| ----------------below ----------all --- = # page-dump from there
Disappointments The old stalwarts are disappointing me. First, Engdahl unnecessarily explains his abandonment of the silly ‘Peak Oil’ theory by taking up the still very controversial – some would say ‘flaky’ – Russian theories concerning the creation of oil. The Russians may well be right, but Peak Oil falls on its own. There’s tons of oil around. In the United States itself, there is enough oil in the oil shales to satisfy current levels of American requirements for over 100 years. The problem is cost of production. Let me state it clearly: the reason why the American Establishment agreed to the attack on Iraq, an attack they knew was going to be a disaster and would indeed lead to insecurity over Middle East oil supplies, was to force the price per barrel of oil up over the amount where exploitation of the Canadian oil sands would become economically viable. There. I’ve said it. The long-term plan is to base American oil security on the sane and dependable Canadians, and not leave it to the whims of the fruitcakes in the Middle East, the fruitcakiest being the Israelis and their American ‘friends’. The Americans don’t get much oil from the Middle East, but it is important oil, and the price of oil remains dependent on decisions made by people who aren’t Americans, and don’t have America’s interests at heart. The war had nothing to do with controlling Middle East oil supplies, something which should, at least by now, be obvious. In the long term, the war was about separating the United States from Israel (the American strategists must find it funny that the neocons fell for it, as the Iraq war created the perfect petri dish to grow the new idea that American national interests are different from those of Zionist colonialists). When the oil sands peter out, we’ll need another war to force the price over the amount required for the Americans to exploit the oil shales (experimentation on oil shales development has already started). I should note that the general lumpen-leftist view that the war was about forcing the price of oil up doesn’t make sense. The American establishment are both producers and consumers of oil. There is a ‘sweet spot’, where they maximize their profit, but a war is too blunt an instrument to get there, if you could even determine what the sweet spot is. The other point, which I keep making (to no avail), is that the American oligarchs have absolutely no interest in depriving their new manufacturers (the Chinese) from a source of energy. Globalization happened and the strategists are still writing like it’s 1970. Peter Dale Scott
[** hey - something odd here ** zog / new clue ?? ]
continues with his theory that Cheney’s prevarications about what he was up to on the morning of September 11 relate to the fact he was hiding something, including his involvement in the shooting down of Flight 93. I doubt it. This represents a misunderstanding of the nature of the conspiracy. It was planned in such a way as to minimize – or, preferably, eliminate – connections between the operators of the conspiracy and identifiable politicians. Everybody was terrified about how Iran-Contra played out, and didn’t want to see that happen again. Important people, some of them in the Bush Administration, almost went to jail. One plane falling out of the control of the commandoes was perfectly foreseeable, and there would have been a contingency plan for it, one not involving Cheney having to ad lib a response. The reason Cheney is being deliberately confusing about the morning of September 11 has another conspiracy explanation. Continuity of government. Scott focuses on it, but then tries to tie Cheney’s actions to the shooting down of the plane, a completely unnecessary connection, and one not supported by what we know. Referring to Flight 93 actually damages Scott’s paper. Cheney and his ilk are terrified that the next attack will involve the destruction of the United States’ ability to plan a response, so have created elaborate – and no doubt unconstitutional – plans for continuity of government, some kind of dictatorship led by people like Cheney. Those plans collapse if the enemy can determine what people like Cheney will be doing after an attack. Thus the intentional creation of confusion. There is no need to drag Flight 93 into the mix, and doing so detracts from consideration of the wisdom of allowing freaks like Cheney to take over the American government in cases where they can claim, without anything other than their own say-so, that they have to. The evidence actually supports Scott’s thesis about the key role of continuity of government better if we leave out the shooting down of Flight 93. That would leave room for reasonable discussion of the necessity of some sort of doomsday plan for when all the usual ‘deciders’ – Bush’s name for it – were dead. Wednesday, September 26, 2007 Weird and Stupid A list of “The World's Weirdest/Stupidest Conspiracy Theories”. A few comments:
- HIV can’t logically ‘cause’ AIDS, as there are a few people who have HIV but have never contracted AIDS. There is a protocol for determining causation in infectious diseases, and HIV doesn’t meet it. It is entirely possible that HIV was created in a lab. Its release may have been a mistake. Or not.
- Jim Fetzer’s [I've talked to him,agreed on most 911 items/ jks zog] stupid and harmful writing on the Zapruder film should be enough to make people run like hell away from anything he writes about September 11.
- There’s some weird symbolism going on at Denver International Airport.
- The new Middle Ages timeline takes me back.[broken link - a trove for trogus: here--> History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 2 (Chronology) (Paperback)
by Anatoly T Fomenko (Author) "Let us recall that under the First Roman Empire we understand the "ancient" kingdom as founded by Romulus and Remus, presumably about 753 B.C. ([72])..." (more) http://www.amazon.com/History-Fiction-Science-Chronology/dp/2913621066 [ For example, computer assisted recalculation of eclipses with detailed descriptions allegedly belonging to Antiquity shows that they either occurred in the Middle Ages or didn't occur at all. A simple application of computational astronomy to the rules of calculation of Easter according to the Easter Book introduced by the Nicean council of alleged 325 AD shows that it definitely could not have taken place before 784 AD. ]
- Aspartame, fluoride, and at least some genetically modified foods are poisons approved and promoted by governments supposedly interested in the wellbeing of their citizens. The conspiracy is not mind-control, but just good, old-fashioned corruption, politicians being paid off so corporadoes can make money.
- There probably is at least one conspiracy angle to the Atlanta child murders, which have never been properly investigated as the victims were black.
What about the idea that the Dead Sea Scrolls are medieval forgeries? There is something deeply suspicious about Dead Sea Scroll scholarship, another area, like Holocaust studies, where you have to be glatt kosher in order to sit at the table. Dead Sea Scroll scholarship is part of the pseudoscience that attempts to show the links between early Christianity and Judaism, links with an obvious political purpose. At least some of the scrolls were stolen from a Palestinian museum, and all of them are arguably the property of the Palestinian people. Their provenance is shrouded in enough mystery, with a discovery at exactly the time that the new State of Israel was building its arsenal of myths and legends, that you have to wonder what they really are. Tuesday, September 25, 2007 Judymillerization II The Sunday Times is back to its old tricks, more of the same lies with more of the same neocon agenda regarding the Israeli attack on Syria. Had the Israelis really found anything in Syria, we would have heard about it immediately, or immediately after the attack. The Israeli lack of immediate response to allegations by Syria follows no known propaganda pattern. The Israelis are making up excuses as they have to. It appears that my original guess was right. The attack, in northern Syria, was intended to test the Russian defenses for their new port/base. Apparently, the defenses worked well, as the Israelis had to leave in an embarrassing hurry, leading to the reticence in admitting that anything had actually happened, and the ad libbed flow of excuses we are now seeing. The latest Murdoch lie is based on:
- “informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem”;
- “well-placed sources”;
- “Israeli sources”; and
- “A senior American source”.
Despite the fact the Syrians were allegedly caught red-handed with North Korean nuclear material, and the Israelis told the Americans, who blessed the Israeli attack, Condi just invited the Syrians to participate in Middle East peace talks!
Monday, September 24, 2007 A good week It has been a good week for t-shirt slogans:
- Don't tase me, bro (for John I’d-like-to-respond-to-the-question-of-the gentleman-who-is-being-murdered-in-the-back-row Kerry). unwviewed...BUT a closed_case of fascism no matter what was real. I told you in 2003 - this country will be like Cuba- and now in less than 2 decades. Alternet has deep comments - and I did SELECT & archive lots of data that day.
- M-Fer, I want more iced tea.
- (for Rudy Giuliani’s t-shirt) We do not support that the tragedy that happened on a site where so many people lost their lives be used as a photo op.
Meanwhile, Scott Adams’ politics is as sound as his grasp of the comedic timing in the use of the three-panel comic strip. It’s lucky he doesn’t have to write a column explaining each one (although Ted Rall might consider doing so, as about a third of his comics are incomprehensible!). Following the logic of the Zionist campaign to stop discussion of the Lobby issue by insisting that ‘fairness’ require that Walt and Mearsheimer carry an Israeli on their back whenever they speak in public, an oud player was not allowed to perform in San Diego because there was no Israeli available to appear with him. Lynn Margulis There are an amazing number of loser academics from the University of Podunk associated with the September 11 ‘truth’ movement (together with a marked absence of legitimate structural engineers). For the first time, a world-class scientist has come out as a sceptic. Lynn Margulis is the real deal Sunday, September 23, 2007 The big problem: Lite Zionism From a short and surprisingly boring interview with Norman Finkelstein by George McLeod (emphasis in red):
“McLeod: What do you think about the recently-released book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt? Finkelstein: Parts of it I agree with, parts of it I don’t. For example, I don’t think there’s any evidence that the is lobby [ didnt need to b/c the evangelical zionist zombies did all the 'political approval ratings work' there - for free c/o their Scofield apostasy ]
was a crucial factor in the decision for the US to go to war in Iraq and I don’t think that there is evidence that US policy in the Middle East in general is shaped by the lobby. However, I do think that the lobby is a crucial factor in determining US policy towards the Palestinians. I don’t think it determined US policy in Iran, in Turkey or in Iraq. But on the Israel-Palestine conflict – the building of settlements and the colonisation of Palestine, I think it is a crucial factor.” The line in red is simply outrageous. Why does a guy like Finkelstein, prepared to put his neck on the line for the truth, balk at the most obvious truths about the very peculiar relationship of the United States to Israel? Finkelstein, for all the sense he makes, is still a lite Zionist (that’s why he can be interviewed in that hotbed of lite Zionism, ZNet). In the bigger scheme of things, the Palestinians are irrelevant to Greater Israel. They have to be ethnically cleansed, but that is just the first step of many. The lite Zionists are, fundamentally, Zionists, i. e., advocates of an Israeli Empire. They disagree on tactics and timing, not Zionist imperialism. Blaming the Americans for what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is pure Noamism, simultaneously laying responsibility at the feet of the American Establishment while hiding the real threat to Zionism, the upsetting of the Lobby’s stranglehold over American politics. Honest people who really want to solve the problems of the Middle East have to start by dealing with the most important problem, the Lobby. Ending Lobby influence solves at least 90 per cent of the problem. If the Lobby is outed, there will be no more wars for Israel, which will constitute the end of the Zionist dream. It is thus vitally important for Zionists, and lite Zionists, to hide the truth, no matter how silly they look in doing so. Finkelstein is very useful to the Zionists, as his public fight with them has given him the credibility that crazies like Foxman, Dershowitz, and Pipes don’t have. You have to wonder what happened behind the scenes at DePaul, where Finkelstein, talking of hunger strikes and revolt, suddenly caved, and allowed DePaul to issue a self-serving press release. Was the whole DePaul mess just a Lobby stunt? Saturday, September 22, 2007 It's a small world, White Russian division I’ve been calling the neocon millenialist cult a Polish cult, but I’m off the mark, a bit. From an article on the next American attorney general (emphasis in red; it’s a small world!)
“Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the Mukasey appointment was ‘wise’ and he expects ‘bipartisan support’ for confirmation, but admitted to his own personal bias. ‘His family comes from the same town where I was born. My parents knew his parents over there,’ he said, referring to a town that was then part of Poland but now is part of Belarus.” Historic White Russia covers not only Belarus but parts of Poland, Slovakia, the Ukraine, and Russia. It is difficult not to be reminded of the group of White Russians involved in the Kennedy assassination, guys like Abraham Zapruder and Jack Ruby. Perhaps those who throw the slur around know something we don’t, which is that the conspiracy isn’t a Jewish one, but a White Russian one! The Official Lobby Response Daniel Pipes, completely incapable of giving a cogent response to the devastating Walt and Mearsheimer book, instea d offers the Official Lobby Response, an airy wave if the hand that it is not worth commenting on. The “two obscure academics” he refers to are two of the most important political analysts in the United States, and the only reason the original essay was published in an “obscure publication” was due to political pressure applied by the Lobby. It is abundantly clear that the Lobby has decided to play down the issue, using its overwhelming control over the American media to try to bury any discussion of the book. Meeting it head on, the original plan, is hopeless. At least Pipes managed to make his comment while somehow – what self-control! – avoiding the slur. Thursday, September 20, 2007 Wreath pettiness President Ahmadinejad wanted to lay a wreath at the site of the World Trade Center, but American authorities, with typical pettiness (Rudy and Hillary leading the way, of course), denied him. Digg asks: “WHICH MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES HELD CANDLELIGHT VIGILS FOR 9/11???” The answer is here (also scroll down for more photos here; Israelis didn’t hold the spontaneous vigils, but they did build a lot of monuments to commemorate the four Jews who were killed). Needless to say, Americans have squandered every bit of international sympathy caused by September 11, and then some. There’s always an upside, and this embarrassing incident for the American people has produced one of the most hilarious quotes in American history, from the Ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad:
“We do not support that the tragedy that happened on a site where so many people lost their lives be used as a photo op” Wurmser the traitor The comment “Why Bush won't attack Iran” is still marred by a lack of appreciation of the effects of globalization on the thinking of the strategists, and misses the Big Plan with respect to oil, but is still much better that just about anything else you’ll read on the subject of ‘Iran talk’. I like the fact he gave Bush a litt credit:
“To try to discern what the president himself thinks, however, is very difficult. It's particularly hard when Bush is trying to convince Iran that the military option is real, and that if Iran doesn't work out a mutually acceptable deal with the U.S., he will launch a strike. To date, however, nothing suggests Bush is really going to do it. If he were, he wouldn't be playing good cop/bad cop with Iran and proposing engagement. If the bombs were at the ready, Bush would be doing a lot more to prepare the nation and the military for a war far more consequential than the invasion of Iraq. There is also circumstantial evidence that he has decided bombing may be too costly a choice.” and:
“Even if Bush wanted to make the Iranians believe that he could go either way – diplomacy or military strike – Bush would not so clearly knock back one side in favor of the other to the point where the ‘bad cops’ in a good cop/bad cop strategy would tell anyone on the outside that they did not enjoy the favor and support of the president.” If Bush is trying to bluff the Iranians, it would make no sense to reveal his bad hand. Unfortunately for Bush, the Iranians know his ‘tell’, and have called the bluff. In fact American belligerence has made it more difficult to deal with Iran, which is one of the reasons why we should all can the ‘Iran talk’. While we can give Bush a little credit, we shouldn’t give him too much. Clemons also catches Wurmser – wasn’t he supposed to be gone by now? – in a little treason (oh, and here’s Glenn Greenwald catching Ledeen out on another treason): “One member of Cheney's national security staff, David Wurmser, worried out loud that Cheney felt that his wing was ‘losing the policy argument on Iran’ inside the administration – and that they might need to ‘end run’ the president with scenarios that may narrow his choices. The option that Wurmser allegedly discussed was nudging Israel to launch a low-yield cruise missile strike against the Natanz nuclear reactor in Iran, thus ‘hopefully’ prompting a military reaction by Tehran against U.S. forces in Iraq and the Gulf. When queried about Wurmser's alleged comments, a senior Bush administration official told the New York Times, ‘The vice president is not necessarily responsible for every single thing that comes out of the mouth of every single member of his staff.’” There is no way around it. Wurmser, within the White House, is advocating a conspiracy to trick his President and the United States – I was going to write ‘his country’, but his country is Israel – into a monumentally disastrous war. Shouldn’t he be arrested for treason? posted at 9:29 PM permanent link | The Hebron tactic From an article by Amira Hass (found via here):
“For about 25 minutes, they behaved liked lords of the land: One man, followed later by a young guy, descended from Mitzpeh Yair, one of the unauthorized outposts in the southern Mt. Hebron area, and prevented a United Nations jeep from traveling. UN directives prohibit leaving the vehicle in such cases, in order to avoid an escalation of friction. And so we, three Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) staffers and two Haaretz journalists, were forced to watch them demonstrate their lordliness from inside the car: The older one blocked the vehicle, in the middle of the unpaved road, with his body. Using hand movements, he ordered the engine shut down. When that didn't happen, he jumped on the hood and then on the roof and back on the hood, and finally lay back on the windshield and played with the wipers, taking them apart. The driver progressed slowly down the track, and the man leaned back on the windshield with force, until it broke and shards went into the driver's eyes. In the meantime, the younger guy appeared. He tried opening the doors of the jeep, screaming, ‘show me your identity cards’ and placing big rocks in front of the wheels. By the time the army and police drove up, the older man yelled at Haaretz photographer Alex Levac: ‘Go back to where you came from.’ When he realized that Levac was a Jew and born in this country, he shouted: ‘Traitor, going with the UN.’ Both the older man and younger guy living at the outpost were born abroad. The younger man, a British citizen, has not yet been given new-immigrant status. But what does that matter? It also didn't matter that the soldier described them as ‘problematic’ and that the police are familiar with the older man from previous incidents of harassment. Nor did it matter that the police officers did not believe their absurd story that we had been in their olive grove and that we had tried to run the older man over. The tactic is one that is well-known from Hebron, the same tactic that helped to cleanse the Old City of most of its Palestinian residents: Jews harass and bully and then threaten to lodge complaints against their victims with the Israeli police.” and
“It is easy to blame the two men, or those like them. But they practice terrorizing Palestinians because Israeli authorities let them do so. In their own way, they do the same thing the ‘legitimate’ occupation authorities do: They drive the Palestinians off their land to make room for Jews. In other words, they are following orders.” The official attitude towards the UN by the Israeli government is similar. Of course, relative to the treatment the settlers give the Palestinians, the UN employees got off easy. Tuesday, September 18, 2007 Pipes Lidice Pipes Lidice. After the Nazis killed the ‘murderers’ in the Czech town of Lidice, and seized many others, the rest of the population of Lidice dispersed. This is Pipes’ solution for the Palestinian villages from which – allegedly – Palestinian insurgents are firing rockets in the general direction of Israel. Pipes is now a foreign policy advisor to Giuliani. Do you think Rudy will drop Pipes for advocating Nazi-style collective punishment? Curiously, Lidice is often listed in Holocaust commemorative websites, although the victims were not Jewish and the people hosting the websites take the position that only Jews died in the Holocaust. It is such a good story they just can’t resist deceiving people
The slur in action The Lobby, which doesn’t exist, and if it did, would have no power, never operates without a big plan, and the big plan to counter the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt paper, now a best-selling book, is two-pronged. The second prong is an attempt to pretend to battle the thesis of the book on its merits, which we can see in the efforts of Foxman and Dershowitz. The danger in the second prong is that engaging in the debate puts the silly arguments of the Lobby to the test, and at least some of the Lobby big brains – I don’t include either Dershowitz or Foxman in that number – know that the Lobby can’t meet the test Hence the second prong, which is an attempt at censorship. The more sophisticated form of this is a demand that any speech by Mearsheimer and/or Walt be met by an immediate chance of rebuttal by a Lobby member, who of course will be unaccountably busy that day. The less sophisticated form of the censorship consists of the usual behind-the-scenes pressure coupled with the usual slur tossing. This is a bit ironic, considering Alan ‘Free Speech’ Dershowitz:
“For responding to Mearsheimer and Walt's false charges, I was accused by The Nation contributer and Huffington Poster Philip Weiss of being a ‘vigilante’ and by Dissident Voice as being one of ‘the attack dogs of the lobby.’ So much for the marketplace of ideas! Free speech for me but not for thee!”
The reality of Lobby speech and thought control is a bit uglier. Via Informed Comment, the experiences of Richard Drake, chair of the History Department at the University of Montana, at trying to book Walt for a speech a year ago (emphasis throughout in red of the typical pattern of attack – we only see the slur throwing, but miss the real exercise of power from the dark back rooms): “Soon after the publication of their article, I invited Walt to be the opening speaker in the 2006–07 President’s Lecture Series. I reasoned that our audience would profit from hearing a distinguished scholar’s arguments on a topic of moment. Not everyone in Montana thought the way I did. At the start of the school year, our publicity campaign for the series, announcing Walt’s participation, immediately produced a vehement reaction. In the twenty years that I have coordinated the lecture series, I have invited more than two hundred speakers to the campus. Walt was the first one to be welcomed with a preemptive barrage of defamatory invective from faculty members.On September 7, 2006, four days before Walt’s scheduled arrival, three tenured full professors—two of them from my own department—denounced him in an open letter to the president of the university, George M. Dennison. The letter appeared in the student newspaper, the Montana Kaimin. Comparing his views to those expressed in the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, they castigated Walt as the author of an ugly racist diatribe and demanded that the university invite Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz or some comparable defender of Israel to offer a rebuttal. Failure to do so would ‘leave a dark stain on the President’s Lecture Series and the university itself.’ One of my critics told me before startled witnesses that he would not rest until I had been stripped of my position of power, which manifestly had corrupted me. Someone as insensitive to Jewish issues as I was could no longer be entrusted to coordinate a university lecture series. He initiated a campaign to bring about my dismissal. [red= by WR, font by js]
As the controversy over Walt’s visit heated up in the campus newspaper during the next few days, a student and a retired professor publicly defended my decision to invite Walt. any people expressed their private support for me, and some of them wrote letters to the president on my behalf. He also heard plenty from the other side, as we all did, about the loosing of anti-Semitism on the UM campus. In addition to charging Walt with being a vile anti-Semite, his detractors said that he lacked basic skills as a researcher and writer. The neoconservative media had attacked Walt for carelessness as a scholar, and letters to the Montana Kaimin echoed those criticisms.” It’s a funny coincidence that these uncoordinated letter writers seem to all simultaneously come up with the idea of a chance for a rebuttal, with the rebutter always being Dershowitz! Afterwards, the slur: “After Walt’s visit, the seminar that he had given on the Israel lobby completely upstaged his lecture on the broader issues of U.S. foreign policy. In letters to the Montana Kaimin, to me, to the president of the university, and to the city’s main newspaper – the Missoulian – individuals who had not attended either of his presentations to hear what he actually said called him a liar and likened him to a Holocaust denier and Ku Klux Klansman. The vehemence of these attacks had no precedent in the twenty-year history of the President’s Lecture Series. The charge that Walt was the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier seemed little less than grotesque, but there it was in black and white on University of Montana stationery in one of the many bitter letters that this affair inspired: ‘It is much as if the university had brought a Holocaust denier to campus and accorded him the honors of a respected guest.’” and: “Walt was also accused of having brought to campus ‘in a suit and tie what used to be the province of those who burned crosses while wearing sheets and hoods.’ To associate this eminent scholar with the church and school burnings, beatings, castrations, shootings, lynchings, and political assassinations carried out by the Ku Klux Klan required a willingness to say anything, no matter how irresponsible, against an adversary marked not for intellectual defeat but for moral destruction.” and:“The attempt to group Walt and Mearsheimer with the likes of Faurisson and Duke reveals the real aims behind the campaign of denigration that began on my campus last September: to shut down critical inquiry into the activities of the Israel lobby and to blacken the name of anyone with the temerity to speak up about them. In an open society, however, anti-Semitism cannot be made to include the public investigation of highly effective lobbies. It is long past time to part with the idea that the only foolproof method of defense against the charge of anti-Semitism is 100 percent support for whatever the Israeli and American governments want in the Middle East. The founders of this country understood that public life must include discussion of the ways power works. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote about factions ‘who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.’ He feared that the ‘cabals of the few’ would be a permanent problem for the republic. The invasion of Iraq is not the first war in our history to have been started by ‘men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs.’ The evidence that Mearsheimer and Walt provide constitutes a reason for a civilized debate on the role of the Israel lobby in helping to bring about the Iraq war.” Of course, this kind of thing is happening all over the United States and, in a more subtle form, has happened for decades. It constitutes one of the main bases of the overwhelming power of the Lobby. Drake is one of the few angry enough, and brave enough, to write about it. Another very brave man to fight the slurring is Jim Moran, who received the same treatment for having the balls to state the glaringly obvious fact that the Lobby played a large part in leading to the disastrous American attack on the people of Iraq. Moran nails the issue, which is that the slur is intended to block real discussion of the power and influence of the Lobby: “The problem with addressing the groups who have argued strongly in favor of a long-term American military presence in the Middle East is that they raise arguments that are not related to the point. I would like to have a reasonable, objective discussion about AIPAC's foreign policy agenda. But it's difficult to do that because any time you question their motives, you are accused of being anti-Semitic." The Lobby even denied it was in favor of the attack on Iraq, a game they have been playing for some time (a particularly outrageous denial, coming at the same time we are seeing another monstrous Lobby push for an attack on Iran), but a bit of a joke to anyone who has been paying attention. As usual, Lobby critics who make specific arguments about specific organizations, individuals and actions are met with claims that they are using “several age-old canards that have been used throughout history that have brought violence upon Jews” such as “Jewish control of the media and wealthy Jews using their wealth to control policy.” People aren’t that dumb, and the Lobby is fooling itself if it thinks that Americans are buying this (although the – ahem – Jew-controlled media will be filled with attacks on Lobby critics following exactly the same lines). The Jews do control the media, and are proud of it, and wealthy Jews did use their wealth to control policy, easy due to stupid American political financing laws and the power of a group of extremely rich ‘one-issue guys’. The slur is having to bear all the weight of protecting the awesome power of the Lobby, and it is no longer up to the task. As I’ve been saying all along, if the Lobby apologists keep pushing the misuse of the slur, they are going to permanently ruin the ability of future generations to use the term ‘anti-Semitism’ for cases of real anti-Semitism.
Judymillerization Further to my posting of this morning on the use of judymillerization to advance yet another preposterous Zionist lie, and via Naqniq and the comments, a suitably skeptical article on the situation, noting the convenience of the timing and the fact that the sources are interested parties with an obvious reason for lying (the article leans towards the Korean angle, but you can always kill two birds with one stone, and, as we’ve discussed here, conflict of any kind, for example with North Korea, leads to the general rise in American militarism and tension which has been identified as one of the key goals of Zionism). This kind of ‘journalism’, starting with a misleading headline followed by paragraphs of credulous retyping of the lies, with reference to the anonymous intelligence sources buried at the end for technical ass-covering purposes, should be identified as the worst possible sin in journalism. We have to start embarrassing these assholes. posted at 4:44 PM permanent link |
zog/ jks/ oops - sorry, they cannot be embarrassed, nor do they EVER acquiesce to the LIES,they DO LIVE in their own world of torpor [i have proof = 'GOP USA'] .... the insight is exactly as spoken here [used 2nd time this week]:
|
No comments:
Post a Comment