Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Habitual offender

You should read this piece from Ran HaCohen:
"In the evening television news, careful listening - especially to serious reporters like Shlomi Eldar - could reveal the tip of the war-crimes iceberg yet to emerge: a Gazan prison was intentionally bombarded, a clear war crime. Gaza's hospital suffered damages too. All this in an overcrowded Strip in which life has already been strangled by an embargo on anything from cement and gasoline to medical equipment. A couple of months ago, journalist Amos Harel quoted an article of a leading military figure regarding Israel's next war policy, be it in Lebanon, Syria, or Gaza: 'Using power without any proportion to the enemy's threat and actions, in order to damage and punish to an extent that would require long and expensive rehabilitation processes.' Another Israeli general explained that villages from which shots are fired will be devastated; 'we consider them as military bases' (Ha'aretz, Oct. 5; the names of the two generals - for The Hague's ICC - are Gaby Siboni and Gadi Eisenkot). Once the war started, Maj.-Gen. (Reserve) Giora Island - former head of the National Security Council - spelled it all out on television, without a shade of shame: Israel should not confine its attacks to military facilities, he said, but must hit civilian targets as well. The damage to the civil population should be maximized, because the worse the humanitarian crisis is, the better and the sooner the operation would end. It's the same major-general, by the way, who just a year ago caused outrage by urging the Israeli government to negotiate directly with Hamas. Do not to look for consistency, integrity, or intelligence where war criminals are involved."

You can see Olmert, who a few weeks ago was musing about the necessity of doing the right thing, and Barak, who is doing the math about how many more seats he wins with each additional 100 dead Palestinians (which means the entire country is culpable), and Tzipi Livni, the Madeleine Albright of Israeli politics ("sometimes also civilians pay the price"), and Netanyahu (beyond the pale), and other Israeli politicians (evil beyond comprehension), and the general approval of the Jewish population of Israel, all to what amounts to the bombing of a prison camp (like shooting fish in a barrel after setting the bait), and the fact that this action is part of an ever-recurring pattern going back even before the formation of the State of Israel, and the fact that there can no longer be any doubt that this is the first step in a planned complete genocide of the Palestinians, Israel's politicians beyond even listening to reason if reason would interfere with the plan, and you can only reach one conclusion.

Despite everything, I've always been a defender of the two state solution, for the simple reason that a one state solution would eventually mean the end of a Jewish state, which would mean the Jewish people would be treated uniquely in international law, which would be discriminatory and wrong. I now think that international law has to be changed to recognize the right of the community of nations to take self-defensive actions against a violent habitual offender. That would be an extension of the normal laws regarding war (already messed up by the United States). Most criminal law systems recognize the necessity of imprisoning violent continual recidivists on the basis that they are simply too dangerous to be left free to commit the crimes we know they will commit. Israel is, without any shadow of a doubt, an habitual offender. The world needs to be able to stop states which won't stop offending. We can't lock Israel up; we have to destroy it.

The only relatively humane way to destroy a modern nation state is to make it an outlaw, and institute 100% boycotts of it on all levels - no trade, no communications, no status in international law, no recognition of its citizens (after the bombing of a university in Gaza I never expect to hear complaints about the boycotting of Israeli academics). People will start to leave almost immediately - the world will face another Jewish refugee problem - and the entire country will be destroyed within a year. The Palestinians will then take back the land stolen from them. If Israel attempts to fight back madly - completely in character - the world will have to take collective military action to destroy it in the most humane way possible.

I say this with great reluctance, but the world really has no choice. Israel is like a psychopath, one who is 'escalating'. Each outrage is worse than the last, and the Gaza attacks may be the worst war crime yet. Self-defense means that Israel has to be named the world's first habitual offender, and forfeit its right to statehood.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Making peace impossible

Note that the purpose of the Israeli massacres isn't to stop terrorism, isn't to protect the safety of the people of Israel, isn't to stop the rockets, isn't to weaken Hamas to put Israel in a better bargaining position, and isn't to destroy Hamas. An element of it relates to the Israeli election campaign, but the main reason for the slaughter is American politics, in particular the terror in World Jewry that Wall Street and the faltering U. S. economy - which can no longer afford to support Zionist colonialism - will force Obama to impose a peace deal on both parties. Peace is the death of the aspirations of World Jewry, and must be stopped at all costs. The main purpose of the attacks is to make impossible any peace agreement, at least for the next four years. After that, President Palin will look after Zionism.

Note the extreme thinness of the veneer over the fangs of the faux lite Zionists. Also note that Hitchens' problem with Rick Warren is that Warren isn't a Christian Zionist. Alcohol kills brain cells.

Monday, December 29, 2008


The fact that all Western politicians responded to the Gaza slaughter using almost the same words (reading from an Israeli script), failed to mention such niceties as collective punishment of civilians or proportionality, and all pointed out that Israel has a right to defend itself against the rocket attacks without mentioning that the rocket attacks had ceased until Israel intentionally breached the truce - well, we're long past the time for anybody to make any plausible claim that these politicians aren't under total Jewish control.

Speaking of total Jewish control, this Demagogic Underground thread is hilarious. Some poor guy wonders out loud why discussion of anything is allowed except for discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is relegated to a special 'dungeon' where specially trained moderators can ensure that certain truths never see the light of day. It took less than half an hour for a moderator to awaken from his Manischewitz stupor long enough to send this discussion to the same dungeon. Complaining about censorship gets you censored. Of course, the official explanation is that 'each side is to blame', in exactly the same way that mostly harmless homemade rockets are equivalent to mass slaughter of hundreds of people using the finest (American) military technology.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Circle Jerks

These are golden days for both the blood-dripping-from-the fangs crowd, who can celebrate the supreme power of the Supreme Beings, and the Lite Zionists, who can pretend to complain, thus proving the fact that the Supreme Beings are the only entities with a sense of morality. Actually the Zionist/Lite Zionist false dichotomy plays out the old theological problem of the existence of evil. How can evil exist if God is all good and all powerful? The Zionists pose the same question: should the Supreme Beings use their power now to slaughter all the Gentiles living in Greater Israel, or would the morality of the Jews require that the slaughter occur somewhat more slowly?

This philosophical argument usually plays out in discussions in obscure Zionist journals or websites. A blood-dripper writes something to the effect that he's out of matzos so the slaughter of children must pick up, and a Lite replies that such thinking is not in line with the morality of Supreme Beings. The Lites will always claim, either expressly or impliedly, that the problem can and will only be solved by the Jews, presumably as Jews are the only people with morality. It is a circle jerk, by which I mean that the performance of the previous participant encourages and improves the performance of the next.

In these times when the Israeli genocide is stepped up beyond the usual slow-motion plan, the blood-drippers and the Lites don't even have to pretend to play off each other, but can each find their own joy in the actions of the IDF.

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Falk and food




Saturday, December 27, 2008

Saturday, December 27, 2008:
  1. There's a new American code word for 'Jewish': 'rich' . Obviously, the Jews don't commit all the crimes, just the current spate of crazy, over-the-top, financial swindles. To my list, I must add this new Holocaust:
    ". . . a Jewish person has no chance at a fair trial outside of NY."
  2. Speaking of words, the English language, which has a word for everything, until recently lacked a word for when somebody parks their car badly in a parking lot - one of the give-aways of all supremacists is that they lack a sense of humor, and the punishment for any kind of lèse majesté is the most horrible punishment of all, being sent to visit to a Holocaust Museum, where the smart alecks can contemplate the infallibility of human memory.
  3. The current debate in the comments about the nature of the Jewish deity looks to me like pseudo-intellectual anti-Semitism: the Jews had a choice between a good God and the Devil, and either picked the Devil because they are innately evil, or became innately evil because they picked the Devil. All of this is, needless to say, flying-spaghetti-monster bullshit.
  4. In the crazy world in which we live you are a hater if you complain about the acts and thoughts of hating supremacists; you are intolerant if you suggest that there might be a difference between religious leaders. The American left seems to have decided that the victory of Obama means that it permanently won the culture wars. At the same time, it has been so chastened by the facts that it has decided that the only possible victories open to it are in identity politics. Since income redistribution, health care, anti-war and the other big issues are off the table, they will deal with the disappointment by attempting to paint the White House pink. Of course, the right likes identity politics a lot more than it lets on: lots of opportunities for demographic niche marketing.
  5. Having said that, I agree that the analysis based on right/left is no longer helpful for the average person. I prefer reductionist/anti-reductionist. Both the Marxists and the religious nuts use exactly the same kind of condescending one-size-fits-all analysis. I like complexity.
  6. It's election time in Supremastan, time to slaughter the Palestinians. The politicians do this for one reason: it wins them votes. While the Israelis can rightly blame a lot of their problems on the fantasies of American Jewry, it remains a fact that they bear their own moral responsibility for the only holocaust that counts these days.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Charles Winters?

Gawker posits that the bizarre Bush pardon of Charles Winters is a sop to World Jewry, in lieu of traitor Pollard.

More Gawker: "Jews Are Conscienceless Thieves, Says Anti-Defamation League Boss". Some of the comments are priceless:
"I love how the idea of 'conscience' comes up when it's about Jew-on-Jew crime. When we fuck over Palestinians, however, it's fair play. Sorry, someone had to go there."

"If the first question when a Jew appears before God is: 'Were you honest in your business dealings?' - doesn't that, in effect, perpetuate said stereotype? Just sayin'."

and (my favorite):
"Pyramid schemes are inherently Jewish - who do you think built the first pyramids?"

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Merry Christmas, or whatever

The comments to this blog are much better than some people are prepared to notice, perhaps not willing (or able) to work around the harsh potshots to think through the thoughtful posts. In fact, there is much discussion in the comments that I don't see anywhere else on the internet. There needs to be someplace where people can discuss conspiracies in a more philosophical way, rather than - or in addition to - the nuts and bolts of trajectories of bullets and the speed of falling buildings.

Rowan (who I'll assume is the real Rowan) directs us to this article by Gary North, who makes the distinction between premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. An unnamed commentator writes:
"Warren is a post-millennialist vs the pre-millennialism of Dobson, Hagee, Billy Graham. There is a significant difference between these two mythologies. Pre-millennialism is the Scofield/Zionist created ideology behind Christian Zionism. This is the first political assault on pre-millennialism that I am aware of."

There is a h-u-g-e difference between Warren, who thinks the path to the return of Christ is for Christians to do good deeds to create Heaven on Earth, and the Christian Zionists, who think that the path to the return of Christ is to create the conditions for Hell on Earth, including an apocalypse in the Middle East. That's why, amongst other evils, the Christian Zionists are pro-war and anti-environment. The worse things get, the happier they are, as they will be that much closer to their selfish and crazed goal of having their own small group fly up into outer space (or wherever). Can it be that what passes for mainstream religion in much of the United States can be that starkly evil? Yes.

I'm suggesting that Warren may be important because he is a very prominent and charismatic guy who is also identified as a Christian Evangelical (and wouldn't be seen as radical by his followers) . . . but a guy who takes exactly the opposite view of religion than is taken by the Christian Zionists. Christians aren't here to wreck the place; they are here to make things better. I would assume that making things better would eventually include more tolerance of people who are different than you, and while Warren is not fully there yet, he's the kind of guy, in stark contrast to almost all other prominent American religious leaders, who can get there. It is important for people, including those who don't agree with his sexual politics, not to miss the bigger picture and cut him off, making impossible any reconciliation between Christian Evangelicals and everybody else. Writing Christian Evangelicals off as hopeless means that the real crazies will have won.

I'll expect a very good invocation from Warren.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Just a list


  2. AEI Holocaust.
  3. Meat Packing Holocaust (my emphasis in red):










    For starters, he met the real Mr. Padfield."

  7. And, of course, Holocaust Attorney Holocaust.

I'm not suggesting there is any kind of a pattern.

Supremacist, much?

"'To be a Jew, to live fully as a Jew, is to be a blessing to all humanity, and that calling, which dates back to God's first conversation with Abraham, has taken a potentially catastrophic hit,' said Rabbi William Hamilton of Congregation Kehillath Israel in Brookline." (my emphasis in red)

Monday, December 22, 2008

An excellent exercise for architecture students

From "Decolonizing Architecture - Scenarios for the Transformation of Israeli Settlements", which considers the three possibilities of destruction, re-use and subversion, and which would be an excellent exercise for architecture students - perhaps the entire West Bank could be divided between schools so it would all be considered, ready for its return to its rightful inhabitants (I've removed a link from the excerpt which was in the original):
"Destruction is often regarded as a mean to achieve 'liberation' from an architecture that acts as an instrument of domination and control. Making tabula rasa is never as simple as it seems, destruction generates desolation and environmental damage that may last for decades. As the project reminds us, when Israel evacuated the Gaza settlements in 2005, 3,000 homes were destroyed. One of the outcomes of the destruction was a million and a half tons of toxic rubble that poisoned the ground and water aquifers."
On the Occupied Territories and architecture, try here and here. The architects and engineers behind the building of the settlements should eventually be tried as war criminals.

A series of crises







Sunday, December 21, 2008

Why Rick Warren is so dangerous

Juan Cole on Rick Warren. For some people, Warren is the most dangerous man in the world. Why? He's an influential American Christian evangelist who isn't a Christian Zionist. Warren could single-handedly blow up the entire Zionist-Christian Zionist gay-marriage-made-in-hell, the one started by Begin back in the 70s which has led to such a disaster for the United States and the world. That's why he's receiving the full defaming from 'Hollywood', using the ruse that he is being attacked because of his bigotry.

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Connell and Vance, wellstoned?


My weekend at Bernie's





Oh, come on!

Michael Connell died in a plane crash. His plane ran out of gas! I hope he enjoys hell (with Paul Weyrich). Here (youtube) is Mark Crispin Miller - a true American hero - and others on Connell's handiwork (see also here and here). Stephen Spoonamore - 'you cannot have secure electronic voting' - explains the computer mechanics of how Connell managed to steal elections from his company in Chattanooga (and, in another video, Miller further explains the 'man in the middle'). Also notice the Christian evangelical connection to Connell ('save the babies'), and to the ownership of all the computer voting machine companies.

Now that there is about to be a changing of the guard in Washington, with possible accompanying investigations of wrongdoing, I am sure there are a lot of people who will be glad to see Connell unavailable to testify. I laugh at those who deny the reality of conspiracies.

Comment system

Commentators who don't like the new comments system should realize that I had nothing to do with it. Haloscan's operations have been taken over by a new group. They forced the change. The only option I have is to find an entirely different comments system (is there one compatible with Blogger?), go to the default Blogger system, or eliminate comments entirely.

Progressive bigotry

Progressive bigots are going apeshit over Obama'a choice of Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration. Yeah, I know, Warren doesn't like the geighs. He's a religious leader. You simply aren't going to find a mainstream religious leader, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, who is a gay friendly. The people who had those desert hallucinations thousands of years ago had certain strong ideas, and their followers today have the same ideas. If you say homophobes can't appear at the inauguration, you're saying mainstream American religion can't be represented at the inauguration.

Warren is basically a good guy, sane on the Middle East ('Hollywood', a code-word for the you-know-who's, is using the gay angle to attack Warren, no doubt because they are terrified of these atypical views from a Christian evangelist; note who the writer of the first link above is married to), a strong advocate of anti-poverty initiatives and campaigns to treat aids in Africa, and an environmentalist (also very atypical for a Christian evangelist). He's exactly the kind of guy that true progressives should be trying to embrace. If you turn Warren away, you are saying there is no possibility for any meeting of the minds between progressives and those religious leaders who represent at least 40% of the American population. You are also leaving these people to be devoured by the type of evil men like Falwell and Robertson and Dobson.

More on Robert Fowler

More on the disappearance of Canadian/UN diplomat - or, perhaps, diplopreneur - Robert Fowler (the second sentence is a bit messed up, but you'll get the drift):
"Many now speculate that Fowler was, at least on this trip, using the UN, its Laissez Passer and other benefits, for some other purpose. Others even speculate that just as Fowler reported requested an invitation from Niger to enter ostensibly for a celebration, he or Canada requested Ban Ki-moon to give him the mandate as a UN special envoy to Niger."

Friday, December 19, 2008

Bernie Madoff, winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Have you noticed how overtly anti-Semitic many of the comments on the insolvency of the Madoff investment funds, even those from 'respectable' sources, have been? It's as if everybody has been waiting for their chance to let loose with what they weren't allowed to say about the Jews as recently as a few months ago. Of course, this politeness was to be understood as a commitment to anti-racism, when really it was, as always, deference to power. The US depression has suddenly revealed that the Jewish billionaire emperors aren't wearing any clothes, so suddenly their serfs start saying what they have been thinking all along, but never dared whisper.

There are two aspects of Jewish supremacism - a concept that is suddenly fashionable - involved in the Madoff case, one relatively benign, and one quite evil. The relatively benign one is the propensity of ethnic groups to stick together. Con men from all ethnic groups have always used this: 'the outsiders have got it in for us, but I have this great deal for you, my blood brother'. Madoff was this nice, friendly 'Haimische' Jewish man. The con, in essence, was to create this illusion that he didn't really want your business, a con which only increased the desire of the rubes to throw their money at him, and increased the concept of group solidarity once he deigned to take your money. The Jewishness made it all quite clubby and sociable, while making his victims comfortable with him.

Note how absolutely wrong John Mearsheimer gets it (quoted at Mondoweiss; my emphasis in red):
"There is an angle to this affair that should be dear to your heart, but which nobody is talking about: assimilation. The fact that Jews are: 1) so thoroughly assimilated into American culture, 2) so successful, and 3) and faced with philo-Semitism, not anti-Semitism, has caused a significant weakening of tribal solidarity, which caused Madoff not to care much about shafting his fellow Jews and caused those shafted to let down their guard."

This is, quite frankly, silly. There have always been con-men within minority ethnic groups. Assimilation or no assimilation, they have always used the illusion of tribal solidarity to work their cons. We'll see later the real reason why those shafted let down their guards.

There is also a side issue which helped the Madoff con. Wall Street insiders have known that Madoff was a crook for decades. So how did all these sophisticated investors fall for it? Part of the con - and it is usual for cons to be structured to provide what appears to be money for nothing - was for Madoff to provide an end run around their normal advisers - the guys who would have told them to stay away. You could invest with Madoff by handing him an envelope at a charity banquet without having to pay the percentage that these advisers would charge. Madoff made a big show of his charity work, so you could slip a few million his way, save the normal vigorish charged by your Wall Street guy, and feel that you were actually helping the community! This again reflects the essential clubbiness of being a rich American Jew, looking out for your own, an opportunity given to you solely by virtue of your belonging to the Jewish 'club' (a con reinforced by Madoff's seeming reluctance to take money from anybody but the 'right people'), while screwing the outsiders.

The evil aspect of Jewish supremacism is where we hit the Schadenfreude. Madoff's investors are sophisticated people. How did they believe that it was possible to make double digit returns for decades? It was because he was a Jew. Jews are superior to gentiles - who really are just animals - and the superior being could produce superior returns. The investors allowed their supremacist fantasies to interfere with their lives in the real world, which is usually how supremacists get into trouble.

Madoff donated a lot of money to Zionist causes, which is to say a lot of money to assist in the ethnic cleansing of the Middle East. Have you noticed how everything is falling apart for the Jewish Billionaires? Their money came from outright crookedness, or at the very least from the exploitation of human weakness (there was a lot of gambling money involved), and this sinful money went to fund the ultimate sin of genocide, all based on Jewish tribal supremacism. Madoff's insolvency has destroyed much of the Zionist charitable infrastructure. Bernie Madoff is a most deserving candidate for a Nobel Peace Prize. I'm serious. By destroying American Zionist 'charities', he has done more to advance the cause of Middle East peace than any other man.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Money making with the UN

A Canadian named Robert Fowler, who was a UN special envoy to Niger, has gone missing in that country. Fowler was at as high a level in Canadian diplomacy/bureaucracy as it is possible to be (at various times deputy minister of national defence, ambassador to the United Nations, ambassador to Italy; here's his own personal website, which I can't reach, as everybody wants to see it). The conspiracy angle? The day he went missing, he apparently broke Niger government protocol for visiting diplomats by failing to report where he was going, and failing to take a Niger government minder. And where was he going so secretly? To as uranium mine which seems to have effectively been a joint operation between the UN itself and private Canadian entrepreneurs. This is the kind of deal that Maurice Strong is always being accused of profiting from.

Monday, December 15, 2008

They don't kill you, but . . .


The UTDC never sold another train after that article.



And so it happened."









Wednesday, December 10, 2008


The rather shocking combination of Democons in the Obama cabinet - even worse than the worst pessimists could have imagined - leads one to ask whether the political corruption in Chicago and Obama's connections to it are being used as blackmail. Obama's never going to solve the Middle East, and thus salvage the American 'brand', with Hillary as his Secretary of State. She'll pull the same stunt she pulled with health care in the early 90s: pretend to be working towards a solution while really gumming up the works, thus serving her Jewish Billionaire masters (back then, she worked for her insurance company lobbyist masters). If Wall Street really is demanding that a solution be found, how is Obama going to do it? Behind the backs of most of his cabinet and advisors?

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Shades of Spitzer


Monday, December 08, 2008

Yippee, more Holocaust movies


Monday, December 8, 2008

Monday, December 8, 2008:
  1. "2008 will probably be 10th Hottest year on record". The Bloggers for Exxon will stress that 2008 is the coldest year in a decade, and that they felt a touch of chill in the air the other day, meaning that the expert opinion of thousands of scientists must be wrong. Meanwhile, without the luxury of receiving bribe cheques from Exxon, the people of the Maldives are preparing to move to someplace dry.
  2. Ralph Nader thinks a carbon tax is better than cap-and-trade, as it can be imposed in a such a way that China won't be able to weasel out of it. This is perhaps a little unfair to China, which has recently been taking more responsible measures than most developed countries.
  3. Leo Panitch (my emphasis in red):
    "Even the Financial Times now warns in its editorials that it may not be possible to avoid much longer the issue of really taking the whole banking system into public ownership, given its current disfunctionality. Indeed, there has long been a strong case for turning the banks into a public utility, given that they can't exist in complex modern society without states guaranteeing their deposits and central banks constantly acting as lenders of last resort."
  4. "A constitutional expert says he's worried the Governor General's decision to suspend Parliament sets a 'very dangerous' precedent that allows future prime ministers to use the same manoeuvre to avert their own government's demise." The Governor General, fearful of attacks by the Conservative-controlled media, wimped out, and will go down in history as a dangerous failure. Bottom line: you can't allow an elected official to have control over whether the constitution applies to him or not. By allowing Harper to run from Parliament, the Governor General made a mockery of the Canadian system of government. This is another trend across the three existing democracies (Canada, the U. S. and Britain), as can be seen in Bush's signing statements and the idea that neither the U. S. President nor the Vice President is subject to the American Constitution.
  5. A tool to finding something funny in the morass of internet comics. Unfortunately, this - part of the trend to 'improve' lame comics -is the only one that made me laugh (speaking of which, this is wild).

Friday, December 05, 2008

Too close to the truth


Thursday, December 04, 2008

Bad day at Rideau Hall

The Canadian Governor General has given Harper exactly what he wanted, a delay until late January, and thus no need to face a non-confidence motion until then. This is a bad decision. I assume she made it as she feared the Conservative-controlled media would claim she refused Harper's request on partisan grounds. She thus denies the clearly expressed will of Parliament, apparently without even meeting the leaders of the coalition. If Canada ever abolishes the office of Governor General, this is the kind of bone-headed move that will be cited.

Now Canada will receive the full court media press, regurgitating every talking point Harper can produce. He'll table a terrible budget, but with enough quasi-stimulus provisions in it that he can argue that it would be counterproductive to upset the government in order to meet the ambitions of the coalition leaders. He'll try to sway some of the more weak-willed Liberals, and probably get Ignatieff on his side, as Ignatieff fears that the coalition would interfere with his plans for his coronation as Liberal leader. Harper's not out of the woods yet - for one thing, the Liberals will lose just about all their credibility if they don't go through with the coalition - but this is not a good day for Canada.

End game

A good summary of the facts and the law by Peter Russell, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto:
"After the Oct. 14 election, Stephen Harper remained Prime Minister, formed a new government and prepared to face the House. Although his party had improved its seat total it was still in a minority position in the House. This meant that to continue in office Harper would have to win enough support from the opposition benches to secure the confidence of the House.

For a few days it appeared that Harper would reach out in a conciliatory manner and garner the parliamentary support he needs on order to have the right to govern.

But, to put it mildly, on Nov. 27 just a few days into the session, through his finance minister's economic update, he made an abrupt U-turn. Instead of seeking support from the opposition, his government presented an in-your-face, take-it-or-leave-it position.

The opposition parties - all three of them - decided not to take it. Instead, they announced that they would use their collective majority in the House to vote no confidence in the Harper government and support an alternative coalition government.

The no-confidence vote is to take place next Monday. If the government loses that vote, the rules of parliamentary democracy give Harper two options. He can tender his government's resignation to the Governor General and clear the way for Madame Jean to ask Stéphane Dion to form a Liberal-NDP coalition government. Or he can ask the Governor General to dissolve the 40th Parliament so that we can elect the 41st Parliament.

The first option - resignation - would be entirely constitutional. It involves no 'usurpation' of power but is an honourable way out of the present impasse.

If Harper were to take the second option, the Governor General would have to consider carefully whether to grant his request for a dissolution. Her primary concern must be to protect parliamentary democracy. A steady diet of elections - four in four years - is not healthy for parliamentary democracy.

If there is an alternative government available that has a reasonable prospect of being supported for a period of time by a majority in the House of Commons, she would have reason to decline Harper's request. Harper would then have to resign, and the Governor General would commission Dion to form a government.

If this happens, again there would be no 'usurpation' of power but a proper application of the rules and principles of parliamentary democracy. It has been very disturbing to hear over the last few days, from people who should know better, wild unparliamentary theories about our system of government. Elections are not simple popularity contests in which the leader whose party garners the most votes gets all the power."

The Conservative strategy is to attempt to bluster and lie, while using their stranglehold over the disgusting Canadian media to attempt to turn some of the more right-wing Liberals. It won't work. Harper is so desperate, and so rattled, that his strategy of disparaging the coalition by claiming it is getting in bed with the 'separatists' is ruining his party's future in Quebec. The Conservative yelling and screaming is going to fail, as it is irrelevant to the decision of the Governor-General. It is a combination of the sheer fury of a very sick man, and an attempt to set the stage for Conservative attacks after the coalition takes power. As long as the coalition provides good government, nothing Harper and his media minions can say will make any difference. He is a dead man walking.

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Down with the PMO


Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Wednesday, December 3, 2008:
  1. Bibi's 'War on terror' did absolutely nothing to protect the residents of Mumbai. Isn't it time for the rest of the world to wake up and stop playing along with this Zionist trick to kill people and steal their land?
  2. One of the Jews killed in the Mumbai Chabad house was an anti-Zionist. Could they all have been anti-Zionists? Why would an anti-Zionist go to a hotbed of Zionism? Were they killed not because they were Jews but because at least some of them were anti-Zionists?
  3. And then there is the allegation that the militants were staying in or near the house, and that it was known that the people staying there or nearby had a lot of ammunition, but nothing was done about it ('We had been expecting something like this.'). The militants had an intimate knowledge of all the buildings they attacked, including the Chabad house, which is why the Indian commandos had such a difficult time getting them out.
  4. There are hints that Pakistan wasn't involved (I still intend to write about the American/Zionist war against Pakistan). A Hindu nationalist - why were local authorities so slow to react against the militants, and why were people trained to be ready for terrorism so ineffective against 10 individuals? - false flag operation makes sense, possibly with Israeli help (there are rumors of an Israeli helicopter flying around).
  5. The Canadian Conservatives have begun their counter-attack, but they are basically fucked, and the honest ones are admitting privately that Harper is entirely to blame (of course, they are all to blame for allowing an obviously unstable individual to run a one-man government). The Conservatives have now lost the momentum which they have fought and scraped so long to obtain. If the other parties play their hand carefully, and don't overstep their bounds, they can do a lot of good for the next twenty months or so. The proof that the coalition was the right thing to do will appear in passing legislation which makes conservative polices look stupid.
  6. I'm philosophically opposed to the concept of coalitions - too close to the usual European anti-democratic model - and if the three parties had done this without Harper's provocation I would be against it. Nevertheless, he started it and left them with no choice. The big danger is that the usual democracy-haters on the 'left' will use this as an argument for proportional representation. My guess/hope is that the coalition will fall apart so badly at the end that it will be a permanent monument to the stupidity of proportional representation.

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

More on the coalition

There's lots of good news from Canada these days, as the coalition seems almost inevitable. The opposition parties are playing entirely inside the rules. Harper's plurality just means he got the first shot at forming a government. Once he demonstrated his utter disdain for Parliament by failing to address the economic crisis and, as his first move after calling for a kinder and more cooperative Parliament in order to address said crisis, attempted to destroy all the other parties, he fairly and squarely lost the confidence of the entire Parliament. The coalition is almost like a regency to replace a leader who appears to have lost his mind.

Besides not being prevented by laissez-faire ideology from dealing with the big economic problems, the new government can immediately begin to correct other problems with Conservative rule:
  1. reverse the disdain for the environment;
  2. stop allowing Americans to execute Canadians without complaint;
  3. begin to stop fighting the ridiculous war on drugs (with the NDP in cabinet, this would be a wonderful time for legalization);
  4. get out of Afghanistan quicker than the 2011 date in place now;
  5. renegotiate NAFTA (on terms favorable to Canada, assuming the Americans don't want to freeze in the dark!);
  6. stop the typical conservative out-of-control wasteful spending on tax cuts for the rich and worse-than-useless military crapware;
  7. bring back the Liberal-Aboriginal agreement scrapped by the Conservatives;
  8. reinforce a federal commitment to health care (universal pharmacare would be a very good idea: the money saved on military spending could pay for it);
  9. restore the Liberal child care system (which was all ready to go until destroyed by Harper and his goons); and
  10. restore Canada's reputation as a peaceful 'fair broker' in international relations.

This is a platform which represents the vast majority of Canadians. It will be refreshing not to have to listen to the opinions of fruitcakes trying to drag us back into the nineteenth century.

Monday, December 01, 2008


I haven't yet written about the Canadian election. Too depressing. Everybody lost. The Conservatives, who won yet another minority government, lost because they didn't get the majority they wanted, and because they didn't wipe the Liberals off the map (Harper's real goal). Harper himself lost big time, as he has conclusively proved to his own party that they can never obtain a majority with him as leader (his obvious psychological/neural problems - some form of autism? - scares normal people away). The Liberals, whose composition under Dion made the Liberals the most progressive they have been in decades, if not ever, had historic lows in votes and seats. The NDP finished its descent from a progressive party to a full-fledged middle-class party, and proved that they can never beat the Liberals at that game (and their timing was terrible, now that the coming depression requires a real working-class party). The Greens, who had the same bad luck as the Liberals with recent weather anomalies in central Canada making the climate disaster not quite so obvious, didn't win one seat. The country lost, ending up with a government that only the minority of neanderthals wanted. Only the Bloc did relatively well in Quebec. but the Bloc are perennial losers as their focus on Quebec makes them a ridiculous party on the national stage.

There is something really, really wrong with Harper (and Conservatives are coming to rue the problems with one-man government). After making a big deal about striving for a new cooperative Parliament in light of the world financial crisis, what's the first thing he proposes? A change in federal funding of political parties that would have the effect of leaving Canada with one viable party, the Conservatives! He's backed off from this (after some fiddling), but the aggressive preposterousness of his position has proved to everybody else that the Conservatives need to go. Conservative ideology provides no solutions to the coming financial crisis, and it is imperative that the three opposition parties form a temporary emergency coalition.

I don't know whether it will happen (it is almost too good to be true). The King-Byng crisis is the precedent which provides that the opposition can request the Governor-General to attempt to form a government after a non-confidence vote removes the sitting government. The disgusting Canadian media - controlled by the you-know-whos - is already trying to spin their agent Iggy as PM, but Dion is still the obvious choice (and Dion as PM could unravel the process underway to move the Liberals to the right under unsuitable leaders, which would be good for the entire country). The world's luckiest country just might get lucky again.