Permitted speech

More news on the progress of  'the Machine', this time about the British visitors to the United States who were arrested and deported for some previous joking tweets:

"If the story is true (and, given that it comes from the Daily Mail, which never lets the facts get in the way of marshalling popular outrage, that is a considerable 'if'), it implies two things:

1. The US border control agency (not the CIA or NSA or some other super-elite agency that hunts threats through the shadows, but the guys who scan passports) has a feed of intelligence gathered from the public Twitter feeds of anyone seeking to enter the US (and possibly other social media connected to their identities). This has a number of implications: where does the data come from? Is it just what is publicly linked to the poster's profile online, or does it come from clandestine sources (i.e., a list of user-generated content sites posted to from the visitor's home internet connection, as hoovered up by ECHELON)? Is there some NSA supercomputer quietly building up profiles on several billion internet users, with parts of these being sent to border security if some other part of the surveillance apparatus detects a keyphrase (say, the words "destroy America") in a feed linked to a particular individual?
2. Given the nature of the tweet (which any reasonable person, had they overheard it in a pub, would conclude was a joke), it implies that, as far as the US Department of Homeland Security is concerned, the entire internet is an airport security zone, where joking about, say, carrying bombs or even an absurdity such as destroying America (how exactly would one go about accomplishing this?) is a punishable offence. There is a reason why joking about bombs at airport security screening lines is prohibited; namely that constraining the allowed range of behaviours whilst passing through a security checkpoint allows the checkpoint to operate. This rationale doesn't extend to applying the same rules to any idle banter uttered by a traveller within earshot of electronic intelligence gathering apparatus, and immediately punishing wisecracks."

They've developed a cover story to protect 'the Machine', as we're not supposed to know about it until the enslavement is complete.

In case you haven't noticed, the Jews are discussing amongst themselves which terms gentiles will be allowed to use in referring to Jews, and have issued an order that 'Israel-firster' is off the permitted list (luckily for us, 'the most wonderful group of people in the universe' is still allowed).  I'm not too put out on this restriction in my vocabulary, as the term 'Israel-firster' is highly inaccurate - as there is no second loyalty - and I already have the replacement term 'treasonous motherfucker'.  I think it is truly wonderful that the chief arbiter of gentile-permitted speech, and in particular the term 'Israel-firster', is Jeffrey Goldberg, a man whose first adult act as an American was to go and join the army . . . of Israel.  Who better to decide how the other 98% will be permitted to speak?

"because policing the discourse is punk rock":

"All of this happens for a purpose: to make it clear to anyone who might have a moral conviction about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians scared to talk about it. I know many people who have political stances on everything, and voice them without regard or fear, on questions of race, abortion, poverty, Afghanistan, gay rights, health care.... But about Israel, they won't speak. It has simply been drummed into their heads, by people like Spencer Ackerman, that this is no-go territory for them. They are mostly gentiles, as I am, and they know that speaking on this issue could easily result in accusations of anti-Semitism. So they shut up. And here comes Spencer Ackerman, and his red-baiting essay, and the predictable Hitler graphic. And so the task of pressuring "a recalcitrant Israel to come to its senses, especially about the insanity of attacking Iran" just becomes harder."

As pointed out here before, Jews don't fear violence or hate from the gentiles, they fear love.  They need to stop the only real threat to the group, assimilation.  Thus, the need for a place where there are only Jews.  It may even be worse.  Treason may be the only thing holding American Jewish identity together.

Monday, January 30, 2012

"Using Wikileaks To Figure Out What The Government 'Redacts'"

 "Chris Dodd threatens Obama over SOPA/PIPA"  "Elected Officials Asked To Return Hollywood Money Following Dodd's Threats"

They are admitting it is not 'lobbying' but pure bribery.  "We petition the Obama administration to:
Investigate Chris Dodd and the MPAA for bribery after he publicly admited to bribing politicans to pass legislation."

"Hollywood Astroturf Group Releases Ad Saying It Needs SOPA To Shut Down Megaupload... Five Days After Megaupload Is Shut Down"

Of course,  'Hollywood' is the code word gentiles have to use when referring to Jewish Billionaires.  Solution:  "Kill Hollywood"

"Bush & Obama? Israeli assassinations and US Presidents" by Alison Weir.  Adler's sin wasn't calling for the assassination of an American President, it was letting the cat out of the bag about Jewish plans.

"Mel Gibson: Temple Tries to Shake Him Down!"  "California Jews Shake Down Mel Gibson For Reparations"

Saturday, January 28, 2012

The concentration camp guard (was I the first to start calling him that?):

"By the way, I don't consider "former Israeli prison guard" a "gross phrase," just so Ackerman understands. It's an inaccurate phrase -- I wasn't a guard, I was a military policeman (the actual title of my position was "prisoner counselor," believe it or not, which meant that I saw after the culinary, hygiene and medical needs of the prisoners, but I also, on more than one occasion, actually did give advice to Palestinian prisoners on how to apply to college in America -- I stressed that the essay portion of any application would be an easy home run for any of these Intifada prisoners. A few of them did end up at universities here).  "

So he was some kind of guidance counsellor?  Supremacists never get the fact that you simply can't spin the kind of vile behavior in which they routinely engage into something less repulsive. It reminds me of how the Israelis proudly showed Condi Rice around the West Bank, thinking how they must have seemed to her like world-class humanitarians, when all she saw was the racist oppression of the Old South. Being brought up as a group supremacist actually causes cognitive impairment.

"Alternative classrooms may not be as inclusive as they claim to be" The world's worst newspaper takes up much of its front page with an attack on the teaching of truth in the Ontario education system on the basis that young Jews are dismayed by the truth.  Note the attempt to hide their very specific problem in a larger political issue.

As I have noted over and over, once it became clear that the Americans couldn't be forced to start yet another War For The Jews against Iran, it became necessary for the Jewish warmongers to do a 180 degree turn in order to deflect questions from Israelis wondering why nothing was being done about the imminent holocaust:  "Israel Isn’t Going to Attack Iran and Neither Will the United States".

"Obama administration using loophole to quietly sell arms package to Bahrain"  This isn't the work of Ronald Reagan or George Bush, but the sainted Batty, champion of the military-industrial complex.

"Ron Paul predictions in 2002.......Still think he's crazy?"  Paul is wrong about inflation because the dollar's status as the world reserve currency means the printing presses can print the money required to fight all the many, many, many Wars For The Jews without causing the hyperinflation you would normally expect to see.  Once the world reserve currency status is lost - and it is being severely threatened by the Sanctions For The Jews against the innocent people of Iran - Americans need to get ready to replace their pocketbooks with wheelbarrows.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Obama and other American politicians need Jewish Billionaire money to win elections.  Of course, the money comes with onerous conditions, including bowing down to Israel (in an embarrassing way) and fighting Wars For The Jews.  The bottom line is that the money is needed to win elections.  If one of the onerous conditions, say attacking Iran, was to triple gas prices in the United States, completely negating even the slightest possibility of reelection for a sitting President, the money is useless and can no longer be used to manipulate the President.  Thus, the limits of Jewish power.  Since Israel can't attack Iran, and the United States can't be forced to attack Iran through money control of its President, we enter the danger zone of an Israeli false flag attack on the United States in order to trick Americans into attacking Iran.

Of course, what the Jewish Billionaires received as the consolation prize will end up destroying the United States almost as quickly:  "Iran sanctions backlash– oil buyers ditch dollar"

'The machine' in Egypt:

"Egyptians were infected by the idea of overthrowing their dictator.
And now, these researchers claim, they’re getting close to developing tools that can track the spread of infections like these.
With funding from the Office of Naval Research, a team at Aptima, Inc. is developing software that’d do more than just scan Twitter for trending topics. Instead, it’d mine the web, including news stories, social networks and blogs, to extract topics and phrases that are gaining traction online. Then, the software would keep tabs on how the conversations proliferate, both geographically and over time.
The software would use epidemiological modeling to chart the discussions and their trajectory. It’s a strategy often used in public health initiatives to figure out where an illness started, and how it spread: Epidemiologists use collections of data to make educated guesses about causality; which health and environmental factors, for example, contributed to an outbreak in a given community.
Applied to online discourse, epidemiological models would essentially treat uprisings like illnesses. They’d pull apart a web conversation (the author of the post, the site where it was published, the comments that ensued) and try to figure out which parts contributed most readily to the spread of a revolutionary message"

Democracy is an illness, and the Pentagon has the cure.

Why would Elliot Abrams be accusing Sheldon Adelson's best pal Newt of blasphemy?

"How A Rabbinic Ban On Bugs May Have Led To The Creation Of Christianity"

The unspeakable horror.

False Flag Nation

Via Lataan, a story - conveyed by an Israeli using the False Flag Times - from the Israelis that the CIA chief in Tel Aviv asked the Israelis to attack the USS Liberty (my emphasis in red):

"Almost 45 years ago, on May 25, 1967, in the midst of the international crisis that precipitated the Six-Day War, Amit, then head of the Mossad, summoned John Hadden, the C.I.A. chief in Tel Aviv, to an urgent meeting at his home. The meeting took place against the background of the mounting tensions in the Middle East, the concentration of a massive Egyptian force in the Sinai Peninsula, the closing of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the threats by President Gamal Abdel Nasser to destroy the State of Israel.

In what he later described as “the most difficult meeting I have ever had with a representative of a foreign intelligence service,” Amit laid out Israel’s arguments for attacking Egypt. The conversation between them, which was transcribed in the document Amit passed on to me, went as follows:

Amit: “We are approaching a turning point that is more important for you than it is for us. After all, you people know everything. We are in a grave situation, and I believe we have reached it, because we have not acted yet. . . . Personally, I am sorry that we did not react immediately. It is possible that we may have broken some rules if we had, but the outcome would have been to your benefit. I was in favor of acting. We should have struck before the build-up.”

Hadden: “That would have brought Russia and the United States against you.”

Amit: “You are wrong. . . . We have now reached a new stage, after the expulsion of the U.N. inspectors. You should know that it’s your problem, not ours.”

Hadden: “Help us by giving us a good reason to come in on your side. Get them to fire at something, a ship, for example.”

Amit: “That is not the point.”

Hadden: “If you attack, the United States will land forces to help the attacked state protect itself.”

Amit: “I can’t believe what I am hearing.”

Hadden: “Do not surprise us.”

Amit: “Surprise is one of the secrets of success.”

Hadden: “I don’t know what the significance of American aid is for you.”

Amit: “It isn’t aid for us, it is for yourselves.”

That ill-tempered meeting, and Hadden’s threats, encouraged the Israeli security cabinet to ban the military from carrying out an immediate assault against the Egyptian troops in the Sinai, although they were perceived as a grave threat to the existence of Israel. Amit did not accept Hadden’s response as final, however, and flew to the United States to meet with Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. Upon his return, he reported to the Israeli cabinet that when he told McNamara that Israel could not reconcile itself to Egypt’s military actions, the secretary replied, “I read you very clearly.” When Amit then asked McNamara if he should remain in Washington for another week, to see how matters developed, McNamara responded, “Young man, go home, that is where you are needed now.”

From this exchange, Amit concluded that the United States was giving Israel “a flickering green light” to attack Egypt. He told the cabinet that if the Americans were given one more week to exhaust their diplomatic efforts, “they will hesitate to act against us.” The next day, the cabinet decided to begin the Six-Day War, which changed the course of Middle Eastern history.

Amit handed me the minutes of that conversation from the same armchair that he sat in during his meeting with Hadden. It is striking how that dialogue anticipated the one now under way between Israel and the United States. Substitute “Tehran” for “Cairo” and “Strait of Hormuz” for “Straits of Tiran,” and it could have taken place this past week."

The USS Liberty was attacked on June 8, 1967.  The Six-Day War ran from June 5 to 10, 1967.

Hadden was almost certainly an 'America-firster', who worked against the Israeli nuclear bomb program and the traitorous Israeli-firsters who stole the uranium required.  On the other hand, he confirms the 'green light' theory (see Appendix II to this pdf), and has stated he believes the attack was a mistake.

So why is Israel bringing this up through its house organ, the False Flag Times?  Paul Woodward:

"Bergman writes: “Since 1967, the unspoken understanding that America should agree, at least tacitly, to Israeli military actions has been at the center of relations between the two countries.”
The telling of the Amit-Hadden exchange, seems like a way of signalling that as far as Israel is concerned, come the time that it decides to launch an attack on Iran, the United States has no choice but to “agree.” Indeed, Israel is happy to point to the history of U.S. complicity in Israel’s acts of war, including the willingness of an American official to invite an Israeli instigated attack on a U.S. ship in order to fabricate a justification for entering a war.
In other words, transposing the 1967 incident to the current context, the Israelis want to insinuate that if the U.S. Fifth Fleet is attacked by “Iran” in the coming months and Israel covertly has a hand in this attack, then in truth Israel will merely be “helping” the United States to do what it wants to do at a time when domestic political considerations prevent Washington from being open about its intentions.
The irony about Hadden’s invitation in 1967 is that in some sense the Israelis did pick it up two weeks later. But rather than engineer an “Egyptian” attack on a U.S. ship, the Israelis attacked the U.S.S. Liberty claiming they thought it was an Egyptian ship.
Was Israel punishing the U.S. for its neutrality in the Six-Day War — knowing that it could do so with impunity because the U.S. could not suffer the embarrassment that would have been caused by revealing the CIA’s willingness to sacrifice Americans?"

The aircraft carriers in the area are sitting ducks for an Israeli attack, and America-firsters should get them out of there.

The Koch-Paul conspiracy

"Former Gaddafi stronghold rejects Libyan government's authority"  There is no reason to believe that this 'revolution' created by carpet bombing and NATO troops in Tripoli would hold once NATO stepped away.

"Why was MegaUpload really shut down?"  Jewish Billionaires don't like competition and control the American government so  . . .

"A Forward Strategy of Freedom"  "Yes, you can be a neoconservative, and still be wrong"

"Oil embargo on Iran a conundrum for Europe"  The Freezing-In-The-Dark-For-The-Jews strategy of European leaders.

"Which side are you on, Ron? Part 1"  The big smoking-gun evidence that Ron Paul is just a front for the Koch Brothers . . . Ron Paul was once at an event at which David Koch gave a speech!  Hell, they are also both old white American men.  Isn't that proof enough of the Koch-Paul conspiracy?

"Why Does Mitt Romney Want to Keep His Tax Returns From the Bain Years Under Wraps?"  Mitt has to keep his taxes hidden not just for himself, but for his whole class, the 1%.

Headline of the week:  "UNESCO Removes Neo-Nazi Dance from Intangible Cultural Heritage List"  When I read the headline all sorts of bizarre thoughts occurred to me - what does a 'neo-Nazi dance' look like?  does it involve goose stepping? how the hell did it get on a UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage List? - but the content of the article is equally weird.

What happens in Vegas doesn't necessarily stay in Vegas

Alexander Cockburn writing about Sheldon Adelson's financing of Newt Gingrich:

"Some things don’t change in American politics, and rich people sitting in Las Vegas with pots of cash is one of them. Joel McCleary, a friend, remembers fund-raising in Las Vegas when he was working for the Jimmy Carter campaign in 1976. The crucial Pennsylvania primary was coming up and the Carter people (their chief fundraiser was Morris Dees) needed a big wad of cash  for the final push against Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington,  known as “the senator from Boeing,” also running for the Democratic nomination and favored by powerful labor chieftains in Pennsylvania.
Joel was told the go-to guy for untraceable campaign cash was Hank Greenspun, publisher of the Las Vegas Sun. Greenspun was a notoriously tough egg, former gun-runner for the Haganah, the man who, in the midst of the Cold War witch hunts, outed Senator Joe McCarthy in the Sun as a homosexual. Joel was told to act manly. Greenspun duly received him in his office. “Why the hell  should I get money for Jimmy Carter?” he asked.
“Because Jimmy Carter is going to be president,” Joel answered boldly, “and if you don’t support his campaign he’ll fuck you.”
Greenspun told Joel to come back in two hours. He returned to find Greenspan sitting at a table surrounded  by other toughs. In the middle of the table was a paper bag. “So the Baptist fuck wants money,” Greenspun growled, as he pushed the bag over to Joel. “Remember, this comes from the state of Israel. Don’t you ever forget it"

There is a thread at JFK Lancer on Breck Wall, who worked in Jack Ruby's club and met with David Ferrie in Galveston the day after the assassination.  Posting by Russ Tarby (my emphasis in red):

"entertainer Breck Wall died Nov. 15, 2010, in Las Vegas,
after a lengthy battle with Alzheimer's disease.

We may never know what he was really doing in Galveston on Nov. 23, 1963...pity...

we DO know that by 1964, he had his partner, Joe Peterson, had earned decent gigs in Vegas with their show "Bottoms Up,"
and later appeared on national television on "Hollywood Palace" variety show.

despite it's low-class nature and decidedly mediocre performers,
"Bottoms Up" continued running in one form or another in Sin City for more than four decades. Curious...

Russ Tarby"

Forty years of gigs for keeping your mouth shut.

Monday, January 23, 2012

"The Pirate Bay Press Release On SOPA: We Are The New Hollywood"  I suppose you've noticed that 'Hollywood' is a euphemism for the Jewish Billionaires.  We seem to be in a kind of death match with the Jewish Billionaires, both with respect to their over-grasping and their tricking us into fighting their immoral wars.  The anti-SOPA protest was successful because the tech companies, who were hoping to make money by drafting on the greed of the Jewish Billionaires, were embarrassed into grudgingly supporting freedom.

The comment by robjoe:

"Jeffrey Goldberg :

"This doesn't mean that I didn't, as a soldier, refuse orders, except those orders I found to be illegal and/or immoral (there's a wider berth for this in the Israeli army."

English isn`t my first language. Is he saying that he refused orders, except those he found to be illegal or immoral?"

English is my first language, but I can't make any sense of it either. It is quite a piece of work to come from a professional writer.  There is at least a triple negative, and perhaps a quadruple negative.  It does seem to say that he refused all orders except those he found to be illegal or immoral.  This makes perfect sense, as all orders from the IDF, by definition, are both illegal and immoral.

"Murdoch's Homeland"  Extremely well done ultra-ultra-ultra-Zionist propaganda.  I recommend it highly (in the conspiracy line, I also like Person of Interest, which is coming into its own by piling up multiple layers of paranoia, and we know governments are already using 'the Machine', although it doesn't yet work except to frame innocent Muslims).  Well done, as the 'terrorist' is depicted as a sympathetic character with justified motives, and the CIA agents trying to stop him are depicted as both completely evil and completely incompetent.  Nevertheless, at the end of the program viewers are left with a completely Islamophobic message.  Unusual subtlety from the Jews, who are not usually subtle (interesting forensic sociology here:  "From day one, cops didn't believe that it was an anti-Semitic incident because you never see Swastikas and KKK signs together")!

Hitler takes down yet another politician.

Saturday, January, 21, 2012

Glenn Greenwald asks the concentration camp guard a mischievous question.  The concentration camp guard, of course, dodges it (I'm no traitor, but I'm sure an oath of loyalty to the only country you care about - the very one you just finished fleeing to - would be one of the high points of your life, never to be forgotten).  Actually, once you've deserted your own country to fight in the armed forces of another, the idea that you are loyal to the first country, even after you've sneaked back to spend your time fooling the first country into fighting wars for the second, is nothing short of hilarious.  By the way, the concentration camp guard is starting to pull his punches a bit about the slaughter of the innocent citizens of Iran.  Is he starting to fear a future American treason trial (with no Israel to flee to)?

'Dual loyalty' is an outrageous insult to any Jew.  How could sumpremacists be loyal to anyone other that the supreme group?  There is nothing 'dual' about the loyalty of the Jews.

Jordanian conspiracy theory.

The media deception on Syria:

1. "The Newsfakers"
2. "The use of web-based disinformation by the 'west'"

"There is a genuine, in-country network of activists who seek real democratic reform and who're working for it using mass nonviolent organizing. But there are also all kinds of opportunistic networks piggybacking on that movement, most of them based in or directed from outside the country... Among them are the openly violence-using people of the Free Syria Army. And though some people in the exile-based Syrian National Council claim that the role of the FSA is merely to "station armed people around mass demonstrations in order to protect the demonstrations", that has never been a tactic endorsed by any genuine nonviolent mass movement. Indeed it is tactic that's almost guaranteed to escalate the situation and cause far more casualties among the unarmed than if only nonviolent moral suasion/reproach is brought to bear on the regime's forces.




We should not kid ourselves by imagining that there is no opportunistic exploitation of the Syrian situation underway, being undertaken by a whole range of anti-Damascus forces-- some sectarian (as in the case of Qatar or Saudi Arabia; also, quite possibly, Turkey), and some pro-Zionist, or anyway easily exploited by Syria's longterm opponents in the Zionist movement in Israel and in the 'west'."

3. "Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media"  The poll is weak, but the size of mass rallies confirms its results.  No big surprise:  the average Syrian has only to look at Libya to see what the future will be like under the rebels.

"Bush’s CIA director: We determined attacking Iran was a bad idea"

"Legal Scholar: Jim Crow Still Exists In America":

"In her book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, legal scholar Michelle Alexander writes that many of the gains of the civil rights movement have been undermined by the mass incarceration of black Americans in the war on drugs. She says that although Jim Crow laws are now off the books, millions of blacks arrested for minor crimes remain marginalized and disfranchised, trapped by a criminal justice system that has forever branded them as felons and denied them basic rights and opportunities that would allow them to become productive, law-abiding citizens.
"People are swept into the criminal justice system — particularly in poor communities of color — at very early ages ... typically for fairly minor, nonviolent crimes," she tells Fresh Air's Dave Davies. "[The young black males are] shuttled into prisons, branded as criminals and felons, and then when they're released, they're relegated to a permanent second-class status, stripped of the very rights supposedly won in the civil rights movement — like the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, the right to be free of legal discrimination and employment, and access to education and public benefits. Many of the old forms of discrimination that we supposedly left behind during the Jim Crow era are suddenly legal again, once you've been branded a felon.""

It is nothing less than appalling that anyone self-identifying as a 'progressive' in the United States would even consider the possibility of voting for anyone other than Ron Paul, the only candidate in either party who proposes to put an end to this mass systematic racism.

Ted Rall:  "Which of the following actions is wrong?"

Thursday, January 19, 2012

"Israeli drones are reported spying on Turkey for the Kurdish group PKK"  I find it odd that Turkish foreign policy, which was doing extremely well when the only country Turkey really hated was Israel, has now completely and suddenly collapsed into the worst possible mess. The end of the current Syrian government could be a key step in the creation of Greater Kurdistan, something Turkish foreign policy planners definitely don't want.

"U.S. Strategic Command Mysteriously Deletes Russian Mars Spacecraft’s Tracking Data After Sabotage Accusations"

Instructive Barak redact.  What happened?  Geithner, discussing Iran with the Chinese, learned that Chinese has 437 ways of saying 'fuck you' (of course, the Americans didn't take that sitting down, so we see some payback:  "U.S. ambassador: Political situation in China 'very, very delicate'").  That gave Barry an excuse to give to his owners, the Jewish billionaires, on the necessity of backing off on Iran, which then required Barak to change his tune so it didn't seem like a defenseless and friendless Israel was going to face imminent nuclear annihilation, causing an entire country to simultaneously romney.

Speaking of which:  "To defecate in terror: Mitt Romney gets Google-bombed"

They have a toothpaste for that

Fang pain.  'Provocations from Iran'?!  From Iran?!!  It is simply impossible to describe the length and bloodiness of the fangs on these guys.

But wait!  A comforting cover story.  "Joint US-Israel drill called off by Netanyahu, to Washington's surprise"  Hilarious!  The Jew-controlled mainstream media had hidden the exercise from Americans, but for Israelis it was the next best thing to dropping white phosphorous and cluster bombs on children.  Netanyahu would never have called it off.

Long-term effect of the American sanctions:  extremely bad for Americans, quite good for Iran (and China):  "The myth of an "isolated' Iran".

Young people today only see Jews doing monstrous and depraved things.  HH is said not to have liked Jews.  Therefore, the rehabilitation is inevitable:  Hipster Hitler

To romney.

The posting about masquerades

The joint Israeli-Jewslave military exercise in Anti-Assimilation Land has been 'postponed' due to 'budgetary constraints'.  As we all know, the Jews and their American Jewslaves are famously frugal over spending American money on military matters!  It looks like the Pentagon is straining at the shackles, a little.  We can't forget that an attack on Iran would wreck the United States (and what's with putting three aircraft carriers in line to be sunk?).

"Is The "False Flag" Piece A False Flag?"  Does it really matter if the Jews did it, or their American Jewslaves under direct Jewmaster orders?  The Americans have absolutely no national interest in blowing up Iranian scientists.

"New York Times In Panic Over ‘Facts’"  The spirit of Judy Miller lives on.  Just keep retyping the propaganda, and don't ask any questions.

This is either Jack Lew's signature, or his method of evoking the Golem (or both).

"Ron Paul Debate Flushes Out Gender-Baiting Right Wing Opportunists Masquerading as Progressives" (with useful outing of Raw Story):

"It should not be controversial to point out that the Democratic party uses identity politics as a cover for its policy of selling out the middle class to banks and big corporate interests, just on a slower and stealthier basis than the right. And we’ve seen the identity card used in a remarkably dishonest manner in this Ron Paul contretemps."

Comment to the above article by 'Marianne':

"In casual conversation, friends have labeled me a 'progressive'. I am white and female.

I would vote for Ron Paul over any other Republican or Democrat currently in the field today. On some issues, I think RP is an absolute loon, but I look at his positions in totality, and I can say he’s a loon with principals. I suspect he is a homophobe. I find his opinions on abortion hypocritical when compared with his views on liberty and self determination.

But in the days of mass incarceration, private run prisons, the stripping of US citizens of their citizenship (new measure just introduced by Lieberman), endless wars on drugs & other flavors of the day, the killing of US citizens abroad without due process, the possibility of indefinite detention of US citizens, creeping police brutality as battlefield urban warfare techniques come back home to be used in US cities, he is the /only/ candidate to speak to these issues. And he’s the only candidate I agree with.

I will hold my nose, vote for him, and ignore his likely homophobia and my disagreement with his views on a woman’s liberty to choose her medical care."

Progressive obsession with some of the craziest of Paul's ideas intentionally - and in extreme bad faith - neglects to mention that most of his ideas require constitutional amendments he will never get.

"Antiwar.com – Your Best Source for Antiwar News?"  Speaking of outing, the warmongering of Antiwar.  The comment by altheo on Global Research is also spot on - Global Research is constantly using Chomskyesque bullshit about American Imperialism to cover for Zionism (watch out for anything that refers to alleged American plans and uses the word 'encircling', a word which might as well be a Jewish war prayer).  Note that the comments - well, except for the ones trying to throw up obfuscating smoke  - very carefully work around the problem that all or almost all of these warmongering offenders happen to be Jewish and Zionist.  It would be very odd if the big conspiracy didn't try to infiltrate all obstacles, especially where the infiltration can be masked by a rather gaudy anti-Zionist front.

"Bohemian Grove Toy Set"

Water from the Litani River

The attacks on Iran and Syria are about the Jews stealing the water from the Litani River in Lebanon. 

The 2006 Jewish slaughter of completely innocent civilians in Lebanon - an altercation that left them defeated in an embarrassing way by Hezbollah - was an attempt by that band of thieves and murderers known as Jews to steal south Lebanon and its water.  That band of thieves and murderers known as Jews need the water for the agricultural and industrial expansion planned by the tiny group of oligarchs who run Israel.  That band of thieves and murderers known as Jews are group supremacists, and thus couldn't accept that Hezbollah could have defeated them fair and square.  Hezbollah must have cheated!  The cheating was material support by the Iranian government mostly funneled through Syria.

Thus that band of thieves and murderers known as Jews have planned a two-pronged attack.  First, they have started a civil war in Syria.  The intent isn't regime change - they quite like Assad and his inability to recover the stolen Golan Heights.  Rather, it is a form of blackmail.  That band of thieves and murderers known as Jews will allow Assad to have Syria back, and call off the civil war, if Assad agrees to cut ties with Iran and Hezbollah.  Assad is smart enough to know that bands of thieves and murderers aren't to be trusted, and has resisted the blackmail.

Secondly, that band of thieves and murderers known as Jews want regime change in Iran.  The problem is how.  They tried sponsoring the Green Movement, and tried to create a civil war in Iran, but failed, largely due to the fact that the group they supported were widely seen to be Zionist stooges.  Israel is incapable of attacking Iran, and hasn't been able to fool the Americans into yet another War For The Jews as this War For The Jews, unlike all the many, many previous Wars For The Jews, would cause the almost instant loss of literally trillions of dollars of wealth to the American 1%.  On top of this, any kind of bombing attack on Iran would not only not cause regime change, but would actually permanently entrench the current Iranian regime in power.  Ironically, bombing Iran would start the Iranian nuclear bomb program which that band of thieves and murderers and liars known as Jews claim is the reason for the attack on Iran.  Doubly ironically, a bombing attack on Iran would likely unleash the Hezbollah rockets on Israel, starting the mass exodus of Jews with an IQ over 100 which will lead to the end of the land of thieves and murderers.

And it is all about stealing the water from the Litani River in Lebanon.

The terrorist attacks in Iran

Iran needs to get in front of these terrorist attacks against nuclear physicists.  The attacks are always made using two people on a motorcycle attaching the bomb to the car with magnets.  The terrorists obviously know whose car to attack, and the movements of that car.  They must have insiders at the universities where the physicists work to associate each targeted physicist with a particular vehicle, and are trailing the cars from the universities.  In order to catch the terrorists, Iranian authorities will have to start covertly following these cars themselves (they may even consider dummy cars).  All they need to do is catch one pair of terrorists to break the terrorist network and determine who is behind the attacks.

My guess:  MEK being run by the CIA, working for their Jewish masters to create the idea that there must be a nuclear bomb program or else there would be no reason to kill all these scientists and passersby.

Flying slaves

"The Love Trapezoid" by David R. Kotok:

"If you can take your eyes off the primary election coverage, watch Geithner. The US is engaged in a love trapezoid. The four corners are Beijing, Teheran, Tokyo, and Washington. Treasury Secretary Geithner is the Obama Administration’s front person. Track the news for the names of the other agents.
This is a very serious time. The pieces are linked. Some bullets as you watch the news flow.
1. The US faces the pressure of follow-through on Iran sanctions. Iran is an exporter of oil to Asia. Japan is dependent on imported oil. China is not self-sufficient. One part of this trapezoidal geometry is about oil.
2. Iran is feeling the heat from sanctions. The US wants to tighten them. It cannot do so without help from Asian “friends.”
3. China and Japan are each buyers of US Treasury securities. They each help finance the American fiscal deficit and the ongoing current-account deficits. They each want to diversify their reserves. They are not sellers, but they are reluctant additional buyers. This is truer for China than for Japan, but it is true in both cases.
4. China is glacially proceeding toward world reserve-currency status. It gradually allows its currency to strengthen against the dollar. It follows a policy that is fully rational for the Beijing oligarchs. It shrugs off political threats from Washington politicians (Schumer, Graham) who love to bash China while talking to their American constituents. China understands our political processes and our weaknesses. However, China also understands “realpolitik” and uses it. They learned US use of realpolitik from Nixon and Kissinger. Expect them to smile publicly but put some very intense private heat on Geithner.
5. Japan faces enormous economic pressure and sees the yen strength as now threatening. In order to weaken the yen, it must acquire other currency holdings in large quantity. (See the Cumberland website, www.cumber.com, for G4 central bank charts, and flip to those on the Bank of Japan. You will be able to observe how Japan expanded its balance sheet several years ago and subsequently contracted it. We expect them to expand it in 2012 as they seek to arrest yen strength.)
6. Japan is negotiating with China so that it may acquire reserve debt instruments denominated in Chinese currency. Beijing likes this because it is a step toward achieving world reserve-currency status. Geithner now worries, because the trend points toward a gradual and long-term weakening of the US position, as the world’s second (China) and third (Japan) largest economies maneuver their global positions.
7. Our Asian friends know that the US election cycle creates maximum vulnerability for the United States. That also makes circumstances more dangerous and raises risk profiles. Europe is of no help to us, given its internal crises.
We recall that a three-legged stool is a stable form. A four-legged stool is less stable. A four-legged stool with a trapezoidal top is least stable. Especially when one of the legs is Iran.
Watch Geithner in Asia and the news flow. Read between the lines, since the public statements will all be scripted and self-serving. Risk is high. Also, stay overweight energy. We are."

"Poll: Among GOP hopefuls, Romney fares best against Obama" Headline notwithstanding, Paul and Romney are in a virtual dead heat, and either could beat Barry (my emphasis in red):

"Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney holds a two-point lead against President Obama in a potential general election matchup, according to a new CBS News poll.
The survey found that Romney is the only GOP candidate to hold a lead over the president in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup, though Texas Rep. Ron Paul trails by just one point.
Both Romney's lead over Mr. Obama - 47 percent to 45 percent - and Mr. Obama's lead over Paul - 46 percent to 45 percent - are within the survey's three percentage point margin of error."

"Book excerpt–Michael Ignatieff: The Lesser Evil?":

"Though certainly not on the same scale as the mass emigrations, ethnic cleansing, and pogroms of 19th-century Russia, the “extraordinary” measures that Michael Ignatieff would endorse post-9/11 were as intrinsically linked to Islamophobia as his great-grandfather’s were to anti-Semitism."

"Who Wants to Buy The New Republic?"  No longer useful to stir up Wars For The Jews.

"Anti-Muslim slurs aimed at 2nd Gatineau mosque"

"Illegal workers ordered out of country" Comment by PraiseAlfie11 directed to the reporter:

"Kelly,

You are SO close to a major story. Trace all those companies back to the people behind them.

These people are in every shopping centre I have been to, be it in MTL, Ottawa or Toronto."

and by Just_saying101:

"I had somebody put some of that "Dead Sea" cream on my arm at Carlingwood Mall and I broke out in a rash.  It's Biological Warfare..........just saying.... "

and by Kim Smith:

"They are all TERRORIST spies from the fascist theocracy of Apartheid israel. They should all be shot dead for compromising Canadian and U.S. national security just as Oslama Bin Obama has American citizens killed without charge, trial or DUE PROCESS!"

"Ron Paul: the Venn diagram" (originally from a source, Mother Jones, I try not to link to)

"All Of Area Man's Hard Work Finally Pays Off For Employer" and "I Thought We'd Have Flying Slaves By Now" (by George Washington)

Jews discussing their favorite thing

"Ron Paul’s antiwar position is simpleminded" by Jerome Slater.  Slater calls Ron Paul a 'simpleminded fool on 90% (at least) of the issues'.  Slater probably would be well advised not to throw this insult around too carelessly.  Note the comments, which easily and thoroughly eviscerate Slater.

"Ron Paul’s foreign policy should be embraced" by David Samel.


Completely oblivious, Slater doubles down:  "Just wars– and civilian casualties"

The only good to come out of this Era of the Wars For the Jews - as future historians will call this troubled time - is the certainty that there are no such thing as 'Just Wars'.  The wars we have seen and will see, at least until Israel is gone, consist of a massively technologically and militarily superior bully slaughtering civilians on a mass scale until the central government of the victimized country gives up to avoid more civilian slaughter. These 'wars' are all massacres.  There is nothing even arguably just about any of them, and it is a tribute to the moral decline of 'progressives for carpet bombing' that they are completely unable to understand what has happened.

The depravity of 'progressives' is exemplified by the argument itself - 'I can't vote for Paul as he would not have supported one or more of my favorite wars'.  Can they hear how morally bankrupt this makes therm sound?  Do they have scrapbooks with pictures of gory civilian casualties to drool over?  They might as well.

No, in today's grim era all wars are morally repugnant, and no decent and moral person could support any of them, going back decades (I'd argue that American involvement in WWII was also wrong, but I don't have to, so I won't).  It is hilarious that the professional left won't stop claiming Ron Paul is a racist, when Paul is alone in being against the Wars For The Jews (the most obvious manifestation of the racism of the United States outside its borders) and the war on drugs (the most obvious manifestation of the racism of the United States inside its borders).  Ron Paul could spend his days chanting 'Nigger' at the top of his lungs and he still would be profoundly less racist than any other Republican candidate, or even the sainted Barry himself.

War profiteer 'progressives'

The American 'progressives' are having trouble digesting the truth:  "Naked Capitalism, 'A Home for All Sorts of Bircher Nonsense'"

What happened is that American 'progressives' were quite happy to ride along on the wave of the success of American big business/war profiteers.  The civil rights movement - propelled to some extent by integration in the military fighting in WWII and Korea - allowed big business to integrate blacks into the economy, thus increasing the consumer base and the size of the work force (and thus helping to lower labor costs, although the reduction was hidden by the boom in the economy).  Feminism was intended to integrate women into the work force for similar reasons.  Needless to say, big business support for illegal immigration has a similar basis.  All the while, the United States was on a war economy footing.  The tax base continued to grow, and with appropriate taxation policies filled the government coffers with the money needed to reduce poverty, build the education system, fund health care, etc, etc.  All was good, but it was all based on this unholy alliance between big business and big government, led entirely by the economic interests of big business.  The model for this alliance was the military-industrial complex (and Eisenhower famously saw into the future).

When we think of think tanks now, we of course think of institutions intended to fool Americans into fighting Wars For The Jews.  Back in the golden era of progressivism, the think tanks produced all sorts of progressive ideas, and they were almost all funded by big business.  All these progressive ideas expanded government, and the economy, and thus were good for big business.

Everything has changed, but the 'progressives' failed to notice.  The big tax base was built on a war economy and a real economy.  The capitalists hollowed out the real economy, sending the wealth creation offshore, leaving the United States with just a war economy.  It is thus increasingly easy for the Jews to fool Americans into wars for the sole purpose of building Anti-Assimilation Land (aka, Israel).  Big business found it could use the think tanks to produce the lying basis for the end of regulations and the complete destruction of the taxation system.  The American government is now essentially funded using printing presses, a habit which can only continue as long as the American dollar is the de facto world reserve currency, a happy state which is soon to end (largely caused by pressures created by all the Wars For The Jews - as an example, carefully watch the fallout from the economic pressures being put on Iran and the rest of the world by the Jew-controlled American government).

Signing on with big business, and, in particular, the big business of war, to fund progressive politics may have been a good idea at the time.  It is no longer a possible model.  The United States is collapsing at an accelerating rate, and more Wars For The Jews will increase the rate of decline (and a War For The Jews against Iran would surely turn the United States into a third-world country instantly).  The combination of hollowed out tax base and no effective taxation on corporations and the rich means there is no longer any money to fund social programs or fix infrastructure.  The current situation is just the logical conclusion of a system engineered to look out solely for the economic interests of big business.

When you look at other places that have problems from time to time - Europe or Japan - you see problems caused by corrupt politicians looking out for the interests of banksters.  These are problems that pass if the underlying economic footing is strong.  With the United States, all I see is an economy addicted to war profiteering and the printing press.  There is no politician who will be permitted to win who proposes to change any of this (and Obama is the quintessence of a war profiteer 'progressive').  The United States, as I have said before, is fucked.

Saturday, January 7, 2011

"Harper condemns Gatineau mosque attack"  Scroll down for graffiti pictures (the first door picture was big and at the top of the article when I first saw it, but the CBC probably feared being shut down).  "Gatineau police investigate latest mosque vandalism as hate crime" (more pictures of the same thing)  "Vandal hits Gatineau mosque second time in week"

"Quebec mayor under fire for anti-Israel remarks"

"Demonizing Syria, no matter how laughable"  It is extremely unlikely - well, impossible - that the Syrian government is conducting 'false flag' bombings against itself.  There are too many other possible targets.

Lying, and then covering up the lying:  "Alert! The New York Times Misleads About Iran’s Nuclear Program"  "NYT Misleads Readers on Iran Crisis"  This program of lying the United States into yet another War For The Jews isn't just lying.  It is High Treason, and I hope that the requisite punishment is eventually administered.

AIPAC, and its catamites in Congress, against everybody else in the world:  "The US-Iran economic war" by Pepe Escobar (my emphasis in red):

"Forget about oil at an accessible $50 or even $75 a barrel. The price of oil may be destined to soon reach $120 a barrel and even $150 a barrel by summer, just as in crisis-hit 2008. OPEC, by the way, is pumping more oil than at any time since late 2008.

So what started as an Israeli-concocted roadside improvised explosive device has now developed into a multiple economic suicide bombing targeting whole sections of the global economy.

No wonder the chairman of the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy commission, Ala'eddin Broujerdi, has warned that the West may be committing a "strategic blunder" with these oil sanctions.

Translation: as it goes, the name of the game for 2012 is deep global recession.

First Washington leaked that sanctions on Iran's central bank were "not on the table". After all, the Obama administration itself knew this would translate into an oil price hike and a certified one-way ticket for more global recession. The Iranian regime, on top of it, would be making more money out if its oil exports.

Still, the Bibi-AIPAC combo had no trouble forcing the amendment through those Israel-firster Meccas, the US Senate and Congress - even with US Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner expressly against it.

The amendment just passed may not represent the "crippling sanctions" vociferously demanded by the Israeli government. Tehran will feel the squeeze - but not to an intolerable level. Yet only those irresponsible people at the US Congress - despised by the overwhelming majority of Americans, according to any number of polls - could possibly believe they can take Iran's 2.5 million barrels of oil a day in exports off the global market with no drastic consequences for the global economy.

Asia increasingly will need more oil - and will continue to buy oil from Iran. And oil prices will keep flirting with the stratosphere.

So why did Obama sign it? For the Obama administration, everything now is about electoral calculus. Those terminal wackos in the Republican presidential circus - with the honorable exception of Ron Paul - are peddling war on Iran the moment they're elected, and substantial swathes of the American electorate are clueless enough to buy it.

No one, though, is doing some basic math to conclude the American and European economies certainly don't need oil flirting with the $120 level if some minimal recovery is in the cards.

Apart from that self-defeating, terminally in crisis euro/North Atlantic Treaty Organization bunch, everyone and his neighbor will be bypassing this Israeli-American declaration of economic war:
- Russia already said it will circumvent it.
- India is already paying for Iranian oil via Halkbank in Turkey.
- Iran is actively negotiating to sell more oil to China. Iran is China's second-largest supplier, only behind Saudi Arabia. China pays in euros, and soon may be paying in yuan. By March they both will have sealed an agreement about new pricing.
- Venezuela controls a bi-national bank with Iran since 2009; that's how Iran gets paid for business in Latin America.
- Even traditional US allies want out. Turkey - which imports around 30% of its oil from Iran.
- Will seek a waiver exempting Turkish oil importer Tupras from US sanctions.
- And South Korea will also seek a waiver, to buy around 200,000 barrels a day - 10% of its oil - from Iran in 2012.

China, India, South Korea, they all have complex two-way trade ties with Iran (China-Iran trade, for instance, is $30 billion a year, and growing). None of this will be extinguished because the Washington/Tel Aviv axis says so. So one should expect a rash of new private banks set up all across the developing world for the purpose of buying Iranian oil.

Washington wouldn't have the balls to try to impose sanctions on Chinese banks because they will be dealing with Iran.

On the other hand, one's got to praise Tehran's balls. After a relentless campaign of covert assassinations; abductions of Iranian scientists; cross-border attacks in Sistan-Balochistan province; Israeli sabotage of its infrastructure, with viruses and otherwise; invasion of territory via US spy drones; non-stop Israeli and Republican threats of an imminent "shock and awe"; and the US sale of $60 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia, still Tehran won't balk.

Tehran has just tested - successfully - its own cruise missiles, and in the Strait of Hormuz of all places. Then when Tehran reacts to the non-stop Western aggressive barrage, it is blamed with "acts of provocation".

Last Friday, the New York Times editorial board was totally in love with the Pentagon's threats against Iran, as well as calling for "maximum economic pressure".

The bottom line is that average Iranians will suffer - as average, crisis-hit, indebted Europeans will also suffer. The US economy will suffer. And whenever it feels the West is getting way too hysterical, Tehran will keep reserving the right to send oil prices skyrocketing.

The regime in Tehran will keep selling oil, will keep enriching uranium and, most of all, won't fall. Like a Hellfire missile hitting a Pashtun wedding party, these Western sanctions will miserably fail. But not without collecting a lot of collateral damage - in the West itself. "

The Jews have guaranteed there will not be a recovery from this depression, all for some meaningless dick-waving.

Creating and correcting the record

Creating and correcting the record:

1. "Palestinians fulfill Quartet’s request. Israelis don’t. Guess who ‘Washington Post’ blames?"  Making lemons into lemonade through outright lying.
2. "New York Times covers Syria"  Stretching thousands into hundreds of thousands.
3. "NY Times Again Lies About WMD - Now in Iran"  They had to apologize for the outright lies about WMD in Iraq (leading, and intended to lead, to a disastrous War For The Jews) - now they are back at it again as if Judy Miller never existed.
4. "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" (correction is at the bottom of the page here).  Fastidious, if Wars For The Jews aren't being promoted.

Somebody has gone missing

The American mainstream media is shamelessly reporting the results of the Iowa caucuses as if it was an amazing two-way tie.  Somebody has gone missing.

Weiss likes Ron Paul in the race, but only on the condition that it is certain he has no chance of winning.  Of course, that condition means that Paul's anti-war stance will have absolutely no effect on American politics, and the series of Wars For The Jews can continue.

"Forget Iowa: GOP Always Nominates 'Next in Line'"  The fix is in.  It has to be your turn to win (to prevent outliers like Goldwater or Paul).  Question:  based on this Republican nomination race, whose turn will it be next time?  After the first black president, perhaps Rick Santorum can be the first mentally retarded president.

I consider it a form of pleasure.

"Christmas in the Radiation Zone"  It is depressing that Japan, the one place in the world you would think would be equipped to deal with a nuclear disaster, has given up.  "Local Japan official found with shotgun blast to chest — Lectured against nuclear power after Fukushima"  Experiment:  get in a car behind the steering wheel with an unloaded shotgun, and try to shoot yourself in the chest in such a way that the shotgun ends up outside the car.

"Coastal villages in Nigeria protest as crude oil washes ashore"  "Fishing Suspended in Nigeria As Cleanup After Offshore Shell Spill Continues"  Shell refuses to help.

"Border Police train Israeli teens to detain illegal Palestinian workers":  "I consider it a form of pleasure. It simply provides me with values, and I love the action."  Apparently a traditional hobby of Jewish children.

"Sheldon Adelson: The Deep Pockets Behind Newt Gingrich"  Why is Adelson throwing money away on a hopeless cause?

"So Who Is Behind The Ron Paul Attacks?"  Neocon warmongers - Foundation for Defense of Democracies - don't like Ron Paul.

"Flatbush Jewish Journal Clips Sun, Moon"

The journal of scorpion fighting

"Haredim: Don't Divide Beit Shemesh":  The ever-so-slightly-less-insanely-violent Orthodox Jews who live in Beit Shemesh don't want Bibi to divide it into insane (Orthodox) and sane (everybody else) sections as they fear that the ever-so-slightly-more-insanely-violent Orthodox Jews, deprived of their usual targets of violence, will then go after the ever-so-slightly-less-insanely-violent Orthodox Jews.  FailedMessiah.com - the journal of scorpion fighting.

"Chart of the day is... "  Big, big win for the people of Venezuela.

"SNL Writer Who Committed Suicide (?) Was A Strong Critic Of Israel And Fan Of What Really Happened":  "More wars for Israel, our rulers. Probably Syria soon."

"Has America Ever Sent Troops to Fight for Israel? (UPDATED)"  Talk about comedy writers.

"The Man Who Told the Internet He’d Come from the Future"

I'd forgotten about the Mayday Mystery, but it is still going strong.

"kim jong-il looking at things"

The 'progressives' and Paul

Ron Paul is a terrible embarrassment to American 'progressives' as their opposition to his campaign demonstrates how deeply reactionary they really are.  In particular, Paul highlights the the dominant neo-liberal strain in American progressivism of supporting the financing of war. War financing is the heart of the modern American apparatus of state, and the state is what creates social programs and enforces modern progressive social order.  This is particularly true as the business base of the country is hollowed out, leaving the business of war - and the printing of money - as the only financial basis left to support social programs.

"Matt Stoller: Why Ron Paul Challenges Liberals" (my emphasis in red - this article is important):

"And as I’ve drilled into Paul’s ideas, his ideas forced me to acknowledge some deep contradictions in American liberalism (pointed out years ago by Christopher Laesch) and what is a long-standing, disturbing, and unacknowledged affinity liberals have with centralized war financing. So while I have my views of Ron Paul, I believe that the anger he inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.
...

Paul is deeply conservative, of course, and there are reasons he believes in those end goals that have nothing to do with creating a more socially just and equitable society. But then, when considering questions about Ron Paul, you have to ask yourself whether you prefer a libertarian who will tell you upfront about his opposition to civil rights statutes, or authoritarian Democratic leaders who will expand healthcare to children and then aggressively enforce a racist war on drugs and shield multi-trillion dollar transactions from public scrutiny. I can see merits in both approaches, and of course, neither is ideal. Perhaps it’s worthy to argue that lives saved by presumed expanded health care coverage in 2013 are worth the lives lost in the drug war. It is potentially a tough calculation (depending on whether you think coverage will in fact expand in 2013). When I worked with Paul’s staff, they pursued our joint end goals with vigor and principle, and because of their work, we got to force central banking practices into a more public and democratic light.
But this obscures the real question, of why Paul disdains the Fed (and implicitly, why liberals do not), and the relationship between the Federal Reserve and American empire.  If you go back and look at some of libertarian allies, like Fox News’s Judge Napolitano, they will answer that question for you. Napolitano hates, absolutely hates, Abraham Lincoln. He sometimes slyly refers to Lincoln as America’s first dictator. Libertarians also detest Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
What connects all three of these Presidents is one thing – big ass wars, and specifically, war financing. If you think today’s deficits are bad, well, Abraham Lincoln financed the Civil War pretty much entirely by money printing and debt creation, taking America off the gold standard. He oversaw the founding of the nation’s first national financial regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which chartered national banks and forced them to hold government debt to back currency they issued. The dollar then became the national currency, and Lincoln didn’t even back those dollars by gold (and gold is written into the Constitution). This financing of the Civil War was upheld in a series of cases over the Legal Tender Act of 1862. Prior to Lincoln, it was these United States. Afterwards, it was the United States. Lincoln fought the Civil War and centralized authority in the Federal government to do it, freeing slaves and transforming America into one nation.
Libertarians claim that they dislike Lincoln because he centralized authority in the Federal government. Of course, there is a long reconstructed white supremacist strain that hates Lincoln because he was an explicitly anti-racist President, and they hate the centralized authority and financing power that freed the slaves and turned America increasingly into more racially equitable society. This strain can be exploited by the creditor class, who also disliked how slavery – which they saw as a property right rather than a labor and human rights issue – was destroyed by state power. History, of course, has a nasty way of mocking us about long-held fights we thought were over. The conflict between labor/human rights and property rights continues today. Or as Carl Fox said in the movie Wall Street, “The only difference between the Pyramids and the Empire State Building is the Egyptians didn’t allow unions.” Without even getting into globalization, prison labor legally makes body armor, as well as products for victoria’s Secret, Starbucks, and Microsoft. State centralized power can prioritize labor rights over property rights, and for this reason, creditors are wary of it.
On to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson signed the highly controversial Federal Reserve Act in 1913; originally, the Federal Reserve system was supposed to discount commercial and agricultural paper. Government bonds were not really considered part of the system’s mandate. But what happened the next year? Yes, World War I. And Wilson, who ran on the slogan “he kept us out of war” in 1916, started a long tradition of antiwar Democratic Presidents who took America to war (drawing the ire of among others Helen Keller, but garnering the support of union leader Sam Gompers who argued it was a “people’s war”). Wilson also implemented a wide variety of highly repressive authoritarian measures, including the Palmer Raids, the Espionage Act of 1917, and the use of modern PR techniques by government agencies. For good measure, Wilson was an unreconstructed white supremacist (even a bit out there for the time) and sent many antiwar opponents to jail. In the monetary arena, Wilson’s new Federal Reserve system began discounting government bonds. Like Lincoln, he had set up a tremendous war financing vehicle to centralize capital flows and therefore, political authority. In many ways, Wilson set up the rudiments of America’s police state, and did so arguably to help a transatlantic Anglo-American banking elite. Here, one can argue that libertarians are wary of centralized financing and political authority for liberal reasons – the ACLU was founded after the Palmer raids.
And finally, we come to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s Fed is a bit more complex, because he did centralize monetary authority using wartime emergency powers, but he did so in peacetime. FDR abrogated gold clause contracts, seized the domestic supply of gold, and devalued the currency. He constrained banks with aggressive regulation and seizures of insolvent banks, saving depositors with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. He also used the RFC to set up much of what we know today as the Federal government, including early versions of disaster relief, small business lending, massive bridge and railroad building, the FHA, Fannie Mae, and state and local aid. Eventually, the government used this mechanism to finance college and housing for veterans with the GI Bill. Since veterans were much of the population right after World War II, effectively this was the first ever near-national safety net. FDR also fused the liberal and union establishments with the corporate world, creating the hybrid “military-industrial” complex that is with us to this day (see Alan Brinkley’s “End of Reform” for a good treatment of this process).
Later, this New Deal financing apparatus was used to finance the munitions industry and America’s role in World War II. At one point, the RFC owned eight war material producing subsidiaries, including the synthetic rubber industry. Importantly, FDR had the Fed working for him. The Fed kept interest rates pegged at an interest rate set by Treasury, and used reserve requirements to manage inflation. This led to a dramatic drop in inequality, and unemployment sank to 1% during World War II. In 1951, the Fed, buttressed by what Tom Ferguson calls “conservative Keynesian” corporate leaders, broke free of this arrangement, under the Treasury-Fed Accord, leading to the postwar monetary order. That accord is where the vaunted “Federal Reserve Independence” came from.
Now, if you’re a libertarian, and you believe that centralized power is dangerous, then it’s obvious that state control over finance and mass mobilization of social resources for warfare or other ends are two sides of the same coin. If you fear social spending, you could also be persuaded to believe that any financing mechanism for mass social spending is problematic. Creditors might just dislike the possibility of any state power centers that could challenge their hegemony and privilege labor/human rights over their property rights, though they do support captive state systems they control. If you are a white supremacist, centralized power can easily be viewed as a threat to racial homogeny, since historically it has acted as such in the past. But if you are against war, or you believe that a centralized state is likely to act in an unjust or repressive manner (as it also has in the past), then war financing is a reasonable target.
Modern liberalism is a mixture of two elements. One is a support of Federal power – what came out of the late 1930s, World War II, and the civil rights era where a social safety net and warfare were financed by Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the RFC, and human rights were enforced by a Federal government, unions, and a cadre of corporate, journalistic and technocratic experts (and cheap oil made the whole system run.) America mobilized militarily for national priorities, be they war-like or social in nature. And two, it originates from the anti-war sentiment of the Vietnam era, with its distrust of centralized authority mobilizing national resources for what were perceived to be immoral priorities. When you throw in the recent financial crisis, the corruption of big finance, the increasing militarization of society, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the collapse of the moral authority of the technocrats, you have a big problem. Liberalism doesn’t really exist much within the Democratic Party so much anymore, but it also has a profound challenge insofar as the rudiments of liberalism going back to the 1930s don’t work.
This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects. Ron Paul’s stance should be seen as a challenge to better create a coherent structural critique of the American political order. It’s quite obvious that there isn’t one coming from the left, otherwise the figure challenging the war on drugs and American empire wouldn’t be in the Republican primary as the libertarian candidate. To get there, liberals must grapple with big finance and war, two topics that are difficult to handle in any but a glib manner that separates us from our actual traditional and problematic affinity for both. War financing has a specific tradition in American culture, but there is no guarantee war financing must continue the way it has. And there’s no reason to assume that centralized power will act in a more just manner these days, that we will see continuity with the historical experience of the New Deal and Civil Rights Era. The liberal alliance with the mechanics of mass mobilizing warfare, which should be pretty obvious when seen in this light, is deep-rooted.
What we’re seeing on the left is this conflict played out, whether it is big slow centralized unions supporting problematic policies, protest movements that cannot be institutionalized in any useful structure, or a completely hollow liberal intellectual apparatus arguing for increasing the power of corporations through the Federal government to enact their agenda. Now of course, Ron Paul pandered to racists, and there is no doubt that this is a legitimate political issue in the Presidential race. But the intellectual challenge that Ron Paul presents ultimately has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with contradictions within modern liberalism."

It is difficult not to think of Bill and Barry as you read the history.  Note that all the 'progressives' commenting on this article try to change the subject, just as Stoller suggested they would.  I like to call American progressives 'progressives for carpet bombing', and their recent support for the imperialist slaughter in Libya is completely in character for them.

"Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies" by Glenn Greenwald:

"The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.
The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.
He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.
Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before. The nation suffers from what National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh just christened “Obama’s Romance with the CIA.” He has created what The Washington Post just dubbed a vast drone/killing operation,” all behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and without a shred of oversight. Obama’s steadfast devotion to what Dana Priest and William Arkin called “Top Secret America” has severe domestic repercussions as well, building up vast debt and deficits in the name of militarism that create the pretext for the “austerity” measures which the Washington class (including Obama) is plotting to impose on America’s middle and lower classes.
The simple fact is that progressives are supporting a candidate for President who has done all of that — things liberalism has long held to be pernicious. I know it’s annoying and miserable to hear. Progressives like to think of themselves as the faction that stands for peace, opposes wars, believes in due process and civil liberties, distrusts the military-industrial complex, supports candidates who are devoted to individual rights, transparency and economic equality. All of these facts — like the history laid out by Stoller in that essay — negate that desired self-perception. These facts demonstrate that the leader progressives have empowered and will empower again has worked in direct opposition to those values and engaged in conduct that is nothing short of horrific. So there is an eagerness to avoid hearing about them, to pretend they don’t exist. And there’s a corresponding hostility toward those who point them out, who insist that they not be ignored.
The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views."

Of course, as Greenwald lists things progressives aren't supposed to notice, he fails to list the Jewish blackmail of the United States by control of the Fed, and the fact that all the wars the Americans are blackmailed into fighting are Wars For The Jews.  For Greenwald, Paul is a useful candidate, but not a plausible or desirable President.  He is just a goad to remind Barry he has to do better.  Too bad it won't work.