at 3 a.m.on WNED.

The French edition is what Montreal-based producer Ina Fichman calls the ‘international version,’ which was sold to Italy's RAI, Australia's SBS and elsewhere.

It depicts, among other historical facts, the expulsion of thousands of Palestinians by the Israeli army, a move the narrator delicately describes as ‘the first change to the demographics of the West Bank.’ It shows, through the eyes of a former Arab resident and an Israeli who photographed the event, that, where large villages stood, now are forests (many planted with Canadian charitable donations).

There is also a sequence, as related by the American-born Abdullah Schleifer, editor of Palestine News, as well as an Arab whose home was destroyed, about the overnight razing of a 700-year-old Palestinian neighbourhood in Jerusalem by the triumphant Israeli defence minister, General Moshe Dayan.

‘When I saw this destruction, there was a part of me that felt tremendous dread, that a whole new problem was going to be created,’ says Schleifer. He says this in the PBS version as well, but the horrifying context is stripped away for American sensibilities.

‘PBS is really not a liberal left-wing broadcaster,’ says Fichman. ‘It's subscription and sponsor-based, with members of the Jewish community among its supporters.

Fichman said that PBS demanded entire scenes and sequences come out, and others be softened.”

The issue was first raised in the Globe and Mail (partly quoted here), where Matthew Hays wrote:

“Indeed, Six Days has been praised by some reviewers for not shying away from the deaths of 6,000 Palestinians during the war, something that's clearly described in every version except the one for PBS. The filmmakers describe the reasoning behind this difference as a mix of concern about American attitudes toward the continuing conflict and what PBS subscribers might make of such an inclusion.

PBS ordered the changes so as not to offend its important Jewish subscriber base.  This is exactly the kind of thing which makes responsibility for the lie fall on the entire American Jewish community (note the weaselly response of PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler).  This continuing two-faced nonsense of lying while pretending to be above the whole issue is eventually going to place the American Jewish community in trouble.



Friday, June 15, 2007


The Yes Men prank the Gas and Oil Exposition 2007 Conference in Calgary by successfully delivering a speech promoting a new fuel called ‘vivolium’, which, it turns out, is made out of human beings.  Note the very important buried lede:  “Rumour had it that a new joint energy policy from the Canadian and American governments was coming down the pike.”

Friday, June 15, 2007

Friday, June 15, 2007:

  1. "He said to me: Stand on your feet. I felt that my legs were cold, like pins and needles in the legs. I said: I can't. He said: Now you are paralyzed. I said: I guess I am. He said: That is what we promised you and that is what you want."  The Shin Bet response is at the end, including reference to the obligatory whitewash by the quaintly named Ombudsman of Interogees' Complaints (you can tell you live in an evil country if you have such an official).

  2. I don;t know how many times I have to repeat it, or for how many years, but the United States is not going to attack Iran.  The American Establishment has determined that Iranian cooperation is needed to extract them from the awful mess the Jewish traitors have tricked them into in Iraq (not just the mess in Iraq itself, but the danger of a conflagration across the entire Middle East), they fear Iranian retribution involving destroying the world economy by sealing off the oil flow and destroying oil infrastructure around the Gulf, they fear organized terrorist counter-attacks, and, perhaps most importantly, they lack the technical ability to mount any kind of serious attack (the traitor Jews have also temporarily destroyed the American military).  It ain’t going to happen.  The Acting President of the United States, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has said as much.  The psychopaths know it, so are beginning to fantasize about an Israeli attack.  The plan presumably is to convince Israel to start the job, and use the Iranian retaliation against Israel as the excuse to drag the Americans in.  But what if, as in the case of Lebanon last summer, the Americans just sit there, watching?  The psychopath plan is just too dangerous.  The fatal problem with the Jewish Thrill Kill Cult is that they have become so addicted to killing that it has made them incapable of functioning in the real world, a world in which Israel can no longer rely on the Americans to do their killing for them.

  3. Speaking of Israeli psychopathic fantasies, the victory of Hamas over Fatah – ‘ the second liberation of the Gaza Strip’ – is leading Israelis to the idea that Egypt will take over Gaza, and Jordan will take over those few parts of the West Bank that the Israelis have not already stolen.  The fake ‘civil war’ engineered by the Zionists isn’t working out right, with Hamas winning far too easily and too quickly.

  4. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, who Sibel Edmonds seems to think is corrupt, handled the Libby trial in an exemplary manner, and is now receiving threats for it.  I wonder which small, minority group of Americans might be sending such threats?  It will be interesting to watch the defense tricks to enable Libby to stay out of jail until Bush can pardon him at a politically safe time.

  5. News from New Jersey on a political action committee called NORPAC which doles out money to candidates based solely on their perceived support for extremist Zionist positions.  Rabbi Irwin Kula of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, a Manhattan-based think tank, said:  “The part of the community that is much more suspicious of Palestinian motives and Palestinian interests is simply more organized, far more politically aggressive and far more prepared to use their resources.”

  6. Tony, trying not to let the door hit his ass on the way out, wants to see controls on journalism in Britain following the Chinese model.  There is obviously no need for such controls in the United States, where ‘journalists’ are entirely self-censoring.  By the way, how many seconds after Blair is gone will British officials wait before commencing the war crimes trial against him that Britain is required to hold under international law?

  7. Photos of the losers who went to the Bilderberg Conference in Turkey.  At just about the same time, the real scary meeting was being held in Prague, the “Democracy & Security” conference.  All the dangerous people were there, and Jim Lobe connects a lot of dots.

  8. With an African-led peacekeeping force, financed by the West, going to Darfur, the Jewish Thrill Kill Cult suffers yet another loss.  Oy veh, my aching fangs!  Meanwhile, Sudan is one of the main contributors to American intelligence on the Middle East.  Isn’t it ironic how the fake ‘war on terror’ cooked up by Israeli think tanks for Bibi Netanyahu in the 80s in order to replace the Soviet Union as the reason for American sponsorship of Israeli colonialism (more on this, the Liberty, and the relaunching of the Cold War by the neocons, later) has led to a disinclination by the Americans to attack Sudan, one of their real intelligence allies?

  9. Note the story of Mossad agent ‘Erika Chambers’, the assassin of Ali Hassan Salameh.  She used a remote car bomb.  The Mossad left a paper trail to convince the PLO that the assassination was the work of German intelligence, in retaliation for the Munich assassinations (given the Entebbe revelations, I’m starting to wonder if the Israelis were really behind the Munich assassinations).  Speaking of remote car bombs blamed on the wrong people, Robert Fisk is slightly less horrible writing about Lebanon than he has usually been since the assassination of Hariri (his extreme man-love for Hariri has made him entirely useless in writing about Lebanon).  There may even be some sarcasm in his blaming it on Syria.  Since the Zionists blamed Syria for the Sunni Palestinian militias set up by Prince Bandar and Elliott Abrams, militias established supposedly to fight Syrian ally Hezbollah, it has become increasingly difficult to take anything these clowns say seriously.  Remember how the Americans blamed Iran for supplying Sunni insurgents in Iraq?  Mortal enemies working together, all because Zionist propaganda decided that Americans wouldn’t know any better.  To add to the clownishness, the ‘Surge’, which is really a war against Sunnis in order to cause the break-up of Iraq as described by Yinon, is now arming the Sunni insurgents it is fighting!

  10. If true, best news I’ve heard in months:  Tel Aviv within Hezbollah rocket range.

  11. Excellent summary of the ‘Final Solution’.

  12. One of Conrad Black’s expert witnesses charged him $800,000 to review documents and testify.

  13. The Jerusalem Post has decided to stop publicly fundraising for the Israeli-preferred candidate for the American Presidency.

  14. $1,000 for a get-out-of-jail-free card.