Saturday, December 29, 2007

Number 1 with a bullet

The military budget of the United States is now significantly higher than the total of the military budgets of all the other countries in the world.  I hate to mention the stunningly obvious, but the fact the Americans have to fight wars for a certain tiny ethno-racial-religious group – a group that is systematically burning through the American treasury in a fruitless quest to deal with psychological issues deriving from the Holocaust – constitutes a large part of the problem.  It is too bad you can’t eat bullets, teach bullets, build infrastructure out of bullets, or use bullets for medical care.  I wonder when it will be permissible to connect cause with effect.

Bibi's revenge, and a bit more Bhutto

From the Daily Mail:



More on Bhutto:





Friday, December 28, 2007

Another Washington failure



The Washington Post spins the power politics:












Ten weeks later, she was dead.”








Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Some consumer conspiracy theories

Some consumer conspiracy theories:




  3. Skiing conspiracy theories.



Tuesday, December 25, 2007

The resistance movement in Britain

The corruption of British politics by the ‘deep penetration’ of the one-issue guys, the ‘committed Jews’, has been expressly noted and the protest movement has begun.  Meanwhile, the most infamous of the committed Jews has apparently been dating a woman alleged to be a Holocaust denier, which, when you think about it, makes perfect sense.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Recovering pre-ocon history


From the same Maltese source, see this.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Revenge for Annapolis?

Juan Cole dabbles in conspiracy theory (after all, who alone has close ties to the Turks and the Kurds and high officials in the U. S. government, and hates Condi for Annapolis?).

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

From Chinese to Deli: a short prehistory of the sub-prime crisis

The structure of the financial instruments that led inexorably to the sub-prime crisis that threatens to bring down the entire world banking system was plotted by a handful of men who had weekly meetings.  Dinner was brought in for each meeting.  It started out Chinese, but they eventually switched to deli, as Chinese was deemed not to be kosher.  Note the denials at the end of the Bloomberg article that the derivative structure set up by the planners, which allowed them to bet against the sub-prime loans being good, has anything to do with the ensuing crisis.  It appears that they set the whole system up in anticipation that it would collapse.

If you wanted to be a cutting-edge conspiracy theorist you would correlate the billionaires who made much of their money off derivatives related to sub-prime loans – you’d be looking at ‘real estate’ hedge finds – and donations to the major American political parties, particularly to the Democrats, and particularly to Hillary Clinton.  While some find Wall Street donations to Democrats incongruous (note the code: “Hedge-fund managers tend to live near the top of cosmopolitan, culturally liberal societies.”), it is notable that the ‘tax-and-spend’ Democrats – well, at least Clinton and Schumer  –  have been resisting efforts to raise effective tax rates on hedge fund profits.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

It's not the Zionists I'm worried about

There has been a considerable amount of self-congratulation amongst the lite Zionists over a recent poll which appears to support the view that American Jews are progressive, liberal and other good things, including being unsupportive of the American attack on Iraq.  I was going to write about the real message, but James Petras (or here or here) has beat me to it:

“This progressive interpretation however avoids an even more fundamental question: How is it that a majority of US Jews who, according to the AJC poll (and several others going back over two decades) differ with the principal American Jewish organizations, have not or do not challenge the position of the dominant Jewish organization, have virtually no impact on the US Congress, the Executive and the mass media in comparison to the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations?”


“On the surface these polling results would suggest that American Jews would be at the cutting edge of the congressional anti-war movements, arousing their fellow Jews to join and resurrect the moribund peace movement.  Nothing of the sort has occurred.

One reason for the gap between the ‘progressive’ polling results and the actual pro-war behavior of the major American Jewish Organizations is found in several of the opinions not cited by progressive analysts but emphasized by the 52 leaders of the major communal organizations (Daily Alert, December 13, 2007).  Over eighty percent (82%) of American Jews agree that ‘the goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel’.  Only 12% of Jews disagree.  And 55% to 37% do not believe Israel and its Arab neighbors will settle their differences and live in peace.  On the key issue of a compromise on the key issue of Jerusalem, by 58% to 36% American Jews reject an Israeli compromise to insure a framework for permanent peace.



“. . . a serious analyst clearly must distinguish between ‘opinions’ and ‘commitment’.  While a majority of American Jews may voice private progressive opinions, their commitments based on their identity as Jews rests with the State of Israel and its principal mouthpieces in the US. 

This probably explains the unwillingness of progressive Jews to criticize the principal reactionary Jewish leaders and their mass organizations, even worse to attack and slander any critics of the pro-Israel power configuration.  Progressive Jews have subordinated their progressive opinions to their loyalty and identity with Israel.  Organizationally this has meant that the majority of major American Jewish organizations are still led and controlled by pro-war, pro-Israel leaders.  Progressive Jewish organizations are on the fringe of the organizational map, with virtually no influence in the Congress or Presidency and backers of a pro-war Democratic Party and Congress.”


“The apparent paradox of progressive anti-war Jews contributing big bucks to pro-war Democrats is based on the latter’s unconditional support for Israel which trumps any ‘dissonance’ that might exist in the head of progressive Jewish political activists.

With the American Pro-Israel Power Configuration leading the way to savaging the National Intelligence Estimate study, released in December 2007, on the absence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, progressive Jewish opinion is silent or complicit.  Worse still, progressive liberal and radical Jewish peace activists have acted as gate-keepers in the anti-war movement – prohibiting any criticism of Israel and labeling individuals or citizen activists critical of the pro-war Zionist lobby as ‘anti-Semites’. 

The AJC opinion poll on the high proportion of American Jewish with more progressive opinions than the leadership of all the major mainstream organizations would be officially welcomed if it led to something else besides private opinions compromised by Israeli identities.”

I’ve been denounced for writing about the ‘Jew-controlled’ media.  You are not supposed to speak that way.  If you must, speak of the ‘Zionist-controlled’ media, as the presence of Christian Zionists in the United States diffuses the words.  But it is not the Zionists I’m worried about.  Despite the power and money of the Jewish Billionaires and their employees, they would not have any power in the United States without the understanding that they represent fundamental values of the wider Jewish community.  The hard-core Zionists are too small a group to have such major political importance.  The people who scare me are the ‘progressive’ American Jews.

You can be the most assimilated Jew in the world, never have been within five hundred miles of a synagogue, eat swan for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and never have the slightest thought about your Jewish identity . . . and yet . . . .   And yet the slightest reference to Israel, or to those purporting to speak for Israel, and you freeze up.  Magical tribal thinking automatically kicks in.  The unspoken but almost universal commandment amongst American Jews:  Thou shalt not speak evil of Israel, or those who purport to support Israel, no matter how wicked or insane such support appears to be.  This commandment extends to the fact that the most radical proposals have to receive fill airing, without censorship or the slightest criticism.

This magical thinking is the only possible explanation for the paradox of the most ‘progressive’ group tacitly supporting the vilest policies with respect to this one issue.  How does a guy like Norman Podhoretz, gleefully calling for the nuclear annihilation of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people, get any platform at all?  He purports to speak for Israel.  Therefore, while you would normally expect universal denunciation from his nominally ‘progressive’ community, you only hear a few bleatings from a couple of blogs.  The commandment prevents any criticism, and thus encourages further and further radicalization from the worst extremists.  Without any criticism, the extremists appear to represent mainstream opinion.

The usually excellent blog Muzzlewatch writes (my emphasis in red):

“And still, 69% of the Jews interviewed (exactly one half of the sample is affiliated with a synagogue) agreed with the statement: ‘Caring about Israel is a very important part of my being a Jew.’ And why shouldn’t we? And what does that really mean? Caring about Israel can mean any number of things, donating money to Rabbis for Human Rights, helping rebuild homes with the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions, wanting the country to cease its destructive and self-destructive actions.”

Sorry, but you don’t get it.  You are only truly assimilated when you don’t care about, or even follow, the politics of your ‘homeland’.  If you give a shit about Israel, you’re not an American, you’re a Jew.  You can eat the food of ‘your people’, follow the religion and culture, even watch travelogues and pine for the ‘homeland’ you’ve never been to, but once the politics has personal meaning to you, you have crossed the line into the kind of destructive thinking that has already caused too much suffering (I’ll always remember hearing the great literary critic Leslie Fiedler on NPR discussing giving up his beloved American-Jewish identity because of all the problems it was causing).  The real irony is that this magical thinking is clearly not even in the real interests of the real Israel, but supports the mythical dreamland of the religious fruitcakes, both Jewish and Christian.  You can’t continue to have it both ways.

Conrad versus Bill and Henry the K








Zionist-English Dictionary

Further to my discussion of the use of language as a method of Zionist thought control, a short lexicon from to assist in translating Zionist-ese into English.  This will be indispensable in reading American/British/Canadian newspapers.  It would be nice if we could set up a web browser that would automatically do the translation.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Agenda-driven intelligence

In these days when the Israelis are offering to ‘help’ the Americans by providing lies about Iran which are in direct contradiction to the unanimous conclusion of 16 (!) American intelligence agencies, it is worthwhile to remember that Israel has a long and undistinguished history of providing lies to the United States (Abingdon is a former American diplomat):

“Abingdon said the Israelis provided intelligence to the CIA, and defense attorney Nancy Hollander asked him if he found the Israeli information reliable. ‘No,’ he answered, and she asked why not.

‘I feel the Israelis have an agenda ... they provide selective information to try to influence US thinking,’ he said.”

General Shlomo Brom, a former senior Israeli military intelligence officer, reported to the Israeli government that Israel was a ‘full partner’ in American and British intelligence failures that described Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.  The Israelis actually had a secret unit attached directly to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s office which fed disinfo directly to Feith’s Office of Special Plans.

From Stephen J. Sniegoski’s wonderful article “The Israeli origins of Bush II's war” (I’ve removed the footnotes that are in the original):

“Intelligence writer James Bamford cut to the core of the Israeli manipulations:


The recommendation of Feith, Perle, and Wurmser was for Israel to once again invade Lebanon with air strikes. But this time, to counter potentially hostile reactions from the American government and public, they suggested using a pretext. They would claim that the purpose of the invasion was to halt Syria's drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure located there. They were subjects in which Israel had virtually no interest, but they were ones, they said, with which America can sympathize.

Another way to win American support for a pre-empted war against Syria, they suggested, was by drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program. This claim would be that Israel's war was really all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills, and WMD — nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Still, in the ‘Clean Break,’ neocons were advising Israeli military action. It should be emphasized that the same people — Feith, Wurmser, Perle — who advised the Israeli government on issues of national security would also advise the George W. Bush administration to pursue virtually the same policy regarding the Middle East, but employing American armed forces. As political observer William James Martin would astutely comment about ‘Clean Break’: ‘This document is remarkable for its very existence because it constitutes a policy manifesto for the Israeli government penned by members of the current U.S. government.’  Martin went on to point out that the similarity between that document's recommendation for Israel and the neocon-inspired Bush administration policy, purportedly designed for the benefit of American interests, was even more remarkable:

It is amazing how much of this program, though written for the Israeli government of Netanyahu of 1996, has already been implemented, not by the government of Israel, but by the Bush administration. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the two-year-old house arrest of Arafat and the attempt to cultivate a new Palestinian leadership, the complete rejection by Sharon of the land for peace agreement on the Golan Heights, with little U.S. demurral, and the bombing inside of ‘Syria proper’ with only the response from Bush, ‘Israel has a right to defend itself.’

The dramatic similarities between the ‘Clean Break’ scenario and actual Bush II administration Middle East policy are evident not only in the results but also in the sequence of events. Notably, the ‘Clean Break’ report held that removing Saddam was the key to weakening Israel's other enemies; and after removing Saddam in 2003 the United States would indeed quickly threaten Iran and Syria, and talk of restructuring the entire Middle East. Evident, too, is a similarity between actual events and the Yinon proposal of 1982, which also saw regime change in Iraq as a fundamental move in destabilizing Israel's enemies.

To reiterate the central point of this essay: the vision of ‘regime change’ in the Middle East through external, militant action originated in Israel, and its sole purpose was to advance the strategic interests of Israel. It had nothing to do with bringing ‘democracy’ to Muslims. It had nothing to do with any terrorist threat to the United States. Those latter arguments accreted to the idea of regime change as the primary military actor changed from Israel to the United States. But the Israeli government would continue to be a fundamental supporter of the regional military action, even as the ostensible justifications for action changed. The Sharon government advocated the American attacks on Iraq and has preached the necessity of strikes on Iran.

It would appear that for Ariel Sharon during the Bush II administration, the strategic benefits that would accrue to Israel from such a militant restructuring of the Middle East were the same as those that Likudniks sought in the 1980s. But unlike Begin's failed incursion into Lebanon in 1982, the Bush II effort not only relied upon the much greater power of the United States but also was wrapped in a cover of "democracy" and American national interest, effectively masking the true objective of Israeli hegemony. That helps to explain the much greater success of this intervention, which has come at no cost to Israel.

Instead, it has come at a cost to the United States. The United States has tarnished its international reputation through its militarily aggressive actions in contravention of prevailing international norms. It has also had to pay significant costs in blood and money: rather, the American people have had to pay those costs. And the United States has made itself, and the American people, a major target of international terrorism. In short, the benefits derived by the United States from its Middle East military adventure are highly questionable; but that is easily understood if one recognizes that the policy the Bush II administration has pursued did not originate as one to benefit the interests of the United States but rather to benefit those of Israel, as those interests have been perceived by the Israeli Right.”

Note the pattern.  Feith, Perle, and Wurmser advocated tricking the Americans into supporting the Israeli attack on Syria by creating faulty intelligence on a mythological Syrian WMD program (that approach hasn’t ended, as witness the recent Israeli lies over the unprovoked Israeli attack on Syria in September), then Feith and Wurmser directly implemented the same deception by manipulating the American intelligence, with the help of Israeli intelligence sources, to create a phony threat from a mythological Iraqi WMD program.  In the absence of having direct treason agents in the appropriate places in the American government, the Israelis are now having to do the deception themselves, returning to the ‘Clean Break’ model of attempting to fool the Americans by providing bogus intelligence on Iran.  In each case, the intelligence lies are intended to lead to a war that fits Israeli Empire interests, all under the guise of following American national interests in stopping WMD programs.  Three proposed wars (only one of which has occurred), three Israeli-Empire motives, three Israeli intelligence tricks, all involving mythological WMD programs in target states.



Sunday, December 16, 2007

The message

It is a mistake to quibble about the NIE on Iran.  The approach of some of the viler neocons is to question the factual basis for the NIE, and even hint that the anti-Semitism of the intelligence agencies is behind it.  Podhoretz even has the chutzpah to question the Iran NIE based on the unreliability of the Iraq NIE, an approach which begs readers to wonder why the Iraq NIE was so unreliable, a line of thought that leads right back to the Jewish neocons who forced the intelligence analysts to make it up.  The 16 American intelligence agencies don’t know that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, any more than they knew two years ago that Iran had a nuclear weapons program.  The fact remains that you can’t start a war against a sovereign country which poses no obvious threat to you based on some iffy intelligence guessing about the possibility of vague future threats, particularly if the guessing is based on a packet of lies from supremely unreliable Israeli intelligence sources.  It is against international law to do so, and highly imprudent, as Americans are finding out.

The NIE on Iran is entirely political, and constitutes a statement by the Old American Establishment that it is not going to be tricked or cajoled into fighting another War for the Jews unless there is a compelling argument that such a war is in the real national interests of the United States.  There is no conceivable scenario in the foreseeable future that a war against Iran could possibly be in the American national interest.  As I’ve been saying all along, it is not going to happen, and the Old American Establishment, angered by the Zionist meddling to ruin the Annapolis conference, threw down the gauntlet to the Jewish Billionaires and their employees.  Decades of Jewish wealth accumulation still can’t match centuries of Old American Establishment wealth accumulation, and the Old American Establishment still controls the American military (non-Jewish as American Jews wisely don’t choose to die for the gentiles), the American intelligence agencies (non-Jewish due to a history of anti-Semitism, coupled with very real – and growing more real – concerns about dual loyalties), and most of the American bureaucracy in the State and Treasury Departments.  The Old American Establishment is making itself clear, and indicating that it is fully engaged on the issue.  No more Wars for the Jews!  Despite some rhetorical flourishes, the Bush Administration has heard the news loud and clear (as has much of the Israeli leadership).

There are indications that the wisest of the Jewish Billionaires are heeding the message, at least from a tactical point of view.  The problem for American Zionism is to arrange to leave open its chances for future covert scheming.  Failure to acknowledge that a message has been delivered is just going to enrage the Old American Establishment, leading to further embellishment of the real background of the Iraq war, and discussions of the entire dual loyalty problem, something which is just starting in the media, and constitutes a threat of what is to come if the Jewish Billionaires continue to press the issue of tricking the United States into attacking Iran.  The Old American Establishment is telling the Jewish Billionaires, in no uncertain terms, to quote AC/DC, “Now you're messing with a son-of-a-bitch”.  It would be prudent for the Jewish Billionaires to act as if they received the message.

Committed Jews

The code word to refer to the ‘one-issue guys’, the Jewish Billionaires working for the creation of Greater Israel across the Middle East, is ‘committed Jews’.

Free feline medical advice

I couldn’t resist linking to this picture (found on this site via

Christchurch foreknowledge?


Saturday, December 15, 2007

Henry the K's Noamian moment







Thursday, December 13, 2007

It is starting to hit the fan

It has taken a long while, but the actions of the Jewish Billioniares and their employees are starting to be connected with the Wars for the Jews:

  1. Maureen Dowd on Feith and Wolfowitz, expressly connecting the ScareJew to the lying Zionist intelligence which led directly to the attack on Iran (my emphasis in red):

    "Feith’s disdain for diplomacy and his credo that weakness invites aggression were shaped, Ricks reported, by personal history: ‘Like Wolfowitz, Feith came from a family devastated by the Holocaust. His father lost both parents, three brothers, and four sisters to the Nazis.’ 







  2. Gary Hart as much as calls Alan Dershowitz a 'dual loyalist' for Dershie's inane comments on the NIE on Iran.  Hart isn’t quite brave enough to take it all the way.  He raises the issue, and then dismisses it for no good reason, leaving the motives of Dershowitz – a guy who has just made a big point of crossing a picket line protesting the illegal Israeli settlements – a complete mystery

  3. In Britain, a one-issue guy named David Abrahams has claimed that he gave donations to the Labour party in secret as he did not want “Jewish money and the Labour Party being put together."  He is now saying he was misquoted, although the original source for the story stands by it!  In other words, he is now conspiring to hide the fact that he conspired to hide a Jewish conspiracy to influence the Labour Party to engage in a conspiracy to fight Wars for the Jews.

Anshel Pfeffer writes (in Ha’aretz), in a comment which is eventually unconvincingly dismissive of the conspiracy theories:

“And although I am of course reluctant to spur on ‘Elders of Zion’ conspiracy theory enthusiasts, we should nonetheless be asking ourselves why there always seem to be Jews around when politics and funny money meet. And the standard excuse, that there are ‘rotten apples in every barrel,’ just won't do, as the involvement of Jews in these cases is hugely disproportionate to their percentage of the population.”

Finally, a comment from Andrew Winkler, completely out of the mainstream but getting closer with each passing day:


You may perhaps note that the mainstreaming of truth connects directly to perceptions of power.  The American Establishment made a huge power play in releasing the NIE on Iran, and the predictable neocon reactions to it, reactions which were once treated as gospel truth, are suddenly being treated with disdain.  Power is shifting away from the Jewish Billionaires, and the old slurs are no longer working.  I’ve been saying for a long time that the wider Jewish community had to get in front of this thing, but it may now be too late.

We're still waiting for the levee to break, but you have to admit that the water is getting awfully high. 


Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Lobelessness and inbreeding

David Irving notes that a picture of convicted fraudster Conrad Black reveals that Black lacks ear lobes (see also here).  Grays (aliens) lack ear lobes.  So does Lord Lucan (wherever he is).  Since having ear lobes is a dominant characteristic, lacking ear lobes is probably a sign of generations of inbreeding, which may also explain the propensity to criminal behavior.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

American Holocaust


Monday, December 10, 2007

Funny pictures, funny research






Angry Arab commentator ‘v’ is right on the money:



Sunday, December 09, 2007

Across the River to Motor City

Speaking of the assassination, there’s a new six-part (of which three have aired) Canadian television series called ‘Across the River to Motor City’ which is based on fictional repercussions from the Kennedy assassination.  The place is Windsor, Ontario, and, across the river, Detroit.  The time flashes between fairly recently and the months just after the Kennedy assassination. 

The story involves an old man who is losing his faculties and moves in with his semi-estranged daughter.  Forty-some years earlier, on the day of the Kennedy assassination, his girlfriend/almost-fiancee, a Detroit airline stewardess, was returning from a flight from Dallas.  Then she disappeared along with one of the pilots, the other pilot committed ‘suicide’, and a woman who was supposed to be the other stewardess on the flight (but was replaced at the last moment) was run down in a car ‘accident’.  We see that it is the mob who killed them, and did so on behalf of the only person on the flight in the first-class section, a young Cuban (a further twist is that the young Cuban appears to have become an old Cuban ambassador, who is about to enter into business with the semi-estranged daughter!).  The old man was an insurance investigator, and he set out, along with his assistant, a black woman from Windsor (there is a lot of typical Canadian fun at the expense of American racism), and his friend, a stand-up comedian, to unravel the mystery.  As his business partner was involved in a racist mob-run fire-insurance scheme, he starts to unravel the mob connections.  The story is told as flash-backs by the old man, as the issue has come back to life with the discovery of the bodies of one of the pilots and his girlfriend in the river, and the police are treating him as a suspect.  It will be interesting to see how they explain the Kennedy assassination, as the mysterious Cuban must have had a lot to do with it.

I should write about the much more famous and lauded Canadian conspiracy-themed series, ‘Intelligence’, which about to be made as a pilot for American television (by Fox!), the reception of which will be a good test of how open Americans are to a very cynical view of intelligence and police agencies.

Morley won!




Saturday, December 08, 2007

Proof of the war between the Establishments

The new Zionist meme is that all 16 (!) of the American intelligence agencies that burst the Zionist war bubble by putting an end to all the ‘Iran talk’ are part of an anti-Semitic plot to attack the Jewish people through protecting the enemies of Zionism.  Following up on Podhoretz’s ‘darker suspicions’ theory (‘darker’ is the code word to mean that it is actually a theory about anti-Semitism, but I note with amusement that it is not possible to point that out in polite society, and all discussions of Podhoretz claim he was just making the baffling theory that it was an intelligence agency attack on Bush), Gerald Posner is resurrecting his old Zionist propaganda that the CIA had, and is repressing, absolute proof that the Saudis and Pakistanis were behind September 11.  It is not a coincidence that this theory is brought up at this time.

There is a lite Zionist theory circling that the leaking of the NIE was a Bush Administration plot to prove how powerful Bush Administration diplomacy has been in dissuading the Iranians from their nuclear program.  This theory is obvious nonsense, disproved immediately by the disarray of Bush Administration officials in dealing with it (Cheney was completely surprised at the release of the NIE, although, of course, he was aware of its content, and had lied about Iran throughout), the complete shock from Israel (this story about Gates and Barak looks like Zionist mythologizing in order to minimize the rift, proven by the fact that Israel in fact was not ready for the NIE release) and the agents of World Jewry (who would have been informed if it was a Bush Administration move), the lack of foreknowledge in the American media (Blitzer’s Zionist operatives at CNN had to do a last-minute cancellation of their smear-job on Iran), and the utter horror and sputtering from the neocons (note Ledeen in particular:  no women were involved in the NIE!).  Even more conclusive proof is that the NIE not only destroyed the prospect of war on Iran, it completely undermined the entire stated basis of the Bush Administration for the placing of American missile sites in Eastern Europe.

I don’t buy the ‘scientific’ anti-Semitic theories that much of world history consists of a surreptitious war of the Jews against the Gentiles.  However, there is simply too much evidence to ignore that current American politics does actually involve a war between the Jewish Establishment and the Old American Establishment (note that doctrinaire Noamian lite Zionism holds that no such war is possible, as the Old American Establishment runs everything).  Annapolis was the last straw (can’t you just hear James Baker saying ‘Fucking Jews’?!).  The NIE, which only weeks before was never going to be released, according to Mike McConnell, suddenly appears, and at a time when a coherent Zionist counterattack was difficult because of the Jewish Holidays (candle lighting interfered with propaganda!).  Since everything is supposed to be about control of oil, which is achieved, according to lite Zionism, by attacks just like the one on Iraq, isn’t it odd that the intelligence agencies (all 16 of them!) of the American Establishment decided to throw a wrench in the works of such a war?

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Naqniq, R. I. P.

Naqniq has been suspended by WordPress for the mysterious “violation of our Terms of Service”.  Since all it did was accumulate material from other sources, almost entirely ‘mainstream’, and allow the cumulative effect of the facts to damn Zionism and its apologists, the only conceivable problem, besides some inflammatory titles, is that it was becoming too successful in its mission.  It would be nice if some WordPress bloggers decided to ‘suspend’ WordPress for this egregious breach of the basic ethos of the internet. 

Speaking of crooks

Speaking of crooks, the British Labour Party, having very narrowly dodged one scandal involving corruption by the British version of the Jewish Billionaires Club, is not facing a more obvious scandal of influence from the ‘one issue guys’.  The baffling propensity of Western political leaders to follow Israeli settler movement policies right down the line can only be explained in terms of money.  Of course, this massive conspiracy is one of the things that cannot be discussed in polite company.

They're not all stupid and corrupt

From a letter signed by over eighty American evangelist Christian leaders:




Wednesday, December 05, 2007

How the mighty have fallen

Remember all the hullabaloo about the Dubai ports deal?  Almost without notice, Arabs have now obtained effective control of America’s largest bank, Citigroup (the new investment means that Abu Dhabi Investment Authority can obtain 4.9%, the largest single stake in the bank, and Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal already has 3.9%).  This is described as an investment, but is actually a bailout, with the incredibly favorable terms to the investor reflecting the fact that the United States government couldn’t afford to let Citigroup fall into insolvency.  It is structured as a semi-loan – with an enormous rate of interest, reflecting the ‘junk bond’ status of the largest American bank –  that can be converted into equity at a price fixed at only slightly higher than its recent record low (the structuring of the deal appears to be a marvel of legal mumbo-jumbo engineered to avoid being either a loan or equity, either of which would screw up key financial ratios).  We’re not hearing complaints about it as the United States is so weak it can’t afford to turn down a bailout.

The Zionist – oh, I mean Jewish! –  aspects are interesting.  The deal was arranged by Robert Rubin (amongst many other things co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose most recent mini-scandal involved Enron), with the messy politics handled by Charles Schumer (who railed against the Dubai ports deal, which seems positively benign in comparison).  Citigroup’s ability to participate in the so-called ‘subprime crisis’ through its involvement in financial derivatives is as a result of the resistance to financial deregulation championed by . . . Robert Rubin (and Alan Greenspan), who was rewarded with big bucks by Citigroup itself, and now is earning those bucks by setting up the bailout!  Isn’t it wonderful how the Arabs and Jews can live in peace and harmony when huge sums of money are involved?

Venezuelan slur

From an article on whether the results of the referendum were ‘good for the Jews’ of Venezuela (more free advice for the Jewish community:  casting every possible issue in the world as being either ‘good for the Jews’ or not is not ‘good for the Jews’):

“Last year, Chavez himself indirectly accused the Jews of killing Jesus Christ. Although he didn’t explicitly mention the word ‘Jew,’ his remarks left little doubt among Venezuela’s Jews that their president is an unabashed anti-Semite.”

This example of the slur is an easily provable lie (a lie from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles no less, famous for the Iranian sumptuary law lie), and a slur which the Venezuelan Jewish community itself rejected.

I’ve been complaining about the absurd over-use of the slur, but I’m beginning to see the bright side.  Were it not for the slur, the tendency would be to pull punches and mislead.  For example, when you really meant ‘Jewish’, you might write ‘Zionist’, as that sounds a little less harsh.  Since you will be slurred anyway whenever you come close to the truth, you might as well state the truth unabashedly.  The slurrers are in fact encouraging truthfulness.


Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Dark suspicions

Norman Podhoretz knows an anti-Semitic conspiracy when he sees one (found via War and Piece):

“But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. As the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding. How better, then, to stop Bush in his tracks than by telling him and the world that such pressures have already been effective and that keeping them up could well bring about ‘a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program’ – especially if the negotiations and sanctions were combined with a goodly dose of appeasement or, in the NIE’s own euphemistic formulation, ‘with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.’”

In other words, the American intelligence community has collectively conspired to allow Iran to have nuclear bombs, obviously with the long-term goal of annihilating all the Jews in Israel.  Remember that this loon is the guy who is giving Rudy advice on American foreign policy!

Ideology and Biblical archaeology

Wonderful piece by Eric Walberg on the misuse of Biblical archaeology (my emphasis throughout in red):

“. . . it is now clear to the most respected Christian, Jewish, Muslim and/or secular archaeologists that this supposedly scholarly, rigorous and objective discipline, with its methodology of taking biblical passages and digging and poking away in likely places, looking for proof of what they say, has been a big failure, if not a hoax. While the financial benefits of tying the Bible to archaeology have increased, historical and intellectual benefits have just as rapidly diminished.

Two egregious flaws lie behind this. Firstly, it is somehow overlooked that both the Old and New Testaments were first written down only in the fourth c BC (mostly from the third c BC) to the first c AD by Hellenised Jews, i.e., over a relatively short historical period of approximately four centuries, the culmination of Hellenism as it flourished in the Middle East up to and including its manifestation under the Roman empire. The references to ‘old Israel’ of the distant past are directed at the enlightenment of people living at that time, and have much more to do with events at that time than some distant, mythical history which was never recorded in stone, so to speak, but was rather passed down from generation to generation much like other peoples have passed down the legends of their origins – orally, embellished by talented composers and poets. Furthermore, the OT and NT are closely integrated in structure, themes, and underlying philosophy, and to reject one part as heretical (as the Jews do the NT) or another part as a mere harmless introduction to the real text (as do the Christians concerning the OT) is not only unprofessional, but foolish and even subversive.

Secondly, the worldview of those recording the Biblical legends, stories, poems, philosophical essays, etc differs radically from ours. It was a product of Hellenism, where true reality is a Platonic ideal, recognising the ineffable quality of life, our overwhelming ignorance, and the fractured, shadowy nature of daily life as experienced by our senses. Our Aristotelian, materialist outlook, sees reality in hard, cold facts which we directly perceive and duly record, where the only truths are what can be physically demonstrated and/or refuted. This is quite alien to the mindset of the Biblical composers, writers and scribes. Taking the Bible literally, as a materialist recounting of ‘history’ is a classic example of misplaced concreteness. To its credit, there is no word for history in ancient Hebrew, reflecting its origins in the pre-Aristotelian worldview.

To go a step further and assume that this bogus history is the ‘real’ history of mankind, with the history of the thousands of other peoples taking a back seat, is just not on. The reality of the Bible is transcendent, universal, traditional, intuitive and emotional. To profit from it, we must rediscover this worldview, where myth is the ‘reality’ and very essence of our lives, and the dunya is a lame, pale version of the sacred myths guiding us. Karen Armstrong, who has written widely on the monotheisms and the loss of myth as a vital part of our worldview, argues in The Bible: a biography (2007) that fundamentalist religion, be it Islamic, Christian or Jewish, is a response to and product of modern materialist culture, which undermines the role of myth as a vital element in the social matrix. Myth is reduced to its literal meaning, i.e., Jerusalem is a physical location at a fixed point in time, not a metaphor for the City of God, transcending the limitations of the physical world.”


“Never was there an ethnically coherent Israel, and according to Thomson, neither Jerusalem nor Judah ever shared an identity with Israel before the rule of the Hasmoneans in the Hellenistic period of the 3rd-1st cc BC, coincidentally, when the legends were first written down. Ironically, the Samaritans, scorned by Ezra's (and today's) Jews, are the most likely Semitic ancestors of the historical Israel.”

and (“colonising a metaphor”!):

It is impossible in the confines of an article to trace the transformation of post-Christian Talmudic Judaism, which is very different than pre-Christian variant. Though Jews continued to live in Palestine, Diaspora became its defining feature along with the ritual prayer to ‘return’, though post-Christian Jews have no more right to immigrate and live there than anyone else. Christians also continued to live there happily until the Catholic pope decided they must be liberated in the 10th-12th cc and raised a European army to invade Palestine not once but four times. But after that fiasco, Christians learned their lesson and have left Palestine in relative peace, satisfying their spiritual urges by living quietly as monks in desolate caves, making pilgrimages, and collecting souvenir bones and bits of wood which they cherished as holy relics – again guilty of misplaced concreteness, but usually harmlessly so. This blessed peaceful period in Palestine only changed with the ascendancy of the Jews in the 19th c, who all this time had been nurturing their tribal Yahweh and their dream of concretising the metaphorical promises he supposedly made millennia ago, a misplaced concreteness far from harmless, as they set about invading and colonising a metaphor.

With the eclipse of the Socratic worldview and of myth as central to society, and the ascendancy of Judaism after the reformation, the myth of ‘returning to the promised land’ took on a new concrete meaning. The actual prospect by a wealthy cosmopolitican Jewish elite of engineering a physical takeover of Palestine and populating it with Jews became an Aristotelian reality. Today, with Rome (the Catholic Church) now in disarray, a rebuilt Third Temple could become the chief shrine, not only for Jews but for Christians too, the icing on the Zionist victory cake, confirming irrevocably the cultural shift in the Western world as a whole from Hellenism to Hebraism, as argued by SGF Brandon in The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (1951). Pope John Paul II reconciled the Church with Judaism and Israel, and Christian Zionists welcome the Jewish colonisation of Palestine .


and (!):


I’ve been thinking about the Protocols, universally described as a Tzarist forgery.  This is based on the fact that they are described in a previous French novel, from which the Tzarist agents are said to have stolen the idea.  But what if the French novel was just repeating an earlier, accurate, source?  More Walberg (who reminds me of a very subtle ‘scientific’ anti-Semite, which is not to say that he is in the least bit wrong):

“What is behind the Bible is not simply a record of historical facts or of even doctrines, but ultimately, the presence of God. There is much self-reference of symbols within the Bible for which the only ‘proof’ that, say, the gospel story is true is that it fulfils the prophecies of the OT, and the only ‘proof’ that the prophecies of the OT are true is that they are fulfilled by the gospel. This has absolutely nothing to do with digging up shards to establish some self-referential ‘event’ in one of the Bible's many tales. There is no temple out there (or under there, where ‘there’ happens to be the very real Al-Aqsa Mosque). The real temple exists in one's heart, though it is very unlikely that one can find it in the scheming Zionist's inflamed and secular heart. And by murdering and tormenting peaceful natives in order to scrounge some bits of a previous building and call it God's temple is unspeakable in its evil. The Naturei Karta heart has the temple in it, but for such a Jew, physical Israel itself is an abomination, and should be dismantled forthwith, or to borrow a particularly colourful metaphor of recent vintage, wiped off the map.”

If we start to see much more analysis like this, the Jewish Billionaires will have their work cut out.


Guess who bought the Pajamas

Professional asshole Charles Johnson is leaving Pajamas Media.  More interesting is the description of the money men behind Pajamas Media.  You’ll never guess.  Yes, Jewish Billionaires.  It is important for us to keep pounding on the facts of who is always behind the warmongering and Zionism that infects the entire American mediascape.  Sadly, the American chattering classes don’t want to know, and will hide behind the slur.

Revenge for Annapolis

The Jews pulled yet another fast one in Annapolis, getting their Christian friends to lean on Bush and sink the chances for peace in the Middle East, and a lot of important people are angry, not to mention embarrassed.  National Intelligence Estimates are treated as very secret, but immediately after the Annapolis debacle the one on Iran is released, taking all the wind out of the ‘Iran talk’.  The adults in Washington have finally had enough.  Do you think it is a coincidence that the Jewish Billionaires get whacked upside the head with this NIE release right after they embarrass the Old American Establishment at Annapolis?