Ethno-linguistic and "Cultural" Nationalism

as a reaction to Neoliberalism induced decline of standards of living

News Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich Who Rules America Recommended Links Secular Stagnation under Neoliberalism Donald Trump -- an unusual fighter against excesses of neoliberal globalization The Far Right Forces in Ukraine as Trojan Horse of Neoliberalism American biblical nationalism and religious far right Economic nationalism
American Exceptionalism Anti-globalization movement Immigration, wage depression and free movement of workers Brexit as the start of the reversal of neoliberal globalization TTP, NAFTA and other supranational trade treaties Neoliberalism and Christianity Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism  Anatol Leiven on American Messianism  
Debt slavery The Grand Chessboard American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement Merchants of Debt Greece debt enslavement Eroding Western living standards Ukraine debt enslavement Russian nationalists
New American Militarism Predator state Neoconservatism Madeleine Albright as a precursor of Hillary Clinton Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton Merkel as Soft Cop in Neocon Offensive on Eastern Europe and Russia Robert Kagan Wolfowitz Doctrine Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism
National Security State Neo-fascism Elite Theory New American Militarism Christian Theocratic Movements Financial Humor Quotes Humor Etc
And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail last year that God speaks through him.

We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.

We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.

-- Howard Zinn

Neoliberalism creates powerful nationalistic impulses die to its failure of fulfill its promises. Disappointed, impoverished, and, especially, unemployed people are easy recruits for far right movements.  In this sense the situation is similar to Bolshevism, which after being discredited as ideology (which was based on the promise of rising standard of living and eventual overtaking the capitalist West in prosperity) failed to keep the country together because of  growing (and lavishly supported both in propaganda and financially by the West) wave of nationalism which swept the USSR into oblivion. Disintegration of the USSR was based on two major factors -- betrayal of the "nomenklatura" which switched to neoliberalism, and abandoning Comminist ideology (in which actually nobody believed after 1970th)  and the tide of nationalistic sentiments.

Now nationalism is on the rise in all major Western countries. Such events as Brexit and election of Trump are links of the same chain of events.

Nationalism informs our ideas about language, culture, identity, nation, and State--ideas that are being challenged by globalization and an neoliberal economic order and ideology. Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich is generally hostile to nationalism. It often purposely destabilize  the nation-states to open them to transnational corporations ("creative destruction" of sort), the dominant political players under neoliberalism. For example, when the federal government of Canada adopted neoliberal policies one immediate consequence was the termination of the funding programs  for the francophone community cultural programs (along with the termination of the welfare programs). Indeed, the Official Languages Act itself was overhauled.

The United States' pursuit of global primacy is based upon a complex melding of neoliberal economics and hegemonic politics which produce strong anti-American sentiments in various part of the globe, fueling nationalism.  US imperialism is inherently predatory  and profoundly different from the productive capitalism that had been the basis of American economic success. It is essentially a War and color revolutions based racket. It has important difference with classic colonialism: what traditional colonialism tried to achieve with standing armies now is achieved using financial instruments and tiny strata of  "comprador elite" within the given country.  Putting the nation into debt-bondage proved to be even more effective in extracting resources from the countries then the old colonial rule. 

Ethno-nationalism is not the only form of nationalism in existence. Moreover, Ethno-nationalism is in decline, as it is now discomforting intellectually and morally for many people. But two other, more modern and no less powerful forms of nationalism emerged: "cultural nationalism" and "economic nationalism".

As social scientists demonstrated nationalistic sentiments are often a product of culture, often deliberately constructed by the local elite to achieve pretty nefarious and selfish goals.  Still the culture can as solid core of nationalism as ethnicity. this new form of nationalism became an important player on the world scene.

Ukrainian color revolution of February 2014 (EuroMaydan), despite surface slogans about Eurointergation, was fought and won by Western Ukrainian nationalists, which later tried to impose their will on the rest of the country provoking the civil war in Donbass (with substantial help from Russia, which decided to support Russian speaking population against Ukrainian nationalists cultural assault).  While they were ethnic nationalists in the past, now they by-and-large converted in cultural nationalists, which oppose not Russians as a national by Russian culture and language and try to instill Ukrainian culture and language in the country were the majority of population speaks Russian.

So far the net result was a destruction of the Ukrainian economy due to break-up of Soviet era ties with Russian industries and abandonment of Russian market (while Ukrainian goods are no values as much in Western markets and face various often artificial barriers in EU). In 216 the impoverishment of the population reached the Central African states level (less then $2 dollar a day for the majority of population).

Americans generally are strongly negative to the idea of ethnic nationalism and that's is one of the best features of Americans as a nation. After all, in the United States people of varying ethnic origins live in peace. For example within two or three generations of immigration,  ethnic identities of Western and Eastern European immigrants are attenuated by cultural assimilation and intermarriage. In general, immigrants to the United States usually arrive with a willingness to fit into their new country and reshape their identities accordingly. But for those who remain behind in lands where their ancestors have lived for generations, if not centuries, political identities still sometimes take more ancient ethnic or religious form, producing powerful claims to political power. In the past, the creation of nation-states in Europe has often the product of a violent process of ethnic separation. 

While the apogee of ethno-nationalism was probably in 1930th and during post war decolonization,  ethno-nationalism while in decline still remain a powerful social force in some countries. In many way ethno-nationalism is still linked with national socialism.  But traditional national socialism version of ethno-nationalism  was slowly but surely replaced by what the form that is based on colon culture and language --  "cultural nationalism". I think that  American Exceptionalism is one of the most interesting examples of this type of nationalism. And the fact that US flags in the USA are everywhere definitely signify its strength in mind of the people. Unlike many European state were driving a car with the national flag would be considered bad manners, in the USA it is OK behaviour.

The US elite as the leading imperial elite that overtook British elite on the world stage achieved great mastery in using divide and conquer strategy by inciting nationalistic feelings all over the world. This mastery (despite Bush "Chicken Kiev" speech)  was especially demonstrated in facilitation the break-up of the USSR. It was nationalism that had blown up the USSR when it started experiencing economic difficulties and crisis of the political doctrine under which it was created as well as suffering from the losing Afghan war.

It is interesting to note that the crisis in the USSR was amplified due to supply of modern technology. Personal computers inside the country which broke traditional hold on distribution of literature by Communist Party (which rules the country as a religious sect, crushing even minor deviations form holy doctrine), were very similar to Stringers hand held missiles in Afghan war, which deteriorated Russian air superiority, and limited the use of helicopters (with a pretty nasty effect 30 years later).  This along the  money with which the USA and Saudi financed radical Islamic fundamentalism  converted Islamist revels it into a powerful political force. Political Islam was if nor born then strengthens in Afghan war.  Which paradoxically is another example of "cultural nationalism", were the religion serves as the cementing force and identification of us vs. them. .

People often forget that Osama bin Laden was essentially a recruiting agent on Saudi Intelligence payroll during the USSR Afghan war.  In this sense tragedy of 9/11 was simply a blowback of previous efforts to defeat the USSR in Afghan war by whatever means possible. And one of those means was spreading of Wahhabism and what can be called "Islamic cultural nationalism". 

As author of the note Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11? observed:

I would indeed go further and say that Islamic schools infuse a dangerous and un-Islamic Islam-supremacist, and indeed now sectarian Wahhabi-supremacist view vis-à-vis all other religions and cultures and this is at least partly responsible for many of the problems Muslims face around the world today.

In other words with  the ascendance of neoliberalism nationalism re-emerged as a powerful countervailing force.  Brexit was just the first powerful manifestation of this effect.

likbez : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 02:47 PM
Neoliberalism creates an impulse for nationalism in several ways:

1. It destroys human solidarity. And resorting to nationalism in a compensational mechanism to restore it in human societies. that's why the elite often resorts to foreign wars if it feels that it losing the control over peons.

2. Neoliberalism impoverishes the majority of population enriching top 1% and provokes the search for scapegoats. Which in the past traditionally were Jews. Now look like MSM are trying to substitute them for Russians

3. Usually the rise of nationalism is correlated with the crisis in the society. There is a crisis of neoliberalism that we experience in the USA now: after 2008 neoliberalism entered zombie state, when the ideology is discredited, but forces behind it are way too strong for any social change to be implemented. Much like was the case during "Brezhnev socialism" in the USSR.

So those who claim that we are experiencing replay of late 1920th on a new level might be partially right. With the important difference that it does not make sense to establish fascist dictatorship in the USA. Combination of "Inverted totalitarism" and "national security state" already achieved the same major objectives with much less blood and violence.

Secessionist movements

In the post-Second World War period until 1989, superpowers were committed to upholding existing state boundaries. While decolonization was permitted, the borders of states were treated, in international law and practice, as permanent—non-negotiable—features of the international state system.

Secessionist movements are based on groups that have a strong national identification, and are fuelled by nationalism. Minority nations, in multination states, often criticize state policies on the grounds that they implicitly privilege the majority national group on the territory. They have resisted majority control over certain aspects of state policy, and have made claims for state protection of their culture or for recognition of their distinct identity. This usually means that they want their language to be used in official capacities and their children to be educated in their language and about their culture. They typically demand their own political institutions, to enable them to control their own affairs.

As a political principle nationalism postulates that the political and national unit should be congruent. That naturally leads to secessionist movements. It has many variations and in weaker form presuppose  the moral significance of the national community, its existence in the past and into the future, and typically seeks some form of political protection to safeguard its future existence.

One advantage of viewing nationalism as a normative theory about the value of national membership and national communities is that it can account for the key policies or demands of nationalists. On this conception, the demand for national self-determination is an important plank in many nationalist movements although not, contra Gellner, a fundamental principle of nationalism. Nationalists may, and often do, seek complete independence or state sovereignty. However, in some cases, where the costs of independence are too high, or the benefits of independence too precarious, nationalists may seek other forms of institutional recognition.

,,, ,,, ,,,

the category 'nation', like 'friends' and 'lovers', falls into the second group. It is contingent on its members' sustaining a certain image of it based on their perceptions and feelings—although of course there are a number of conditions which lead to the construction of an image of a nation, such as shared religion, language, law, geographical isolation, colonial policies, bureaucratic decisions, and the like.

... ... ...

David Miller lists five elements that together constitute a nation: it is, he writes 'a community (1) constituted by shared beliefs and mutual commitments, (2) extended in history, (3) active in character, (4) connected to a particular territory, and (5) marked off from other communities by its distinct public culture'. 12 This definition also suggests that the subjective identification is crucial.

... ... ...

One common line of argument, associated with the work of Gellner, Anderson, Hobsbawm, and others, is that national identity is linked with broad historical forces. National forms of identity become prominent in the modern period as a result of industrialization, and the social and bureaucratic changes that accompany industrialization—or precede it, in the case of states aspiring to be industrialized. In Gellner's formulation of the argument, the modern economy is crucially dependent on standardized modes of communication and cultural practices, and people's life chances are shaped by the language in which they communicate, as well as other cultural forms of interaction. This is in contrast to the premodern period when cultural or linguistic differences were politically irrelevant.

That means that the language and culture  became the most important components which defines the boundaries of national identity, while all other characteristics that define nationality, such as specific for given ethnos DNA, receded. That consideration gave rise of élite-manipulation models of nationalism. They view national identity as the product of actions by political or economic élites, who foster national identities for their own (self-interested) ends. More sophisticated élite-manipulation theories describe élites as encoding violence or antagonism as ethnic or national which could be described in other ways—as criminal or class violence, say—for their own ends. Nationalism  is merely a means for élites to preserve or enhance their own power and status in the society. This is a variation of the old Plato's argument that the masses are easily duped and so cannot steer the ship of state. The fact that nations are socially constructed does not suggest that they are less real or are to be regarded with suspicion. Some people focus on the fact that they are 'imagined' communities to suggest that they may have no basis in 'reality'.

The social image is important because it is impossible for all its members to engage in face-to-face contact with each other at all times. Therefore members must refer to their perception of the image of the nation. Of course, on this definition, many, if not most, communities, except the very smallest, are imagined in the same way. Religious communities are imagined; my university is imagined; even my extended family is imagined. 26 But they may all be important, and legitimate, bases of identification.

That means that it is more accurate to describe national identities as existing along a continuum, with the language, the habits or customs or character of the group on one end and the institutional structure of state on the another. For example, in immigrant societies such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, where groups of people left their various 'homelands' to become part of a different political project, immigrant groups do not have the "national territory" as a basis to reproduce their own culture en masse and the political identities in question—the Canadian, Australian, and American identities — are genuinely available to them, in the sense that the host society did not exclude them from the political project and the political project propose to then a new, "born again"  cultural and political identity. In case the have like, for example in Quebec -- their nationalism assumes the forms that are typical for Old World.

Similarly in the case of France, ethnic groups were incorporated or integrated into France prior to the Age of Nationalism, and assimilation was largely effective. There has been some attempt to revive these minority nationalisms, but minority nations typically lack much shared (institutionally separate) history—since Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine, Languedoc and Burgundy were all incorporated into France prior to 1500.  They lack an institutional basis, as well as social differentiation. The nationalisms are accordingly very weak. The French formula cannot be applied to other areas, where separate institutional or bureaucratic structures were in place by the time of mass democratic participation and the politicization of national and cultural differences by the bureaucratic modern state.  But the reaction against immigrant communities, especially Muslim community was very strong.

At the same time, as little as forty years ago, Britain was thought to be a homogeneous society, with strong class politics, but little in the way of national politics. Now, however, the conglomerate 'British' national identity seems to be eroding and is challenged by Scottish, Welsh, and to a lesser extent—and mainly in reaction to the other two nationalisms—English national identities.

The issue of rights to territory is also important because one basis of the distinction between immigrant groups and national groups is that the latter have territory and the former do not. Whether a group has territory is therefore crucially important, not only to this conceptual distinction, but it also affects, on at least one influential argument, the kind of rights and entitlements that attach to the groups.

Given the chronic availability of nationalist and ethnic idioms in modern polities, one might expect economic crises to foster heightened nation-statist or ethnic exclusion.  Intensified efforts to blame national and ethnic outsiders for economic distress, to protect domestic producers and workers against foreign (or ethnically “alien”) competition, or to treat politically vulnerable minorities as scapegoats. And earlier crises furnish ample precedent for such efforts. This review has suggested, however, that economic crises do not automatically or uniformly generate such responses and that nationalist and ethno-political responses to the present crisis have so far been relatively muted.

The credit crisis on 2008 was mainly interpreted in nation-statist terms and was blamed (outside the United States) on the American profligacy, American-style casino capitalism, the global financial system, or an externally imposed neoliberalism.

Until Brexit nationalist reaction of the crisis of neoliberalism  — or reactions with a more or less pronounced nationalist components were not successful outside a few countries such as Hungary and Russia. Legal and institutional constraints, complex forms of economic interdependence, and prevailing cultural idioms have all worked to inhibit radical measures designed to protect domestic producers or labor markets (although more limited forms of protection were widely implemented).  Even in the USA, the citadel of neoliberalism, the disenchantment with neoliberalism led to the rise of such politicians as Sanders and Trump.

It is   too soon to assess consequences of Brexit on neoliberal globalization, but it is clear that the growing wave of nationalism is able at least to slow if not revert that recent neoliberal "advances" in this direction. If you add coming oil crisis the future of neoliberal globalization now looks more and more uncertain.

As Indonesian Chinese massacre of 1998 proves modern societies are sill not above finding ethnic scapegoats in case of severe economic crisis:


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Oct 09, 2018] Brexit Crunch Is the EU Trying to Save the UK from Itself Is That Even Possible

Oct 09, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Brexit Crunch: Is the EU Trying to Save the UK from Itself? Is That Even Possible? Posted on October 8, 2018 by Yves Smith The UK press is all over the map on the state of Brexit. That makes making sense of things even harder than usual.

At a minimum, it show that the EU's thumping of May at last month's Salzburg conference has led to an uptick in activity, as the EU27 leaders set an earlier deadline for the UK to serve up something realistic than the UK had previously thought it had (October versus November).

But it's far from clear that all the thrashing around and messaging amounts to progress. As we'll discuss, some press reports claim the EU is showing more flexibility, but the changes appear to be almost entirely cosmetic. If so, it would represent a cynical calculation that MPs are so illiterate about technical details that adept repackaging will get the dog to eat the dog food.

Another thing to keep in mind is that negotiators are always making progress until a deal is dead. The appearance of momentum can create actual momentum, or at least buy time. But here, time is running out, so the question is whether either side has made enough of a shift so as to allow for a breakthough.

One thing that may have happened, and again this is speculative, is that more key players in the EU are coming to realize that a crash out will inflict a lot of damage on the EU. A transition period is actually much more beneficial to the EU than the UK. It would not only allow the EU more time to prepare, but also enable it to better pick the UK clean of personnel and business activities that can move to the Continent in relatively short order.

By contrast (and not enough people in the UK appear to have worked this out), the UK will crash out with respect to the EU in either March 2019 or the end of December 2020. There's no way the UK will have completed a trade deal with the EU by then, unless it accedes to every EU demand. Recall that the comparatively uncomplicated Canada trade agreement took seven years to negotiate and another year to obtain provisional approval. And Richard North points out another impediment to negotiations: " .the Commission has to be re-appointed next year and, after Brexit, it will not be fully in operation until the following November." Now there are still some important advantages to securing a transition agreement, and they may be mainly political (who wants to be caught holding that bag?) but the differences may not be as significant for the EU as the UK. The UK will wind up having the dislocations somewhat spread out, first having to contend with falling out of all the trade deals with third countries that it now has through the EU in March 2019, and then losing its "single market" status with the EU at the end of 2020. But will the UK also be so preoccupied with trying to stitch up deals with the rest of the world that it loses its already not great focus on what to do with the EU?

That isn't to say there won't be meaningful benefits to the UK if it can conclude a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU and win a transition period. For instance, it has a dim hope of being able to get its border IT systems upgraded so as to handle much greater transaction volumes, a feat that seems pretty much unattainable by March 2019.

Two more cautionary note regarding these divergent news stories. The first is that we've seen this sort of thing before and generally, the optimistic reports have not panned out. However, they have generally ben from unnamed sources. While we do have a very thin BBC article with Jean-Claude Junkcer saying the odds of a deal had improved and Tusk making cautiously optimistic noises, Leo Vardarkar was more sober and the piece even admitted, "However, there is still no agreement on some issues, including how to avoid new checks on the Irish border."

Second, they appear to be mainly about claimed progress or deadlocks on the trade front. Recall that Article 50 makes only a passing reference to "the future relationship," which is only a non-binding political declaration. However, these issue seems to have assumed more importance than it should on the UK end, because it has become a forcing device for the coalition to settle on what sort of Brexit it wants .and it remains fundamentally divided, as demonstrated by last week's Conservative Party conference. By contrast, there seems to be little news on the real sticking point, the Irish border.

So to the rumors:

The EU has offered the UK a "Canada plus plus plus" deal . Even if you take the Guardian story at face value, there is less there there than the breathless reactions in the UK would lead you to believe.

First, recall that "Canada plus plus plus" has long been derided by the EU as yet another way for the UK to try to cherry pick among the possible post-Brexit arrangements. Boris Johnson nevertheless talked it up as a preferred option to May's too-soft Chequers scheme at the Tory conference . and May did not mention Chequers . Did EU pols take that to mean May had abandoned Chequers to appease the Ultras?

However, as we read things (and we need to watch our for our priors), Donald Tusk appears to be mouthing a pet UK expression to convey a different idea:

Tusk said the EU remained ready to offer the UK a "Canada-plus-plus-plus deal" – a far-reaching trade accord with extra agreements on security and foreign policy.

That reads as a Canada style free trade agreement plus additional pacts on non-trade matters. That is not what "Canada plus plus plus" signified on the UK side: it meant the UK getting a free trade deal with other (typically not specified) goodies so as to make it "special" and more important, reduce friction.

The Ultras were over the moon to have Tusk dignify Johnson's blather, even as the very next paragraph of the Guardian story revealed the outtrade over what "Canada plus plus plus" stands for:

Boris Johnson and other hard Brexit Tories seized on Tusk's remarks, arguing they showed it was time for May to immediately switch tack and abandon her Chequers proposals for remaining in a customs union for food and goods. "Tusk's Canada-plus-plus-plus offer shows there is a superb way forward that can solve the Irish border problem and deliver a free-trade-based partnership that works well for both sides of the channel," Johnson said.

If you managed to get further into the story, it sounded more cautionary notes:

Some Brexiters overlook that the EU's version of a so-called Canada deal incorporates a guarantee to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland, which would keep Northern Ireland in the EU customs union and single market. "Canada plus-plus-plus" is also a fuzzy concept that has no formal status in EU negotiating documents. Michel Barnier, the bloc's chief negotiator, mentioned the idea in an interview with the Guardian and other papers last year.

"I don't know what Canada-plus-plus-plus means, it is just a concept at this stage," Varadkar said, adding that it did not negate the need for a "legally binding backstop" – a guarantee to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland if there is no agreement on the future trading relationship.

EU to let UK super fudge on "future relationship." Another Guardian story reported that the EU might let the UK sign an even less committal version of the "future relationship" section , allowing the UK to "evolve" [gah] its position during the transition period. Frankly, this seems to be allowing for a change in government. I don't see this as that meaningful a concession, since this statement was never legally binding. However, given that Parliament must ratify the final agreement, formally registering that that section isn't set in stone probably would facilitate passage as well as any future change in direction. And if you suspect this is a big dog whistle to Labour, you be right:

An EU source said: "The message to Labour is that the UK could move up Barnier's stairs if the British government changes its position in the transition period. Voting in favour of the deal now would not be the last word on it."

May whips Labour for Chequers . You thought May gave up on Chequers? Silly you! She just had the good sense to go into her famed submarine mode while Boris was having yet another turn in the limelight. From the Telegraph :

Ministers are in talks with as many as 25 Labour MPs to force through Theresa May's Chequers Brexit deal risking open warfare with the party's own MPs.

The Government's whips' office has spent recent months making contact with the MPs as a back-up option for when Theresa May's Brexit deal is put to a vote in Parliament in early December, The Daily Telegraph has been told.

News of the wooing operation has infuriated Eurosceptic Tory MPs who are now threatening to vote against elements of the Budget and other "money bills" to force Mrs May to drop her Chequers plan.

If true, this is very high stakes poker. Brexit Central says there are 34 Tory MPs who have already declared they will oppose any "deal based on Chequers". And, to change metaphors, they appear ready to go nuclear if they have to. From the Times:

Brexiteers have issued a last-ditch threat to vote down the budget and destroy the government unless Theresa May takes a tougher line with Brussels -- amid signs that she is on course to secure a deal with the European Union.

Leading members of the hardline European Research Group (ERG) last night vowed to vote down government legislation after it was claimed the prime minister will use Labour MPs to push her plan through the Commons.

I turned to Richard North's site after I had pretty much finished this post, and he finds the Telegraph story as peculiar as I do :

Reporting of the key issue of our times gets more bizarre by the day. The latest contribution to the cacophony is the Telegraph, telling us that Ministers are in talks with as many as 25 Labour MPs "to force through Theresa May's Chequers Brexit deal".

That approaches are being made to Labour MPs is not news, but the idea that attempts to sell them the Chequers deal confounds recent indications that the prime minister is preparing to roll out "Chequers II", with enough concessions to all the Commission to conclude a withdrawal agreement.

If we are looking at such a new deal, then it cannot be the case that anyone is attempting to convince Labour MPs of the merits of the old deal. And, even if Ministers succeeded in such a task, it would be to no avail. Chequers, as such, will never come to parliament for approval because it will never form the basis of a deal that can be accepted by Brussels.

That should consign the Telegraph story to the dustbin now piled high with incoherent speculation, joining the steady flow of reports which are struggling – and failing – to bring sense to Brexit.

EU to announce "minimalist" no-deal emergency plans . Interestingly, the Financial Times has not had any articles in the last few days on the state of UK/EU negotiations. It instead depicted the EU as about to turn up the heat on the UK by publishing a set of "no deal" damage containment plans. I've never understood the line of thought, which seems to be taken seriously on both sides of the table, that acting like a responsible government and preparing for a worst-case scenario was somehow an underhanded negotiation ploy. 1 The pink paper nevertheless pushes that notion:

Brussels is planning to rattle the UK by unveiling tough contingency measures for a no-deal Brexit that could force flight cancellations and leave exporters facing massive disruption if Britain departs the EU without an exit agreement in March.

Subtext: it's the EU's fault all those bad things could happen .when it is the UK that is suing for divorce. Back to the story:

Against expectations in London, the plan is likely to encompass a limited number of initiatives over a maximum of eight months, diplomats who have seen the document told the Financial Times.

Notably, the EU is not planning special arrangements for customs or road transport and only limited provisions for financial services -- a decision that, if seen through, would cause long queues and operational difficulties at ports and airports.

The minimalist emergency plan, designed to be rolled out should there be no breakthrough in Brexit talks, would increase the pressure over already fraught negotiations between the UK and the EU ahead of a summit on 17 October. EU plans would then be firmed up by December .

The commission has thus far resisted outlining details of its plans for a no-deal Brexit for fear it would disrupt tense negotiations. But with just six months to go before Brexit, EU member states have pressed Brussels to speed up its preparations in case no deal is agreed in time.

Brussels will outline general principles for deciding the fields requiring special measures, which must only mitigate significant disruptions in areas of "vital union interest". The measures would be applied by the EU until the end of 2019 on a unilateral basis. They could be revoked with no notice, according to diplomats.

The plans are intended to enable basic air services, allowing flights to land and fly straight back to the UK, and to extend air safety certificates and security exemptions for UK travellers in transit. Visa-free travel is envisaged for British citizens, as long as it is reciprocated

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/5606f710-c8ac-11e8-ba8f-ee390057b8c9

The commission has thus far resisted outlining details of its plans for a no-deal Brexit for fear it would disrupt tense negotiations. But with just six months to go before Brexit, EU member states have pressed Brussels to speed up its preparations in case no deal is agreed in time.

Brussels will outline general principles for deciding the fields requiring special measures, which must only mitigate significant disruptions in areas of "vital union interest". The measures would be applied by the EU until the end of 2019 on a unilateral basis. They could be revoked with no notice, according to diplomats.

The plans are intended to enable basic air services, allowing flights to land and fly straight back to the UK, and to extend air safety certificates and security exemptions for UK travellers in transit. Visa-free travel is envisaged for British citizens, as long as it is reciprocated.

And then we have the stories that are head-scratchers. The Sun reports that Barnier says a deal is nigh .based on:

Hopes of progress have been fuelled by expectations that Theresa May has come forward with a compromise solution to the Irish border.

The PM will propose keeping the whole of the UK in a customs union as a final fallback but allowing Northern Ireland to stick to EU regulations.

The EU has rejected having the UK collect EU customs post Brexit. Moreover, a customs union, as we've said repeatedly, does not give the UK its keenly-sounght frictionless trade. Making Northern Ireland subject to EU regulations means accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ, since compliance is not a matter of having a dusty rule book, but of being part of the same regulatory apparatus. Aside from the fact that this solution won't be acceptable to the DUP, it would also result in a hard land border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. So are we to take this as incomprehension on the part of the Sun's reporters, or that the Government's negotiators continue to be as thick as a brick? Sadly, the Guardian tells a similar tale :

Ministers expect to discuss Brexit in a week's time when some hope that officials will have clarified how the UK proposes to handle cross-border regulatory checks if no progress is made on agreeing a free trade deal with the EU.

There has been speculation that this solution could involve the whole of the UK agreeing to be part of a common customs area with the EU in order to avoid the possibility of an invisible border separating Northern Ireland from Great Britain, in the event that no long-term deal is signed.

Richard North has the best take. He points the rumors from the UK side come from people who present themselves as being on the inside but probably aren't, or not enough to have a good feel, and continues :

Yet nothing seems to be leaking from No.10, with officials saying merely that proposals would emerge "soon". Says the Guardian, these are likely to form the basis of technical negotiations with Brussels "as officials scramble to find a form of words for the withdrawal agreement that the UK proposes to sign with the EU".

Any such timing will, of necessity, rule out any formal consideration by the October European Council. Those who understand the detail will know that, before anything can be considered by the European Council, it must first be agreed by the General Affairs Council, meeting as 27.

Currently, this is scheduled for 16 October (Tuesday week) – a day before the Article 50 European Council which starts its two-day session on the 17th. On the face of it, there doesn't seem to be enough time to factor in any last-minute proposals from London, especially as details must first be circulated to Member State capitals for comment.

This does nothing, though, but confirm that which we already know – that if there is to be a final showdown, then it is going to come at the special meeting in November (if this actually happens), or even the meeting scheduled for 13-14 December.

Even the rumor mills don't give much reason to think there is a solution to the Irish border. If May really hasn't abandoned Chequers, all the fudging to come up with a content-free "future relationship" section will be to the detriment of UK citizens, since the Government will keep holding on to a Brexit plan that the EU will never accept. But the best interests of ordinary people have gotten short shrift all along.

[Oct 09, 2018] How to Maliciously Smear Your Critics (and Not Get Away with It) by C.J. Hopkins

Notable quotes:
"... focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible ..."
Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Because that is precisely how the smear game works. The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him .

This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them. If you've followed the fake "Labour Anti-Semitism" scandal, you've witnessed this tactic deployed against Corbyn , who unfortunately fell right into the trap and gave the smearers the upper hand.

No, the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale), is to resist the temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible . It is difficult to resist this temptation, especially when the people smearing you have significantly more power and influence than you do, and are calling you a racist and an anti-Semite, but, trust me, the moment you start defending yourself, the game is over, and the smearers have won.

Peasant , says: October 1, 2018 at 2:20 pm GMT

@Justsaying The evidence is that before Cockburn died Counterpunch would routinely publish articles which were basically honest about Israel (ie not terribly flattering) and now does not (as it states in the article above viewpoints of the extreme left and right ie genuine critique will not be tolerated so only critique from inside established paradigms will be allowed-just like every other media outlet).

Counterpunch used to be outside of the Jewish paradigm (ie it was genuinely leftist) but now will be just another gelded publication. Cockburn did a good job of fending off criticism-Counterpunch was a rather niche publication so it flew under the radar of the Jews.

Counterpunch was routinely critical of the neocons and even pointed out their Jewishness but a lot of liberal Jews did not like the neocons. Israel was and is the real litmus test.

The Guardian always had Alan Rusbridger who I beleive was Jewish. It is not exactly funded by Jewish money- it mainly subsists off of government departments advertising public sector jobs. Before the rise of the internet and gumtree etc it was mainly funded by sales of autotrader a car trading magazine (lol at the nost po faced anti pollution newspaper being funded by the sales of cars).

What changed is that the Jews are no longer able to control the narrative- they used to feel they could afford semi-critical comments about Israel before but not any more. This has gone hand in hand with increased efforts to censor the internet. The Jews were able to infiltrate BDS and subvert it, they were able to use their explicit power to pass anti BDS laws but they were not able to really turn the tide of public opinion. They have resorted to outright censorship.

As you say it is not suprising that Counterpunch was taken over any publication/organisation that wants to work outside of established Jewish limits on intellectual discourse will eventually be subverted. Just look at the British Labour party. Corbyn is an old school lefists (ie he wants to give people options other than the new labour globalist neo liberalism) and a very principaled one. He stands up for the Palestinians (some people say he just does this because of his Muslim constituents but that is not the case-he has always stood up for them) and as a result has been smeared time and time again by the Jewish press.

There is a power struggle in the Labour party (Muslim ethnics weight of numbers vs Jewish money) and it looks like the Jews will win.

It's very sad and like I said I hope the new Counterpunch will fold leaving Cockburn's histroy of excellent journalism unsullied.

[Sep 23, 2018] European Union (EU) leaders rebuffed Theresa May appeal to give at least conditional support to her Chequers proposal for a "soft Brexit."

Sep 23, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star September 22, 2018 at 11:49 am

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/09/22/euro-s22.html

From the Super Schadenfreude Press:

"UK Prime Minister Theresa May suffered political humiliation in Salzburg, when European Union (EU) leaders rebuffed her appeal to give at least conditional support to her Chequers proposal for a "soft Brexit."

May was given only 10 minutes to address EU heads of state Wednesday, after dinner at the informal summit, during which she appealed to her audience, "You are participants in our debate, not just observers."

She said she had counted on at least supportive noises for her "serious and workable" plan, given that she was seeking to head off a potential challenge from the "hard-Brexit"/Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party. She warned that the UK could be torn apart -- with respect to Northern Ireland and Scotland, as well as by social tensions; that if her government fell, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party could win a general election; and cited the potential damage to the EU itself of lost trade, investment and military support from the UK.

Instead, her address was met with silence and her implied threats were stonewalled, as the main players within the EU combined the next day to declare her proposals to be "unworkable.

No matter how these conflicts play out, Britain and the whole of Europe face a worsening crisis that threatens to tear the EU apart. The growth of both inter-imperialist and social antagonisms found dramatic form in Brexit, which the dominant sections of the City of London, big business, all the major parties and Britain's allies in the US and Europe all opposed. Yet two years later, May is fighting a desperate struggle against her anti-EU "hard-Brexit" faction, the US is led by a president who has declared his support for the breakup of the EU, and numerous far-right governments have taken power in part by exploiting popular hostility to EU-dictated austerity."

"worsening crisis that threatens to tear the EU-(and hence NATO)- apart. " .

:O)

[Sep 22, 2018] A confidential report by Belgian investigators confirms that British intelligence services hacked state-owned Belgian telecom giant Belgacom on behalf of Washington

Sep 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al September 21, 2018 at 1:28 pm

Euractiv with AFP: Belgian inquest implicates UK in phone spying
https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/belgian-inquest-implicates-uk-in-phone-spying/

A confidential report by Belgian investigators confirms that British intelligence services hacked state-owned Belgian telecom giant Belgacom on behalf of Washington, it was revealed on Thursday (20 September).

The report, which summarises a five-year judicial inquiry, is almost complete and was submitted to the office of Justice Minister Koen Geens, a source close to the case told AFP, confirming Belgian press reports

The matter will now be discussed within Belgium's National Security Council, which includes the Belgian Prime Minister with top security ministers and officials.

Contacted by AFP, the Belgian Federal Prosecutor's Office and the cabinet of Minister Geens refused to comment .
####

NO. Shit. Sherlock.

So the real question is that if this has known since 2013, why now? BREXIT?

[Sep 21, 2018] On Brexit, UK Negotiators Have Adopted a Hard Bargaining Strategy

Notable quotes:
"... The EU is not perfect and has costs, but measured against what it has achieved, it is a great success. ..."
"... The EU has brought peace to Europe for the longest period since Pax Romana (and that was not entirely peaceful). ..."
"... You're funny. The EU makes war by other means. The burden of disease in Greece, health loss, risk factors, and health financing, 2000–16: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanpub/PIIS2468-2667(18)30130-0.pdf ..."
"... The mortality rate for Greece is up approximately 50,000. All so Merkel in Germany, and Sarkozy and Hollande didn't have to go before their electorates and admit they were bailing out French and German banks through the backdoor. ..."
"... I guess all those little Balkan unpleasantnesses, the former Czechoslovakia and Bosnia and such, are not wars -- but then those are layable at the feet of NATO (that collection, as I recall it, of what, now, 29 member countries including all the Great Powers of the West) and the US imperium. ..."
"... The NATO establishment is about "making war," ..."
"... All of which is linked in significant ways to the economic "health" of the EU, from which lots of weapons flow in exchange for favors and money from the Destabilizers. ..."
"... In the meantime, the various stages are set, the players in the game of statism and nationalism and authoritarianism and neoliberalism are on their marks, the house lights are going out, and the long slow rise of the curtain is under way ..."
"... The period from the end of WWII to the Balkan Wars is still the longest period of peace since the Romans. I doubt you have ever lived through a war so I can't expect you to appreciate the difference between the Horrors of the Brussels Bureaucracy and the Horrors of Shelling and Bombing. ..."
"... I am not defending poor governance per se for the sake of defending the EU. But it is facile and fun to criticize it because one can make up all kinds of counter fantasies about how wonderful life would be without it. ..."
"... in the real world ..."
"... in the real world ..."
"... Ultimately, it's that simple. Merkel, Sarkozy, Hollande, and whoever else among the EU elites who chose to be complicit in killing substantial numbers of people so they could maintain themselves in power are scum. They are scum. They are scum. ..."
"... Fine, our elected leaders are all scum, but why does this mean that the EU is evil specifically. Why single it out? Why not advocate the overthrow of all centralized or unifying government? Move out to Montana to a cult and buy lots of guns or something. ..."
"... Ons should be very aware that EU directives comes mainly from the member states and that especially bad things that would never fly past an election could – and often is – spun by local government as "Big Bad Bruxelles is forcing poor little us to do this terrible thing to you poor people". Ala the British on trade deal with India and immigration of east-european workers. ..."
"... The EU does not have that much in the way of enforcement powers, that part is down-sourced to the individual member states. When a member state doesn't give a toss, it takes forever for some measure of sanctioning to spin up and usually it daily fines unto a misbehaving government, at the taxpayers expense (which of course those politicians who don't give a toss, are fine with since most of their cronies are not great taxpayers anyway). ..."
"... The solution is, patently, Tories out of power. Which I think will happen, certainly between now and 31 March 2019. Now would be better. Anyone thinking strategically in other parties in the UK (an oxymoron of a formulation, to be sure) would call for a no confidence vote the instant May's feet are on British soil. ..."
"... I doubt that this is personal, but what do I know. May is a nincompoop. The other heads of state patently, and quite rightly, don't respect her. Her presence has been useful to them only insofar as she could deliver a deal. ..."
"... I'd agree with your analysis of what happened – just glancing through the news today it seems that Macron in particular just lost patience, and the other leaders were happy to help him put the boot in. The EU has been trying to shore May up for a long time – the December agreement was little more than an attempt to protect her from an internal heave. This is a common dynamic in the EU – however much the leaders may dislike each other, they will usually prefer the person at the seat than the potential newcomer. ..."
"... But I think the EU has collectively decided that May is simply incapable of delivering any type of agreement, so there is no point in mincing words. They simply don't care any more if the Tory government collapses, or if they put Rees Mogg or Johnson in power. It makes absolutely zero difference to them. In fact, it might make it easier for the EU if the UK goes politically insane as they can then wash their hands of the problem. ..."
"... A colleague told me today he knows of several Northern Irish Republicans who voted leave, precisely because they thought this would create constitutional havoc and lead to a united Ireland. It seems at least some people were thinking strategically . ..."
"... British politicians apparently were supposed to negotiate Brexit among themselves. And once they had reached a (tentative) consensus the foreigners (the EU) were apparently supposed to bow down and accept the British proposal. ..."
"... Which means I never understood why the British media was treating the Chequers proposal as a serious proposal? And spending lots of time and articles discussing on how to convince the EU / the member states. ..."
"... As a Scot can I point out that it is English politicians who are responsible for this mess? ..."
Sep 21, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Posted on September 20, 2018 by Yves Smith Yves here. While the specific observations in this post will be very familiar to readers (you've said the same things in comments!), I beg to differ with calling the Government's Brexit negotiating stance a strategy. It's bad habit plus lack of preparation and analysis.

And the UK's lack of calculation and self-awareness about how it is operating means it will be unable to change course.

By Benjamin Martill, a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Dahrendorf Forum where he focuses on Europe after Brexit. He is based at LSE IDEAS, the London School of Economics's foreign policy think tank. The Dahrendorf Forum is a joint research venture between LSE and the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin. Originally published at openDemocracy

But is this the best strategy for advancing British interests? Here is the argument based on the findings of a recent Dahrendorf Forum working paper .

All eyes in British politics are on the negotiations between the UK and the EU over the terms of the forthcoming British withdrawal from the Union, or Brexit. Surprisingly, questions of bargaining strategy – once the preserve of diplomats and niche academic journals – have become some of the most defining issues in contemporary British politics.

The New Politics of Bargaining

Cabinet disagreements over the conduct of the negotiations led to the resignation of David Davis and Boris Johnson in early July 2018 and the issue continues to divide the ruling Conservative party. Theresa May's most recent statements have all addressed the question of how hard she has pushed Brussels in the talks.

But is the hard bargaining strategy appropriate, or will it ultimately harm the UK? The salience of this question should occasion deeper analysis of the fundamentals of international bargaining, given the extent to which the course of British politics will be determined by the government's performance (or perceived performance) in the Brexit talks.

Driving a Hard Bargain

A hard-bargaining strategy isn't necessarily a poor one. To the extent it is workable, it may even represent the sensible option for the UK.

Hard bargaining is characterised by negative representations of negotiating partners, unwillingness to make concessions, issuance of unrealistic demands, threats to damage the partner or exit the negotiations, representations of the talks in zero-sum terms, failure to provide argumentation and evidence, and withholding of information. From diplomats' portrayal of the EU as an uncooperative and bullying negotiating partner to a set of demands recognised as unrealistic in Brussels and Britain alike, the UK's approach to the Brexit negotiations scores highly on each of these measures.

The consensus in the academic literature is generally that hard bargaining works only where a given party has a relative advantage . Powerful states have an incentive to engage in hard bargaining, since by doing so they will be able to extract greater concessions from weaker partners and maximise the chance of achieving an agreement on beneficial terms.

But weaker actors have less incentive to engage in hard bargaining, since they stand to lose more materially if talks break down and reputationally if they're seen as not being backed by sufficient power,

So which is Britain?

Power Distribution

The success of hard bargaining depends on the balance of power. But even a cursory examination would seem to confirm that the UK does not hold the upper hand in the negotiations. Consider three standard measures of bargaining power: a country's economic and military capabilities, the available alternatives to making a deal, and the degree of constraint emanating from the public.

When it comes to capabilities, the UK is a powerful state with considerable economic clout and greater military resources than its size would typically warrant. It is the second-largest economy in the EU (behind Germany) and its GDP is equal to that of the smallest 19 member states. And yet in relative terms, the combined economic and military power of the EU27 dwarves that of the UK: the EU economy is five times the size of the UK's.

Next, consider the alternatives. A 'no deal' scenario would be damaging for both the UK and the EU, but the impact would be more diffuse for the EU member states. They would each lose one trading partner, whereas the UK would lose all of its regional trading partners. Moreover, the other powers and regional blocs often cited as alternative trading partners (the US, China, the Commonwealth, ASEAN) are not as open as the EU economy to participation by external parties, nor are they geographically proximate (the greatest determinant of trade flows), nor will any deal be able to replicate the common regulatory structure in place in the EU. This asymmetric interdependence strongly suggests that the UK is in greater need of a deal than the EU.

Finally, consider the extent of domestic constraints. Constraint enhances power by credibly preventing a leader from offering too generous a deal to the other side. On the EU side the constraints are clear: Barnier receives his mandate from the European Council (i.e. the member states) to whom he reports frequently. When asked to go off-piste in the negotiations, he has replied that he does not have the mandate to do so. On the UK side, by contrast, there is no such mandate. British negotiators continually cite Eurosceptic opposition to the EU's proposals in the cabinet, the Conservative party, and the public, but they are unable to guarantee any agreement will receive legislative assent, and cannot cite any unified position.

Perceptions of Power

But the real power distribution is not the only thing that matters. While the EU is the more powerful actor on objective criteria, a number of key assumptions and claims made by the Brexiteers have served to reinforce the perception that Britain has the upper hand.

First, on the question of capabilities, the discourse of British greatness (often based on past notions of power and prestige) belies the UK's status as a middle power (at best) and raises unrealistic expectations of what Britain's economic and military resources amount to. Second, on the question of alternatives, the oft-repeated emphasis on 'global Britain' and the UK's stated aim to build bridges with its friends and allies around the globe understates the UK's reliance on Europe, the (low) demand for relations with an independent Britain abroad, and the value of free trade agreements or other such arrangements with third countries for the UK. Third, on the question of domestic constraint, the post-referendum discourse of an indivisible people whose wishes will be fulfilled only through the implementation of the Brexit mandate belies the lack of consensus in British politics and the absence of a stable majority for either of the potential Brexit options, including the 'no deal', 'hard', or 'soft' variants of Brexit. Invoking 'the people' as a constraint on international action, in such circumstances, is simply not credible.

Conclusion

Assumptions about Britain's status as a global power, the myriad alternatives in the wider world, and the unity of the public mandate for Brexit, have contributed to the overstatement of the UK's bargaining power and the (false) belief that hard bargaining will prove a winning strategy.

Britain desperately needs to have an honest conversation about the limits of the UK's bargaining power. This is not 'treasonous', as ardent Brexiteers have labelled similar nods to reality, but is rather the only way to ensure that strategies designed to protect the national interest actually serve this purpose. Power is a finite resource that cannot be talked into existence. Like a deflating puffer fish, the UK's weakness will eventually become plain to see. The risk is that before this occurs, all bridges will be burned, all avenues exhausted, and all feathers ruffled.

The arguments in this blog are based on the findings of a Dahrendorf Forum working paper by Benjamin Martill and Uta Staiger titled ' Cultures of Negotiation: Explaining Britain's Hard Bargaining in the Brexit Negotiations '.

The opinions expressed in this blog contribution are entirely those of the author and do not represent the positions of the Dahrendorf Forum or its hosts Hertie School of Governance and London School of Economics and Political Science or its funder Stiftung Mercator.


larry , September 20, 2018 at 10:30 am

I tend to agree that there is no real strategy on the UK's part. May resembles a broken record, where she says much the same thing over and over again, seemingly expecting a different response each time. Although Einstein said that he probably never made the claim about what insanity consists of, it is often attributed to him -- doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is the very definition of insanity. How the government expects that this sort of behavior will bring desirable results is beyond me.

Schofield , September 20, 2018 at 10:35 am

Both UK and EU politicians are talking past each other. Neither side understands there are two key issues. Firstly, not understanding the economic effects stemming from the failure to understand how money is created and how it can be manipulated for global trading advantage. Secondly, that the UK is high up the list for "cultural tightness" and the reasons for this.

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/6df109_a5da34d6a9ae4114be82ccf4b024a2b2.pdf

PlutoniumKun , September 20, 2018 at 10:37 am

The other element of course of a negotiation is getting potential allies to roll up behind you. At the start of this the UK had a series of potential 'friends' it could call on – eurosceptics governments in Eastern Europe, close historic friends and political like minded governments in Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland. And of course non-EU countries like India or the US with historic links.

They somehow managed to anger or frustrate nearly all of those though its heavy handed negotiations or laughable lack of political empathy.

It must be emphasised that the current Irish government is ideologically and instinctively very pro-London. And yet, today RTE is reporting about the latest meeting between May and Varadkar:

The source said there was "an open exchange of views" between both sides, with the Irish delegation emphasising that the time was short and "we need to get to the stage where we can consider a legal text" on the backstop.

The source described British proposals so far as "only an outline, and we haven't seen specific proposals from the British side."

This can only be translated as 'what the hell are they playing at?'

The Indians of course were amusedly baffled by the British assumption that they would welcome open trade (without lots of new visas for Indian immigrants). Trump just smelt the blood of a wounded animal. The Russians are well

Jim A. , September 20, 2018 at 12:40 pm

"an open exchange of views" Which is a diplomat's way of saying that there was a shouting match and no agreement.

PlutoniumKun , September 20, 2018 at 3:31 pm

I imagine it as being a little like this (not work safe if you have audio on).

HotFlash , September 20, 2018 at 8:27 pm

Mercy! I will save and share this. Thank you, Pu-kun.

Fazal Majid , September 20, 2018 at 3:37 pm

The British cited the EU's inability to conclude a free-trade agreement with India as one example of the EU's failings a revitalized Global Britain would no longer be shackled by. That's quite rich considering the FTA was torpedoed when the British Home Secretary vetoed increased visas for the Indians. Her name was Theresa May.

HotFlash , September 20, 2018 at 8:34 pm

True? Comedy gold!

fajensen , September 21, 2018 at 5:20 am

They somehow managed to anger or frustrate nearly all of those

Somehow?

The brits basically said: We are special people, much, much better, richer and stronger than you sorry lot of Peons to Brussels(tm), so now you shall see sense and give us what we want this week; you can call it your tribute if you like (because we don't care what you like :)

Half the Danes are fed up with the whole thing and the other half would be egging on a hard Brexit if only they could – knowing it will likely take out at least some of the worst and most overleveraged (and gorged with tax-paid subsidies) Anti-Environmentalist Danish industrial farmers, their bankers too. And diminish the power of their lobbyists: "Landbrug & Fødevarer"!

The good part is that: the British and the Danish governments have managed to make "being ruled by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels" look like a pretty much OK & decent deal, considering the alternative options: Being ruled by our local crazies, straight-up nutters and odious nincompoops (a word i like), half of whom, to top it up, are probably mere soulless proxies for those ghouls that are running Washington DC.

Tom Stone , September 20, 2018 at 11:11 am

Always bet on stupid.
Because human stupidity is infinite.

JTMcPhee , September 20, 2018 at 11:30 am

Though it often fits neatly into one of four categories, described here:

"The basic laws of human stupidity,"

http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/

Seems we humans are pretty good at inventing negative-sum games that we belieeeve are zero-sum

Watt4Bob , September 20, 2018 at 12:27 pm

It seems more and more to me, that never ending class warfare, and its current emphasis on austerity, leaves us unable to envision alternate routes to economic health.

The neo-liberal consensus mandates that our ruling class never questions its own tactics, ie dog-whistle racism to distract and divide the lower classes to enable all the looting.

So on both sides of the Atlantic, the rulers of English speakers stir up resentment amongst those at the bottom in order to secure votes, and maintain power, while never intending to follow through on promises to provide tangible material benefits to their constituents.

The looting goes on, the trail of broken promises grows longer, and the misery deepens.

The issue being ignored is that the folks at the bottom have reached the limit of their ability to maintain life and limb in the face of downward economic pressure.

We've finally reached the end game, we in America have been driven to Trumpism, and in Britain they've been driven to Brexit by the clueless efforts of pols to maintain power in the face of electorates who have decided they have had enough, and will absolutely not take the SOS anymore.

So we have the nonsensical situation of pols on both sides of the Atlantic flirting with economic collapse, and even civil war rather than moderate their irrational fixation on making the insanely rich even richer.

In both cases we have a cast of alternating villains robbing and beating us while waving flags and loudly complaining that we aren't showing the proper level of enthusiasm.

Which leaves me with one question for those villains;

Where you gonna hide.

Hayek's Heelbiter , September 21, 2018 at 8:09 pm

Yup.

Why no one, especially the punditocracy seems to realize this, is astonishing.

I also cannot believe the Old Gray Lady killing millions of trees in its shrill efforts to prove the Russians cost Hilary the election and nary a word about how totally fed up and voiceless (with the exception of a single presidential vote) are those in the Great Flyover.

Also find it amazing that the Beeb with rudimentary linguistic forensic analysis identified Mike Pence as almost certainly the author of the scathing anti-Trump memo the NYT published anonymously, without a single mention of this now widely-known fact.

disillusionized , September 20, 2018 at 12:28 pm

The problem is that brexiteers, almost to a man, thinks that the EU and the UK are equals.
That's what determines UK negotiating strategy, the ones who don't want to play hardball can't see the point in leaving, and the ones who wan't to leave, can't see the point of negotiating.
for all intents and purposes this is a accession negotiation in reverse, "then Sir Con O'Neill, the chief negotiator at official level in 1970-2, who commented that the only possible British approach to existing Community body of rules was 'Swallow the lot, and swallow it now'."

On a related note, while this was about the tactics of leaving, there has been some movement on the end state front, though not by the UK. Rather it seems that the EU has made up it's mind, and in my mind definitively scrapped the EEA option.
Several EU leaders (Pms of Malta and the Czech republic) have clearly stated that they wish to see a new referendum, and Macron said the following:
"Brexit is the choice of the British people pushed by those who predicted easy solutions. Those people are liars. They left the next day so they didn't have to manage it," Macron said on Thursday, vowing to "never" accept any Brexit deal, which would put the EU's integrity at risk.

I think the bridges have been burned, now it's surrender or revocation that's left to the UK, or stepping off the cliff edge.

tegnost , September 20, 2018 at 10:49 pm

The problem is that brexiteers, almost to a man, thinks that the EU and the UK are equals.
from a very great distance this does seem to be the case

TheScream , September 20, 2018 at 12:35 pm

It is astonishing to see that the UK still does not accept that the EU doesn't want it to go on principle more than for practical reasons. May and the others cling to the notion that without Great Britain, the EU will collapse or something. This is the same nation that has been foot-dragging on everything about Europe and slagging off the continent at every turn while pretending they are a Great Power and the BFF of the US. Trump does not care about Great Britain unless he needs some sort of zoning permission for his gold course, in which case he will cut a deal on trade or arms with May.

The Irish Border, assuming it remains open, is a massive concession and likely to lead to future problems as other EU nations try to have open borders or trade with their pet countries.

Brits on the Continent are worried about many things ranging from driver's licenses to residency visas! Not every Brit wants to live on that damp little island! Some like the sun and Continental cuisine.

JTMcPhee , September 20, 2018 at 12:44 pm

Is the EU a Great Idea to be Protected and Advanced, one that will inexorably result in ever greater benefits for the common people of the fainting nations that have been cat-herded into submitting to the "political union" that many very personally interested parties are always working toward? Like NATO is a Great Idea, not just a mechanism for global mischief and chaos? NATO gives "warfighters" a place to sit and play their games. Brussels gives "rules," at least some of which are sort of for public benefit, until the regulatory capturers work their magic. Profit and impunity, always for the few.

What is the organizing principle in all this? Likely can't be stated. Just a lot of interested parties squabbling over gobbets from the carcass torn from the planet

Maybe the 14th Century was not so very horrible after all? If one looks in "A Distant Mirror" at it, given where humanity seems to be, on the increasingly fleshed-out timeline of collapse?

OF course, one can always summon up the demoness TINA, to trump any efforts to take different paths

TheScream , September 20, 2018 at 1:09 pm

NATO was created to make war. The EU was created to make peace and prosperity. Comparing one to the other is unjust.

The EU is not some sacrosanct construct that must be worshiped, but it has brought peace to Europe for the longest period since Pax Romana (and that was not entirely peaceful). It has also promoted trade and prosperity. Europe has been even farther ahead of economic and regulatory integration than the US (phones and credit cards come to mind). Free movement of labor and travel have dropped costs for businesses and individuals immensely.

Now, whether or not human foibles enter into it is really another discussion. Is Brussels at times a giant Interest Machine and Bureaucratic Nightmare? Yes, but that is the negative face we see portrayed by anti-Europeans like the Brexiteers. The EU does a terrible job of self-promotion; citizens rarely know just how much the EU contributes to their lives. Perhaps the EU is afraid of drawing attention to itself. But the people making up the EU are not extraterrestrials; they are Europeans who make the same mistakes and commit the same fraud on a national level.

Many Americans criticize Europe while vaunting their own Federation. Why should California and Alabama share a currency, a passport and a Congress? There are more differences between those states than between France and Belgium or Italy and Spain.

The EU is not perfect and has costs, but measured against what it has achieved, it is a great success.

Mark Pontin , September 20, 2018 at 6:54 pm

The EU has brought peace to Europe for the longest period since Pax Romana (and that was not entirely peaceful).

You're funny. The EU makes war by other means. The burden of disease in Greece, health loss, risk factors, and health financing, 2000–16: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanpub/PIIS2468-2667(18)30130-0.pdf

The mortality rate for Greece is up approximately 50,000. All so Merkel in Germany, and Sarkozy and Hollande didn't have to go before their electorates and admit they were bailing out French and German banks through the backdoor.

TheScream , September 20, 2018 at 7:22 pm

If you want to start accounting for economic death by economic war, we can look at the US as recently as the financial crisis, though I doubt there are studies on the Homeland of this sort. Or US embargoes of vital medication and food in Iraq which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. And so on.

My point is not that the EU is perfect, but there has not been a war in Western Europe since 1945. You are welcome to spin and fiddle and search for anything you like (Gosh, all that free travel led to increases in traffic deaths! Ban the EU!). Of course, we would also need to examine what the EU has done for Europe and how many lives have been saved by improved infrastructure and exchange of information.

I am not defending poor governance per se for the sake of defending the EU. But it is facile and fun to criticize it because one can make up all kinds of counter fantasies about how wonderful life would be without it. Let's see how Great Britain does and then we can discuss this in a few years.

JTMcPhee , September 20, 2018 at 8:58 pm

I guess all those little Balkan unpleasantnesses, the former Czechoslovakia and Bosnia and such, are not wars -- but then those are layable at the feet of NATO (that collection, as I recall it, of what, now, 29 member countries including all the Great Powers of the West) and the US imperium.

The NATO establishment is about "making war," largely now displaced to other Woggish and Hajji places where the huge number of refugees that are moving into Eurospace are coming from (as a result of the largely economically driven (oil and other extraction interests) and Israeli and Saudi-enhanced large scale destabilizing war prosecution.

All of which is linked in significant ways to the economic "health" of the EU, from which lots of weapons flow in exchange for favors and money from the Destabilizers.

Yes, the EU notion of reducing the conflict generators of the past seems to be a good one. But surprise! In practice, you got your German hegemon and your French strutters and now of course the British bomb throwers pointing out, along with the renascent nationalism triggered in part by the hegemon's bleeding of other nations via Brussels and EU institutions, like Greece and Spain and Italy and so forth.

And of course the warring that the seamless economies of the EU (that includes their particpation in NATO) foster and participate in that drives the exodus of mopes from the Mideast and Africa. And how about the fun and games, with possible nuclear war consequences, that are playing out with EU and NATO and of course US Imperial Interests activity in Ukraine? And I see that the Krupp Werks has delivered a bunch of warships to various places (hasn't that happened a couple of times in the past? Thinking how particularly of Dolphin-class submarines paid for by Uncle Sucker, as in the US, and delivered to the Israel -ites who have equipped them with many nuclear-warhead cruise missiles? And thanks to the French, of course, and other Great Nations, the Israelis have nuclear weapons in the first place.

It's nice that the science parts of the EU structure are sort of working to keep US-made toxins and genetically modified crap and other bad stuff out of the Holy EU Empire. But hey, how many VW diesel vehicles on the road (thanks to some combination of corruption and incompetence on the part of the EU?) equals how much glyphosate and stacked-GM organisms barred by EU regulations? Lots of argument possible around the margins and into the core of the political economy/ies that make up the EU/NATO, and the Dead Empire across the Channel, and of course the wonderful inputs from the empire I was born into.

I guess the best bet would be to program some AI device to create a value structure (to be democratically studied and voted on, somehow?) and measure all the goods and bads of the EU, according to some kind of standard of Goodness to Mope-kind? Naw, power trumps all that of course, and "interests" now very largely denominated and dominated by supranational corporations that piss on the EU when not using its institutions as a means to legitimize their looting behaviors that sure look to me like an expression of a death wish from the human species.

There are always winners and losers in any human game, because at anything larger than the smallest scale, we do not appear wired to work from comity and commensalism. You sound from the little one can see of you from your comment as a person among the winners. Which is fine, all well and good, because of that "winners and losers" thing. Until either the mass vectors of human behavior strip the livability out of the biosphere, or some provocation or mischance leads to a more compendious and quicker, maybe nuclear, endpoint. Or maybe, despite the activities of the Panopticon and the various powers with forces in the polity to tamp it down, maybe there will be a Versailles moment, and "Aux Armes, Citoyens" will eventuate.

In the meantime, the various stages are set, the players in the game of statism and nationalism and authoritarianism and neoliberalism are on their marks, the house lights are going out, and the long slow rise of the curtain is under way

tegnost , September 20, 2018 at 10:45 pm

a worthy parlimentarian rant if I ever heard one

vlade , September 21, 2018 at 4:07 am

I suggest you read up on your recent European history. Czechoslovakia split entirely peacefully and it had exactly zero to do with either NATO or USA.

Yugoslavia had its problems ever since it was Yugoslavia in early 20th century – all Tito managed was to postpone it, and once he was gone, it was just a question of when, and how violent it would be. Serbian apologistas like to blame NATO, conveniently ignoring any pre-existing tensions between Croats and Serbs (not to mention ex-Yugoslavian muslims). Did NATO help? No. But saying it was the cause of the Serbo-Croat war and all the Yugoslavian fallout is ignorance.

What gets my goat is when someone blames everything on CIA, USA, NATO (or Russia and China for the matter), denying the small peoples any agency. Especially when that someone tends to have about zilch understanding of the regions in question, except from a selective reading.

Yep, CIA and NATO and the Illuminati (and Putin, to put it on both sides) are the all-powerful, all seeing, all-capable forces. Everyone else is a puppet. Right.

Lambert Strether , September 21, 2018 at 4:37 am

> I guess all those little Balkan unpleasantnesses, the former Czechoslovakia

TheScream , September 21, 2018 at 6:34 am

The period from the end of WWII to the Balkan Wars is still the longest period of peace since the Romans. I doubt you have ever lived through a war so I can't expect you to appreciate the difference between the Horrors of the Brussels Bureaucracy and the Horrors of Shelling and Bombing. From your lofty armchair, they might be the same but then again, perhaps you blame the socialists when your caramel latte is cold.

JTMcPhee , September 21, 2018 at 10:19 am

Lofty armchair? I actually volunteered and got the opportunity to go be a soldier in an actual war, the Vietnam one. So I have a darn good idea what War is in actuality and from unpleasant personal experience. And I don't have either the taste or the wealth for lattes. And forgive my aging failure of typing Czech instead of Yugo -- my point, too, is that the nations and sets of "peoples" living and involved in United Europe do in fact have "agency," and that is part of the fractiousness that the proponents of a federated Europe (seemingly under mostly German lead) are working steadily at suppressing. Not as effectively as a Federalist might want, of course.

Mark Pontin , September 20, 2018 at 10:03 pm

TheScream wrote: I am not defending poor governance per se for the sake of defending the EU. But it is facile and fun to criticize it because one can make up all kinds of counter fantasies about how wonderful life would be without it.

Wake up. I'm talking about what the European elite in the real world deliberately chose to do.

They chose to do a backdoor bailout of German and French banks specifically so Merkel, Sarkozy and Hollande and the governments they led didn't have to go to their electorates and tell them the truth. Thereby, they maintained themselves in power, and German and French wealth structures -- the frickin', frackin banks -- as they were. And they did this in the real world knowing that innocent people in Greece would die in substantial numbers consequently.

This is not a counterfactual. This happened.

There's a technical term for people who plan and execute policies where many thousands of people die so they themselves can benefit. That term is 'scum.'

Ultimately, it's that simple. Merkel, Sarkozy, Hollande, and whoever else among the EU elites who chose to be complicit in killing substantial numbers of people so they could maintain themselves in power are scum. They are scum. They are scum.

Don't get me started on people who defend such scum with threadbare waffle about 'I am not defending poor governance per blah blah it is facile and fun to criticize blah blah.' Nor interested in whataboutery about US elites, who as the main instigators of this 21st century model of finance as warfare are also scum.

TheScream , September 21, 2018 at 6:30 am

Fine, our elected leaders are all scum, but why does this mean that the EU is evil specifically. Why single it out? Why not advocate the overthrow of all centralized or unifying government? Move out to Montana to a cult and buy lots of guns or something.

My point is not that EU leaders are charming people working exclusively for the good of the people. My point is that the EU is not as bad as most of you believe and no worse than most other governments. It is simply an easy target because it is extra or supra-national. We can get all frothy at the mouth blaming Nazis and Frogs for our woes and ignore our personal failures.

I would love to insult you personally as you have insulted me, but I sense you are just ranting out of frustration. You hate the EU (are you even European or just some right-wing nutcase from America involving yourself in other's business?) and take it out on me. Go for it. Your arguments are irrelevant and completely miss the point of my comments.

fajensen , September 21, 2018 at 7:09 am

The EU does a terrible job of self-promotion; citizens rarely know just how much the EU contributes to their live

The EU is, very simplistically, set up like a shared Civil Service. Civil Services are to be seen rarely and never heard, less they take shine and glamour from the Government they serve.

What "Bruxelles" can do is to advise and create Directives, which are instructions to local government to create and enforce local legislation. The idea is that the legislation and enforcement will be similar in all EU member states.

Ons should be very aware that EU directives comes mainly from the member states and that especially bad things that would never fly past an election could – and often is – spun by local government as "Big Bad Bruxelles is forcing poor little us to do this terrible thing to you poor people". Ala the British on trade deal with India and immigration of east-european workers.

The EU does not have that much in the way of enforcement powers, that part is down-sourced to the individual member states. When a member state doesn't give a toss, it takes forever for some measure of sanctioning to spin up and usually it daily fines unto a misbehaving government, at the taxpayers expense (which of course those politicians who don't give a toss, are fine with since most of their cronies are not great taxpayers anyway).

ape , September 21, 2018 at 2:42 pm

"Maybe the 14th Century was not so very horrible after all?"

Hopefully sarcastic?

Dude -- black plague! 75 to 200 million dead! At a tie with a world population of 400 million, and 40 million of those may as well have been on Mars! China, ME, North Africa and Europe depopulated!

Time to really reconsider one's assumptions when one wonders whether the 14th century was "that bad".

JTMcPhee , September 21, 2018 at 3:15 pm

Dude, yes, sarcastic. And ironic. Doesn't change the horribleness of the present, does it now? Or the coming horrors (say some of us) that may have been inevitably priced in to the Great Global Market, does it

PlutoniumKun , September 20, 2018 at 12:51 pm

And in todays news:

Chequers Plan is Dead, says Tusk as Macron calls Brexiters Liars.

Donald Tusk, the European council president, has ratcheted up the pressure on Theresa May by rejecting the Chequers plan and warning of a breakdown in the Brexit talks unless she delivers a solution for the Irish border by October – a deadline the British prime minister had already said she will not be able to meet.

The stark threat to unravel the talks came as the French president, Emmanuel Macron, broke with diplomatic niceties and accused those of backing Brexit of being liars. "Those who explain that we can easily live without Europe, that everything is going to be all right, and that it's going to bring a lot of money home are liars," he said.
"It's even more true since they left the day after so as not to have to deal with it."

The comments came at the end of a leaders' summit in Salzburg, where May had appealed for the EU to compromise to avoid a no-deal scenario. She had been hoping to take warm words over Chequers into Conservative party conference.
Tusk, who moments before his comments had a short meeting with the prime minister, told reporters that he also wanted to wrap up successful talks in a special summit in mid-November.

But, in a step designed to pile pressure on the prime minister, he said this would not happen unless the British government came through on its commitment to finding a "precise and clear" so-called backstop solution that would under any future circumstances avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

"Without an October grand finale, in a positive sense of this word, there is no reason to organise a special meeting in November," Tusk said. "This is the only condition when it comes to this possible November summit."

It seems the EU leaders aren't even pretending anymore. Its pretty clear they have run out of patience, and May has run out of options. I wonder if they'll even bother with having the November summit.

begob , September 20, 2018 at 2:01 pm

He didn't call May a liar, so we'll have to see how her life support algo in the Daily Mail responds to this new input.

vlade , September 20, 2018 at 2:05 pm

If there's no November summit (which would make no-deal Brexit almost certainty), then the game becomes fast a and furious, as sterling will drop like a stone – with all sorts of repercussions. TBH, that can already be clear after the Tory party conference, it's entirely possible that that one will make any October Brexit discussions entirely irrelevant.

I think that EU overestimated May in terms of sensibility, and now accept that there's no difference between May and Johnson (in fact, with Johnson or someone like that, they will get certainy, so more time to get all ducks in row. Entirely cynically, clear no-deal Brexit Johnson would be better for EU than May where one has no idea what's going to happen).

Either way, this crop of politicians will make history books. Not sure in the way they would like to though.

Richard Kline , September 20, 2018 at 5:27 pm

Announced post-summit in Salzburg: no November summit absent a binding exit deal on the table by the end of October. So no: no November dealing.

I don't know that EU politicos overestimated May. She is what they had, and all they had, so they did their absolute best to prop up Rag Sack Terry as a negotiating partner, hoping that they could coax her to toddle over their red lines with enough willingness to listen to her hopeless twaddle first. She just shuffled and circled in place. So they've given up on her ability to deliver anything of value to them. One could see this coming in June, when she couldn't even get the sound of one hand clapping to her chipper nonsense over dinner.

I think that deciding heads in Europe have accepted the probability that crashout is coming. That was clear also in June. If something better happens, I suppose that they would leap at it. Nothing in the last two years engenders any hope in that regard, so hard heads are readying the winches to hoist the drawbridge on We're Dead to You Day.

If the Tories fall, which I think and have long thought is probable, it would be up to a 'unity government' to either initial a settlement surrender and keep the sham going, or flinch. My bet has been on pulling together some kind of flinch mechanism on aborting exit. It's the kind of year, as I model these, where wild swings of such kind are possible, but I couldn't predict the outcome anymore than anyone else.

PlutoniumKun , September 20, 2018 at 5:35 pm

My feeling for a while is that the government would never fall, whatever happened, simply because the Tories (and DUP) fear a Corbyn government too much, so would never, ever pull the trigger, no matter how bad things got. But if May falls at the Party Conference and is replaced with a hard Brexiter, I don't think its impossible that there may be a temptation that to see if they could whip up a nationalistic mood for a snap election. Some of them are gamblers by instinct. Anything could happen then.

Richard Kline , September 20, 2018 at 5:52 pm

I think Tory Remainers bolt, choosing keeping their own wallets rather than handing those over to the worst of their lot with everything else. But they would find a unity coalition more palatable than passing the microphone to Jerry the Red, yeah, so that's a bit sticky. A snap election is the worst kind of crazy town, and wolldn't improve negotiating or decision outcomes in the slightest -- so of course that may be the likeliest near term course! Won't get settled in a few weeks. Probably not until 20 March 2019.

Richard Kline , September 20, 2018 at 5:06 pm

This is just wowsers. Tusk, Macron, and Merkel baldly state that Chequers is mated -- "unacceptable" -- and furthermore gave the Tories a drop-dead date of 31 October to initial the divorce settlement. The process is a flat abandonment of Theresa May, concluding the obvious, that she and her government are incapable of negotiating exit. Going over her head to Parliament and public, in fact if not in pre-consisdered intent. -- And about time. I was worried that the EU would eat fudge in November with the Brits again on another pretend-to-agree accord like that of December 2017, which, as we have seen did nothing to induce the Tories to negotiate a viable outcome.

What was May's reaction? That she's perfectly prepared to lead Britain over the crashout cliff if the EU doesn't see fit to capitulate. I'd roll on the floor laughing but I can't catch my breath.

The next two weeks are going to be lively times in Britain indeed. I can't see how 'Suicide Terry's' government can survive this situation. -- And about high time. Put the poor brute out of her misery; she's delusional, can't they see how she's suffering? Push has come, so it's time to shove. Crashout or Flinch, those are the outcomes, now plainer than ever. All May can do is thrash and fabulate, so time to bag the body and swear in another fool; lesser or greater, we shall see.

PlutoniumKun , September 20, 2018 at 5:28 pm

Yes, I wonder was that planned, or (as is suggested in the latest Guardian articl e), motivated by anger at Mays criticism of Barnier?

EU sources said the move had been made on the bidding of Macron, who urged taking a hard line over lunch. The French president had been infuriated by May's warning earlier in the day to Varadkar that she believed a solution on the issue could not be found by October, despite previous promises to the contrary.

The tone of the prime minister's address to the EU leaders on Wednesday night, during which she attacked Michel Barnier, is also said by sources to have been the cause of irritation.

This obviously makes her very vulnerable at the party conference. Its hard to see what she can do now. She is toast I think.

I can only think of two reasons that they've closed the door firmly in her face. Either they have simply lost patience and now accept there is nothing can be salvaged, or they have lost patience with May personally, and hope that a new leader might do a deal out of desperation. The latter seems highly unlikely – a sudden Tory challenge is more likely to bring a hardliner into power.

Whichever way you look at it, things look certain to come to a head very soon now. The EU may have a hope that the UK will blink when staring into the abyss and agree to the backstop, but I don't see how politically this a capitulation is possible, at least with the Tories in power.

Richard Kline , September 20, 2018 at 5:44 pm

The solution is, patently, Tories out of power. Which I think will happen, certainly between now and 31 March 2019. Now would be better. Anyone thinking strategically in other parties in the UK (an oxymoron of a formulation, to be sure) would call for a no confidence vote the instant May's feet are on British soil.

I doubt that this is personal, but what do I know. May is a nincompoop. The other heads of state patently, and quite rightly, don't respect her. Her presence has been useful to them only insofar as she could deliver a deal. Macron looked at his watch and the date said, non on that. Just looking at his ambitions and how he operates, I would think he wanted to go this route quite some time ago, but the 'softly, softly' set such as the Dutch and Merkel wouldn't back that, and he was too smart to break ranks alone. That the Germans have given up on May is all one really needs to know. This was May's no confidence vote by the European Council, and she lost it over lunch.

PlutoniumKun , September 21, 2018 at 4:19 am

I'd agree with your analysis of what happened – just glancing through the news today it seems that Macron in particular just lost patience, and the other leaders were happy to help him put the boot in. The EU has been trying to shore May up for a long time – the December agreement was little more than an attempt to protect her from an internal heave. This is a common dynamic in the EU – however much the leaders may dislike each other, they will usually prefer the person at the seat than the potential newcomer.

But I think the EU has collectively decided that May is simply incapable of delivering any type of agreement, so there is no point in mincing words. They simply don't care any more if the Tory government collapses, or if they put Rees Mogg or Johnson in power. It makes absolutely zero difference to them. In fact, it might make it easier for the EU if the UK goes politically insane as they can then wash their hands of the problem.

ChrisPacific , September 20, 2018 at 5:20 pm

At this point it might actually be a blessing if that happened. There is likely to be a great deal of practical difference between a no-deal Brexit with six months of planning and preparation and a no-deal Brexit that takes everyone by surprise at the very last minute. (Yes, they will both be a nightmare, but some nightmares are worse than others). All this pretense that the other side is bluffing and will roll over at the 11th hour is starting to look like a convenient excuse for not facing reality. I don't think either side is bluffing.

Comments like "Britain desperately needs to have an honest conversation about the limits of the UK's bargaining power" might very well be true, but they're also irrelevant at this point. Certainly it would have been very useful if it had happened two years ago. Right now it's time to break out the life jackets.

Richard Kline , September 20, 2018 at 5:35 pm

Most Brits don't seem capable of mentally accepting how irrelevant they actually are internationally. They are NOT a 'power' in any other respect than that they have nuclear weapons under their launch authority (which they are never going to use). They have no weight. The City is, really other people's money that predominantly foreign nationals at trading desks play with, loose, steal, hide, and occasionally pay out. The UK economy isn't of any international consequence. Brits are embedded in the international diplomatic process, in a dead language speakers kind of way, which makes them seem important. But they are not.

So there was never going to be a reassessment of the weaknesses of Britain's negotiating position, nor will there be now exactly, because most in Britain cannot get their heads around the essential premise to such a discussion, the Britain is now essentially trivial on the power scale rather than of any real consequence. The Kingdom of Saud has more real power. Turkey is a more consequential actor. Mexico has more people. &etc.

orange cats , September 20, 2018 at 12:53 pm

If one is to accept the convictions of master bloviator Niall Ferguson and other Brexiteers, the issue is issue. Brexit is about immigration, period. The EU claims it will not bend on free movement of people, Brexiteers will not accept anything less. There was such a huge outcry when May mentioned the possibility of 'preferential' treatment for EU citizens back in July she threatened any further public dissent in the party would result in sackings. The EU insists there can be no trade deals, no freed movement of goods without free movement of people, for good reasons. Hard to imagine them climbing down.

vlade , September 20, 2018 at 1:58 pm

No.

There's about as many reasons why people voted Brexit as there's different Brexits they wanted. Immigration is just one of the convenient scapegoats peddled by both sides, although for different reasons.

If you want a better (but still not complete) reason, try decreasing real income.

orange cats , September 20, 2018 at 2:27 pm

I'd like to know what those "many different reasons" are. Sovereignty? Well, that rolls off the tongue more easily than "immigration" which, leavers know, sounds a bit racist. "Control of borders" works for leavers like Nigell, although he went on at great length about how it's all about immigration, after talking to all the 'real' folks in the provinces.

vlade , September 21, 2018 at 4:08 am

I don't do other people's homework – the unwilligness to do so tends to be a reliable indicator of not being open to aruments in the first place.

begob , September 20, 2018 at 4:47 pm

My Irish/Brit family's Own Private Brexit: the grandparents are entitled to naturalisation and voted Leave, the children are subjects/citizens and voted Remain (and almost all vote Tory), the grandchildren are compromised subjects/citizens and didn't have a vote. Everyone's happy to be entitled to an EU passport. The Pakistan offshoot has a less complex variation (fewer rights), but I believe their family voted Leave on balance. Life.

PlutoniumKun , September 20, 2018 at 5:31 pm

A colleague told me today he knows of several Northern Irish Republicans who voted leave, precisely because they thought this would create constitutional havoc and lead to a united Ireland. It seems at least some people were thinking strategically .

Mike Barry , September 21, 2018 at 3:37 am

Not that immigration has anything to do with that,

vlade , September 21, 2018 at 8:27 am

Majority of the drop in real income is NOT driven by immigration. You may find it surprising, but there were times with large (relatively speaking) immigration and the real incomes going up.

orange cats , September 21, 2018 at 10:25 am

I don't believe it is either, you seem to think these views are my own. I am speculating, with some basis, that a majority of leavers think so. Anti-immigration attitudes are entrenched and growing. Just the other day a teacher, no less, spouted off about how immigrants were causing crime and stealing jobs. This is in a blue city in a blue state. I was shocked.

ape , September 21, 2018 at 2:49 pm

People come up with fantasy explanations when they've been reduced from realistic assessments to fantastic ideologies. If there's a clear answer but you are ideologically constrained from considering it, you need to invent some answer, the nuttier the better.

Detlef , September 20, 2018 at 5:45 pm

I think a major part of the problem is that British politicians and media seem to believe that Brexit is mainly (or exclusively) a British topic.
One British politician publishes one proposal, another British politician shoots it down. With the British media reporting about it gleefully for days. Newspaper articles, opinion pieces. Without even mentioning what the EU might think about it. The EU seems to not exist in this bubble.

Just remember the more than 60 "notices to stakeholders" published by the EU months ago. And freely available for reading on the Internet. I´ve read British media online for a long time now but somehow these notices never made any impact. It was only when the first British impact assessments were published (not that long ago) that British media started to report about possible problems after a no-deal Brexit. Problems / consequences that were mentioned in the EU notices months ago.
It´s almost unbelievable. It looks like if something isn´t coming from London (or Westminster) then it doesn´t exist in the British media.

And it´s the same with British politicians.

David Davis and the back-stop deal in late 2017?. He agreed with it during the negotiations, returned home and then said that it wasn´t binding, just a letter of intent. Or Michael Gove a few days ago? Regardless of what agreement PM T. May negotiates now with the EU, a new PM can simply scrap it and negotiate a new deal? Or send government members to the EU member states to try and undermine Barnier as reported in British media? How exactly is that building trust?

Have they never heard about the Internet? And that today even foreigners might read British media?

Brexit supporter Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the MP for the 18th century but surely they know that today there are faster methods for messages than using pigeons?

What about foreign investment in the UK? The gateway to the EU? Japanese car companies?
The drop in foreign investment was reported, to be sure. But after a few days it was immediately forgotten.

T. May according to British media articles apparently developed her Brexit strategy (and her red lines) together with her two closest political advisers back in late 2016 / early 2017. No cabinet meeting to discuss the strategy, no ordering of impact assessments which might have influenced the strategy (and the goals). And apparently – in my opinion – no detailed briefing on how the EU actually works. What might be realistically possible and what not.

The resignation of Ivan Rogers seems to support my speculations. Plus the newspaper articles in early 2017 which mentioned that visitors to certain British government ministries were warned not to criticize Brexit or warn about negative consequences. Such warnings would result in no longer being invited to visit said ministry and minister.

If they actually went through with that policy they created an echo chamber with no dissenting voices allowed.

Which might explain why they had no plan to deal with the EU.

British politicians apparently were supposed to negotiate Brexit among themselves. And once they had reached a (tentative) consensus the foreigners (the EU) were apparently supposed to bow down and accept the British proposal.

And now when the EU hasn´t followed the script they don´t know what to do?

I´m not an expert but it was pretty clear to me that the Chequers deal would never work. It was pretty obvious even when EU politicians were somewhat polite about it when T. May proposed it.

It might have been a good starting point for negotiations if she had introduced it in 2017. But in July 2018? Just a few months before negotiations were supposed to be concluded? And then claiming it´s the only realistic proposal? It´s my way or the highway?

It was obvious.

Which means I never understood why the British media was treating the Chequers proposal as a serious proposal? And spending lots of time and articles discussing on how to convince the EU / the member states.

I really think the EU member states have finally concluded that T. May is incapable of producing (and getting a majority in the House of Commons) for any realistic solution. Therefore helping her with statements to keep her politically alive doesn´t make sense any longer. The EU would probably really, really like a solution that gives them at least the transition period. Another 21 months to prepare for Brexit. But fudging things only get you that far .

The UK apparently never understood that it´s one thing to bend rules or fudge things to get the agreement of a member state. It´s quite another thing with a soon -to-be ex-member state.

I am a German citizen, living in Germany.
The (German weekly printed newspaper) Zeit Online website did have three articles about Brexit in the last few days. Which is noteworthy since they normally have 1-2 articles per month.

And the comments were noteworthy too.

Almost all of them now favor a hard-line approach by the EU.

The UK lost a lot of sympathy and support in the last two years. Not because of the referendum result itself but because of the actions and speeches of British politicians afterwards.

The UK had a rebate, opt-outs and excemptions. All because successive British governments pointed to their EU-sceptic opposition. Now the population voted for Brexit the British want a deal that gives them all (or most) of the advantages of EU membership without any of the obligations. To reduce the economic consequences of their decision.

No longer. Actions have consequences. And if it means we´ll have to support Ireland, we´ll do it. The German commentators quite obviously have lost their patience with the UK.

Anonymous2 , September 21, 2018 at 3:22 am

As a Scot can I point out that it is English politicians who are responsible for this mess?

Yves Smith Post author , September 21, 2018 at 3:25 am

Yes, Nicola Sturgeon has comported herself vastly better than anyone in the Tory or Labour leadership not that this is a high bar.

VietnamVet , September 20, 2018 at 7:45 pm

This is the first article that I have seen that talks about power. The ability to influence or outright control the behavior of people. Money has power. It is needed to eat, heal and shelter in the West. But, it is never talked about. This is because it would raise inconvenient truths. The wealthy are accumulating it and everyone else in the West is losing it. The neo-liberal/neo-conservative ideologies are the foundation of this exploitation. It is the belief that markets balance and there is no society. "Greed is good. Might is right." Plutocrats rule the west. Democracy died. There are two versions of similar corporate political parties in the USA. The little people matter not. Politicians are servants of the oligarchs. Global trade is intertwined and not redundant. What will happen will be to the benefit of the very few in power. Donald Trump is raising the price of all Chinese goods shipped into the USA and sold at Walmart and Amazon. A Brexit crash seems inevitable.

Buckeye , September 20, 2018 at 10:40 pm

Amen! It is ALWAYS about power. And the only way to deal with the elites is "Lord of the Rings" style:
their money must be cast into a financial version of Mount Doom, breaking their power once and for all. You folks in the UK need to make douchebag Brexiteers like Nigel Farrage suffer total loss of power for forcing this disaster on you.

RBHoughton , September 20, 2018 at 10:47 pm

There is a huge source of wealth that UK monopolises from Treasure Islands that operate the City's tax havens. That money goes straight back to City banks and flows into the market economy, independently of trade and commerce. It underwrites the derivatives biz that keeps the market economy afloat, paying pensions and profits and Directors' options.

Leaving the EU might have an effect but not a big one. Is that why UK seems so blithely unconcerned?

PlutoniumKun , September 21, 2018 at 4:13 am

The offshore wealth is certainly why the core hard Brexiters are unconcerned, because thats where they store their cash. They don't care if the UK goes down.

But in the longer term, they are under threat – within the EU the UK consistently vetoed any attempts to crack down on internal tax havens. The internal political balance of the EU is now much more firmly anti tax avoidance with the UK gone, so there would be little to stop a series of Directives choking off the Channel Island/Isle of Man option for money flows.

fajensen , September 21, 2018 at 8:59 am

Split Brain Syndrome: They seem think that the EU is Lucifer's Army Incarnate and then they apparently also think at the same time, that "The Army of Darkness" once unleashed from the responsible British leadership into the hands of those per-definition also demonic French and Germans will still "play cricket" and not come after their tax-havens ASAP, like in 2020 or so.

TheScream , September 21, 2018 at 10:51 am

May now demanding that the EU respect Great Britain. We are back to the beginning again. May has no leverage beyond the EU wanting Britain to stay in . But if Britain goes out, then it's out. The only way for May to get any concessions would be to offer to stay in! And even then I am not sure the EU would accept since it would simply open the way for any member to have a tantrum and demand better terms.

GB should leave, wallow in their loneliness a while and then ask to come back. I suspect that the EU would reinstate them fully without the usual processes. Check back here in 24-36 months.

[Sep 21, 2018] As to the Palestinians, if they indeed face hunger deaths, I'm sure it will backfire, on the USA, and on Israel

Sep 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , says: September 21, 2018 at 7:11 am GMT

Since when was there an international order based on rules ?
Hogwash.
Naked power rules the world, always did.
What we see now is that the USA no longer is capable of exerting that naked power, and that China and Russia have increasing power.
As to the Palestinians, if they indeed face hunger deaths, I'm sure it will backfire, on the USA, and on Israel.
Colin Wright , says: Website September 21, 2018 at 7:11 am GMT
The sooner all the lies and pantomime surrounding the Palestinians are stripped away and the sooner we are confronted with the naked reality of what we are doing, the better.
Miro23 , says: September 21, 2018 at 10:19 am GMT

The Israeli bulldozers sent to Khan Al Ahmar will also launch an assault on Europe and its resolve to defend international law and the Palestinians. When push comes to shove, will Europe's nerve hold?

MIGA, MAGA – Israel's American colonial possession, with its fine collection of Anglo collaborators/traitors is fully engaged in MIGA (Make Israel Great Again) using US $ Trillions of taxpayer debt and 1000′s of American servicemen's lives.

Europe still has some independence (head scratching in Norway as to why Norwegian jets bombed Libya) , and the thing is being fought out on issues like mass immigration and national identity (for example Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban vs. Euro bureaucrat Guy Verhofstadt + the British public with their Brexit vote vs. the same European bureaucrats).

European resistance to Israeli appropriation of Palestinian land is more amorphous – some popular, some semi-official (e.g. Jeremy Corbyn) and some European Parliament – and is way beyond anything in the US.

Johnnie Walker Read , says: September 21, 2018 at 12:27 pm GMT
It's funny how Israel has been able to make the Palestinian issue about terror when all along it has been about territory. Territory stolen from the state of Palestine by the fascist government of Israel who has time and again illegally invaded, stolen land, and murdered citizens of the sovereign state of Palestine.
Tyrion 2 , says: September 21, 2018 at 2:23 pm GMT
International law, like domestic law in the West, has been anarcho-tyrannical for some time. It has not controlled real criminals (that's the anarchy) instead it has tried to control the innocent (that's the tyranny). This is not surprising. It is an outgrowth of domestic arrangements in the West.

Launch indiscriminate rockets into a country for no purpose whatsoever but to kill civilians that's fine, you're the victim, the minority, the oppressed. Just as you are if you rob, rape and cheat at sky high rates.

Indeed, you deserve welfare and affirmative action as much as possible – or humanitarian money, for you and your billion eventual descendants especially from the people you hate. Your righteous hatred means they owe you.

Even better if you've built nothing and achieved nothing. Obviously only their racism could have stopped you. You're a Person of Colour after all or did I mean refugee? Both, in this case, will be inherited by your kids!

Competently defend yourself for many decades, even centuries, and actually win. You're racist! Apartheid! Nazi! Why are your towns so nice and their towns so not nice. You genocidaire!

Heck, your state has Original Sin/paler skin, your founding was the greatest crime ever and nothing but your obliteration will wipe it out. Think of the Natives (Americans)! All progressive wordsmiths agree. All your bases belong to them.

Also, Trump is a monstrous ogre for scrapping international anarcho-tyranny in favour of reality. Cook says so. America belongs to the world. Israel to the Muslims. Europe to the Africans and hopefully Japan and S Korea and Singapore, the last competent countries left, will realize that they're the oppressors too and Cook will feel good. Oh, to feel as good as an international "justice" warrior! It's the warm bath of self-enraptured feelings and unearned magnanimity. It's pathetically self-centered while masquerading as something else

anarchyst , says: September 21, 2018 at 2:40 pm GMT
Of course "we are all Palestinians now". American "law enforcement" has been trained "lock, stock and barrel" in Israeli military tactics. American "law enforcement" trainers have been given free trips to Israel, to learn firsthand how to handle us "Palestinians".
From barking out commands, demanding immediate compliance, to outright murder of American citizens for merely reaching for one's identification, or not crawling fast enough with one's hands behind his back, it is obvious that us ordinary law-abiding citizens are considered to be the "enemy".
This is all by design, the USA being a "client state" of Israel, with our dual-citizenship politicians getting their "marching orders" straight from Tel Aviv.
Michael Kenny , says: September 21, 2018 at 3:35 pm GMT
A small point of legal history. The rules-based international order doesn't date from WWII. The modern system is usually dated from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 but the concepts underlying it go back thousands of years.

Indeed, the whole concept reflects the natural human desire to delimit what's "mine" from what's "yours".

Thus, there's no way in which either the US or Israel could abolish the rules-based international order without destroying themselves in the process. I've been reading Mr Cook's articles for many years and the weakness in his reasoning is that his bottom line is always the same: "Israel wins again". He never seems to grasp that Israel, with considerable help from the diaspora Jews, is actually digging its own grave.

[Sep 16, 2018] Exaggerated claims about Jews power (Jewocracy) do more harm then good and give a perfect weapon for Zionists to censor critique of Israel

Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

Michael Hoffman , says: Website September 15, 2018 at 9:03 pm GMT

Dear KenH

Thank you for describing my work as "meticulously researched and argued."

A point of dissent: I don't know of any "Jewocracy."

I'm cognizant of the power and influence of Zionism and Talmudism, but I would be loathe to generalize about Judaic people under the rubric of "Jewocracy."

On pp. 463-466 of Judaism Discovered this writer attempts to elucidate the rabbinic principle taught to Orthodox youth: " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " ("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob").

What does this instruction connote within the broader context of Orthodox Talmudism? It teaches that all goyim are irrevocably Jew-haters and that this hate is irrational and directed at all Judaic persons, whether good or bad, Left or Right, Zionists or not, religious or not. The intent of this deceitful and racist generalization is to unify Judaics and keep them in the rabbinic fold, since it is asserted that they will be hated for no reason no matter what they do, even if they reject the Talmud .

The antidote to this rabbinic propaganda is love for Judaic people and openness in particular to those Judaics who seek a way out of Talmudism and/or Zionism. This is what my books represent and one reason why they are viewed as a mortal threat to the antediluvians.

When terms such as "Jewocracy" are employed then " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " is being fulfilled.

The vast majority of the movement by non-Judaics to critique or oppose the Talmud is almost always grounded in some sort of negative typecasting about "The Jews. " Hence, when the individual Judaic who is trying to get free of the bondage of the Orthodox rabbinate sees generalizations like that, their motivation is subverted and their suspicions that perhaps the teaching imparted to them in their youth was true, is kindled anew.

If we truly wish to convert people into allies of truth and freedom, then we will not replicate their slavemasters' tropes in our discourse. In other words, we will not behave like Talmudists. If on the other hand, our principal aim is to vent our rage and anger at Talmudic supremacy, then reckless disregard for these distinctions will hold sway, along with the continued defeat of our espoused objectives.

There actually is only one fount of racism and supremacy on earth and it emanates from the primeval antecedents of the Babylonian Talmud and the Zohar (Kabbalah), and the cognate "sacred texts" that proceed from them. When the Germans began to worship themselves (something Luther and Nietzsche detested and eschewed), as part of the Nazi praxis, they became rabbis spiritually and psychologically, since the most fundamental constituent of Orthodox Judaism is self-worship .

A sincere and empowered critic of the theology of the Talmud cannot himself be a supremacist or a racist since those mental attitudes and philosophical commitments are part and parcel of the Talmudic mentality. A Talmudist cannot cast out the Talmud (Matthew 12:25-26).

Michael Hoffman
Author: Judaism Discovered
and Judaism's Strange Gods

Tyrion 2 , says: September 16, 2018 at 6:52 am GMT
@Michael Hoffman Dear KenH

Thank you for describing my work as "meticulously researched and argued."

A point of dissent: I don't know of any "Jewocracy."

I'm cognizant of the power and influence of Zionism and Talmudism, but I would be loathe to generalize about Judaic people under the rubric of "Jewocracy."

On pp. 463-466 of Judaism Discovered this writer attempts to elucidate the rabbinic principle taught to Orthodox youth: " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " ("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob").

What does this instruction connote within the broader context of Orthodox Talmudism? It teaches that all goyim are irrevocably Jew-haters and that this hate is irrational and directed at all Judaic persons, whether good or bad, Left or Right, Zionists or not, religious or not. The intent of this deceitful and racist generalization is to unify Judaics and keep them in the rabbinic fold, since it is asserted that they will be hated for no reason no matter what they do, even if they reject the Talmud .

The antidote to this rabbinic propaganda is love for Judaic people and openness in particular to those Judaics who seek a way out of Talmudism and/or Zionism. This is what my books represent and one reason why they are viewed as a mortal threat to the antediluvians.

When terms such as "Jewocracy" are employed then " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " is being fulfilled.

The vast majority of the movement by non-Judaics to critique or oppose the Talmud is almost always grounded in some sort of negative typecasting about "The Jews. " Hence, when the individual Judaic who is trying to get free of the bondage of the Orthodox rabbinate sees generalizations like that, their motivation is subverted and their suspicions that perhaps the teaching imparted to them in their youth was true, is kindled anew.

If we truly wish to convert people into allies of truth and freedom, then we will not replicate their slavemasters' tropes in our discourse. In other words, we will not behave like Talmudists. If on the other hand, our principal aim is to vent our rage and anger at Talmudic supremacy, then reckless disregard for these distinctions will hold sway, along with the continued defeat of our espoused objectives.

There actually is only one fount of racism and supremacy on earth and it emanates from the primeval antecedents of the Babylonian Talmud and the Zohar (Kabbalah), and the cognate "sacred texts" that proceed from them. When the Germans began to worship themselves (something Luther and Nietzsche detested and eschewed), as part of the Nazi praxis, they became rabbis spiritually and psychologically, since the most fundamental constituent of Orthodox Judaism is self-worship .

A sincere and empowered critic of the theology of the Talmud cannot himself be a supremacist or a racist since those mental attitudes and philosophical commitments are part and parcel of the Talmudic mentality. A Talmudist cannot cast out the Talmud (Matthew 12:25-26).

Michael Hoffman
Author: Judaism Discovered
and Judaism's Strange Gods I don't buy your cloying and passive aggressive pretense of not hating Jews but being merely interested in their salvation.

I even struggle to imagine anyone who'd be stupid enough to do so.

(Does it help you sell books or is it merely a prop against horrific self-realisation?)

Regardless, it is a shame that even your "scholarship" may be unbooked. Painfully dumb arguments have value. They provide it by contrast.

I am not even particularly interested in that here though. Inevitably there's lots of weird stuff in a milennia old wikipedia and bozos, sorry "revisionists", will read into it what they feel like.

The issue though is very simple. Were any of these effluent theories that take causation to run from Judaism to globalism to actually be true then we would see that the more Orthodox the Jew, the more globalist they would be.

Yet the facts sit precisely opposite.

The very worst Jews, on politics, that I've met or read have never heard of the Talmud. Indeed, the Ultra-Orthodox wouldn't even consider them (or me) actual Jews at all.

That you can't even get this most basic of observations right totally discredits you.

Still, I hope your books get reinstated. I don't care what people who hate me choose to waste their money on and, to be honest, it makes my meagre qualities look good by comparison.

Miro23 , says: September 16, 2018 at 8:59 am GMT
@Miro23 There are useful parallels with Christianity, which went from being powerless and persecuted in its early days under Imperial Rome to eventual domination of Medieval Europe. It was a longish process, but an early small, private and ethical movement did eventually morph into a dictatorial organization that hunted down its own dissidents (heretics).

In this game of power, the church certainly collected great wealth, developed a complex administration, made alliances with temporal (non-spiritual) power holders , and instituted the Holy Office of the Inquisition (or equivalents) to root out dissidents (heretics) or anyone who got in the way.


Green quotes a complaint by historian Manuel Barrios[172] about one Inquisitor, Diego Rodriguez Lucero, who in Cordoba in 1506 burned to death the husbands of two different women he then kept as mistresses. According to Barrios,

the daughter of Diego Celemin was exceptionally beautiful, her parents and her husband did not want to give her to [Lucero], and so Lucero had the three of them burnt and now has a child by her, and he has kept for a long time in the alcazar as a mistress, (Wikipedia).

It was the "higher power" in the form of the Revolutionary Republican Napoleon Bonaparte who finally abolished the Inquisition with the French invasion of Spain, which suggests by parallel that when the US state collapses it will take its Jewish inquisitors with it. Also the Jewish attempt to develop "Holocaustianity" with themselves as the leading martyrs is failing, since Judaism doesn't have the mass appeal of Christianity: 1) it lacks the ethical content 2) it isn't universalist (accepting all races).

Bolshevism (class guilt) was an earlier attempt to found a religion with Saint Trotsky and themselves as the leading martyrs, which did actually (for a while) connect with the public, since they harnessed the rising tide of Socialism/Communism with its fantasy of an egalitarian "workers paradise" (themselves in the leadership role).

Unfortunately Jewish leftism (not to be confused National Democratic leftism) still survives in the West in its bizarre SJW LGBT form, with Jews yet again trying to present themselves as victims – this time of fabricated "White Oppression" – never mind that white America gave them a generous refuge and a home after they were chased out of Central Europe.

However, the search for power through SJWism (race guilt) is being rejected in the West, so realistically Jews can only maintain their ethnic group power through a straightforward coup at the centre (United States) – which they seem to be working on a the moment, with some kind of fabricated Emergency involving Russia/Syria/Iran designed to give them a dictatorship.

And if they get it, it won't be benevolent judging by the mass murdering precedents in Russia and Hungary.

Frankie P , says: September 16, 2018 at 9:54 am GMT
@Michael Hoffman Dear KenH

Thank you for describing my work as "meticulously researched and argued."

A point of dissent: I don't know of any "Jewocracy."

I'm cognizant of the power and influence of Zionism and Talmudism, but I would be loathe to generalize about Judaic people under the rubric of "Jewocracy."

On pp. 463-466 of Judaism Discovered this writer attempts to elucidate the rabbinic principle taught to Orthodox youth: " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " ("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob").

What does this instruction connote within the broader context of Orthodox Talmudism? It teaches that all goyim are irrevocably Jew-haters and that this hate is irrational and directed at all Judaic persons, whether good or bad, Left or Right, Zionists or not, religious or not. The intent of this deceitful and racist generalization is to unify Judaics and keep them in the rabbinic fold, since it is asserted that they will be hated for no reason no matter what they do, even if they reject the Talmud .

The antidote to this rabbinic propaganda is love for Judaic people and openness in particular to those Judaics who seek a way out of Talmudism and/or Zionism. This is what my books represent and one reason why they are viewed as a mortal threat to the antediluvians.

When terms such as "Jewocracy" are employed then " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " is being fulfilled.

The vast majority of the movement by non-Judaics to critique or oppose the Talmud is almost always grounded in some sort of negative typecasting about "The Jews. " Hence, when the individual Judaic who is trying to get free of the bondage of the Orthodox rabbinate sees generalizations like that, their motivation is subverted and their suspicions that perhaps the teaching imparted to them in their youth was true, is kindled anew.

If we truly wish to convert people into allies of truth and freedom, then we will not replicate their slavemasters' tropes in our discourse. In other words, we will not behave like Talmudists. If on the other hand, our principal aim is to vent our rage and anger at Talmudic supremacy, then reckless disregard for these distinctions will hold sway, along with the continued defeat of our espoused objectives.

There actually is only one fount of racism and supremacy on earth and it emanates from the primeval antecedents of the Babylonian Talmud and the Zohar (Kabbalah), and the cognate "sacred texts" that proceed from them. When the Germans began to worship themselves (something Luther and Nietzsche detested and eschewed), as part of the Nazi praxis, they became rabbis spiritually and psychologically, since the most fundamental constituent of Orthodox Judaism is self-worship .

A sincere and empowered critic of the theology of the Talmud cannot himself be a supremacist or a racist since those mental attitudes and philosophical commitments are part and parcel of the Talmudic mentality. A Talmudist cannot cast out the Talmud (Matthew 12:25-26).

Michael Hoffman
Author: Judaism Discovered
and Judaism's Strange Gods I thank you for that comment. Beautifully put, logically reasoned. Now I want to propose an idea for you to consider. The Orthodox Talmudic instruction that you mention above has morphed well beyond the limitations of the Orthodox rabbinate. You yourself just mentioned Judaics that want to "seek a way out of Talmudism and / or Zionism". Zionism certainly isn't Talmudism; it is blood and soil nationalism of a land that belongs to other people. Couching this original Talmudic instruction as merely a method of keeping Jews in "the rabbinic fold" is inaccurate. The unifiying of Jews through this belief that all goyim are Jew-haters and vilification of those Judaics who break out has grown well beyond the rabbinic fold, and it is present in every manifestation of Judaism, from the secular atheist to the most Orthodox. Indeed, it seems to be the common thread that holds all Jews together.

I thank you again for your ideas, Michael Hoffman. I will visit your website and try to purchase your books, even though I am not a wealthy man.

[Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Most here voted for or supported Obama whose record of incarcerating and persecuting journalists, punishing whistle-blowers, extra-judicial executions including citizens of the United States, placing children in cages, violent regime change abroad, spying on citizens, and expanding the security state was as bad or worse as that of Bush and Trump, in some cases by some margin. ..."
"... The current heroes of the 'resistance' lied America into Iraq or Libya, hacked into the computers of the elected representatives/lied about it, and support torture/enhanced interrogations, all under Obama. 'Liberals' lionize these clown criminals along with 'responsible' republicans whilst embracing open bigots such as Farrakhan. And, yes, if one is willing to share the podium with Farrakhan that's tacit support of his views. ..."
Sep 16, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

Thomas Beale 09.13.18 at 9:58 am ( 16 )

I'd suggest that the two strains of 'conservatism' that matter are:

a) maintaining oppression/rule over subordinate classes to prevent them up-ending the status quo (the Robin view) and

b) maintaining philosophical +/- cultural values fundamental to a civilised society, typically so-called enlightenment values, freedom of mind, body and property etc. These are understood in a wide spectrum of concrete interpretations, from free-market purists to social democrats, and don't therefore correspond to one kind of on-the-ground politics.

Progressives tend attack a) (a non-philosophical form of conservatism – it's just about preserving a power structure), and usually claim that b) (the one that matters) doesn't exist or isn't 'conservative', or else ignore it.

We have the basic problem of same term, variable referents

Lobsterman 09.13.18 at 10:27 pm ( 40 )

(b) doesn't exist. Conservatives are, as a group, in eager favor of concentration camps for toddlers, the drug war, unrestrained surveillance, American empire, civil forfeiture, mass incarceration, extrajudicial police execution, etc. etc. They have internal disagreements on how much to do those things, but the consensus is for all of them without meaningful constraint. And they are always justified in terms of (a).

ph 09.14.18 at 11:50 am ( 58 )

@40

Most here voted for or supported Obama whose record of incarcerating and persecuting journalists, punishing whistle-blowers, extra-judicial executions including citizens of the United States, placing children in cages, violent regime change abroad, spying on citizens, and expanding the security state was as bad or worse as that of Bush and Trump, in some cases by some margin.

The current heroes of the 'resistance' lied America into Iraq or Libya, hacked into the computers of the elected representatives/lied about it, and support torture/enhanced interrogations, all under Obama. 'Liberals' lionize these clown criminals along with 'responsible' republicans whilst embracing open bigots such as Farrakhan. And, yes, if one is willing to share the podium with Farrakhan that's tacit support of his views.

Conservative as a political category post 1750 works and the basic argument of the OP holds. The comments not so much.

[Sep 15, 2018] I don't know why so many people are having trouble realizing that the United States intends to make the rules, not follow them, and to be the ultimate arbiter of its own behaviour. And at its very core, this is an intent that recognizes no equal

Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile September 11, 2018 at 2:03 am

https://www.youtube.com/embed/NWB6IUE0hJU

Whither then the endless cries from libtards to send Putin to this court?

Mark Chapman September 11, 2018 at 10:47 am
I don't know why so many people are having trouble realizing that the United States intends to make the rules, not follow them, and to be the ultimate arbiter of its own behaviour. And at its very core, this is an intent that recognizes no equal. Allies are great, America loves to have them so that it can employ them as it sees fit, but does not recognize their authority to hold Americans to any standard of conduct. Certainly this does not hold true at the administrative levels – no American is going to get away with speeding on the autobahn by saying indignantly, "Of course I wasn't speeding – I'm an AMERICAN!" But speeding by an individual is hardly a national embarrassment. In any international context, allies and enemies alike are going to have to just accept that no international rules supersede American self-regulation, and you'll just have to be good with the concept that America is scrupulously fair in meting out justice to its own subjects.

Oddly enough, American military members and contractors who are accused of various crimes – which it stands to reason they committed, since Americans as a society are no better and no worse than any other social group on the planet – their government elevates their motivation to patriotism, the defending of home and family values. Presumably these transcendent laws protect Americans who blast Iraqi civilians off of balconies for the hell of it, as they did at Nisour Square in 2007. Please note that although eventually four Blackwater employees were tried and convicted in US Federal Court, (a) it was 7 years after the fact, (b) only one employee was found guilty of murder, while the remainder pleaded down to manslaughter and lesser firearms charges which implied they were careless rather than vicious, (c) 14 of 17 Iraqis killed were agreed by the USA to have been entirely without cause, and (d) the original conviction was overturned by a US District Judge on the grounds that all charges against Blackwater had been improperly built on testimony given in exchange for immunity. The entire process weighed heavily in favour of Iraq just giving up in disgust, and had it not persevered, there is every reason to believe Blackwater would have escaped any prosecution. No doubt they were characterized throughout the process as American patriots who were simply protecting their families and their nation and safeguarding American values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre

One of the first moves in a humanitarian or policing mission involving the USA will be the establishment of a status-of-forces agreement in which American soldiers accused of any crime must be tried by a US court or under American authority. When American citizens are killed in such scenarios, such as the four Blackwater contractors killed and whose burnt bodies were hung from a bridge in Fallujah, Iraq, a disproportionate vengeance is enacted which punishes the whole population.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/contractors/highrisk.html

You all remember what happened to Fallujah; the American-led coalition invaded it twice, and razed it to the ground in a display of violence that made even US allies nervous.

American contractors in Iraq were earning about $600.00 a day. It is pretty hard to imagine they were all motivated by patriotism and family values.

et Al September 12, 2018 at 2:54 am

[Sep 15, 2018] Fred to Take Wheel of Ship of State: Will Implement Thoughtful and Reasonable Measures by Fred Reed

Sep 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

I have no choice. I must don the mantle of greatness and take the reins of the country. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I will run for the office of dictator, or President in American parlance.

Readers may ask, "But Fred, what makes you think you are qualified to be President?" To which I respond, "Nothing. But have you seen what we have now? You want a White House with John Bolton in it?"

You see.

I append here a few of the enlightened policies which I will effect. Hold your applause until the end. Interspersed for perusal are a few slogans that I may use to incite your fervor.

One: I will end all policies hostile to Cuba. I will not make life difficult for eleven million perfectly good people to please a ratpack of phony Cubans afflicting Miami. In fact, I will offer Havana a twenty-billion-dollar loan if they will take the bastards back. Cuba poses no danger to anyone. They have good cigars. They should be left alone to live as they please and drink mojitos. If nutcake Republicans protest my policy, I will have them stuffed into an abandoned oil well. Along with the pseudo-Cubans.

Two: Elizabeth Warren will be required to take a DNA test to see whether she is a wild Indian. If she is, she will have to wear feathers. Otherwise, to see a psychiatrist.

We have nothing to be afred of but Fred hisself! Has a classic ring, don't you think?

Three: I will end the Afghan war in an afternoon, relying on use the exit strategy proposed by James P. Coyne, the Sun Tsu of our age:

"OK, on the plane. Now ."

If Lindsey Graham complains that we need to kill more puzzled goatherds, I will have him inserted into the oil well on top of the Republicans and pseudo-Cubans, with Oprah tamped down on top as a sort of cork. There is nothing in Afghanistan that Americans need or want, except opium products, and private enterprise now provides these in abundance. Check the nearest street corner, or ask your kids.

Four: I will make membership in AIPAC a felony, and remind its members that I could have Oprah temporarily removed from the oil well to make more room. Aipackers can act as they please in their own country–I will not meddle in foreign affairs–but leave ours alone.

Fred! Ahhhhhh . This has a nicely orgasmic quality that will appeal to the younger demographic. It represents the satisfaction that my rule will bring to the entire country.

Five: I will end all sanctions against Iran. Then I will sell those Persian rascals airplanes and cars and electronic stuff and towel softener and lock them into the American economic system. This will make Boeing and AT&T and Intel love me with the deep sweet love that never dies, at least as long as the money flows, and there will be lots of jobs in Seattle.

Six: I will bring charges of treason against the contents of the Great Double Wide on Pennsylvania Avenue. The evidence is incontrovertible. The first rule of empire is Don't Let Your Enemies Unite. Everybody who has an empire knows this. Except us. Inside the White House a bunch of apparently brain-damaged political mostly left-overs, suffering from Beltway Bubble Syndrome, push China, Russia, and Iran together like some kind of international spaghetti-grope LGTBQRSTUV threesome. Who are our dismal leaders really working for? China?

A Fred in Every Pot This makes no sense, you may say. No, but we are doing politics. It is almost iambic pentameter, like Shakespeare. It will lend class to my campaign.

Seven: I will keep the F-35 program. It provides a lot of jobs. However, I will but get rid of the airplane. Isn't this brilliant? Instead of building the thing, workers will dig holes and fill them in, but keep their current salaries. It will improve their health, and make America safer. The fewer dangerous things the children in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel have, the less trouble it can cause.

Better Fred than Dead! Some readers will dispute this. What do they know?

Eight: I have been urged to end affirmative action on the grounds that things should be done by people who can actually do them. This is racist. I will have nothing to do with it. Instead I will make affirmative action democratic and inclusive. Everyone will qualify for it. Special privilege should not be restricted to a minority. It isn't the American way.

Fred! Good as Any, Better'n Some. Good thinking.

Nine: I will abolish NATO. America should find a cheaper way to control the vassals. There is of course the bedtime story that NATO exists to confront the Russkies, and only incidentally provides a compulsory market for American armament. Nuts. Russia cannot seem dangerous to anyone who wasn't dropped on his head at some formative juncture in life. Smallish population, low military budget.

Likewise South Korea, which has twice the population and forty times the economy of the North. If it wants to defend itself, it has my blessing. If it doesn't, it isn't our problem.

Tippecanoe and Frederick Too! This may require exhumation, but for this we have backhoes.

Ten: I will make a modest reduction in the military budget, say seventy-five percent. To keep the soldiers happy I will invest in high-throughput roller coasters, a shooting range with BB guns, and really loud speaker systems that say Va roooom and Bangbangbang and fzzzzzzzzboom. These will provide psychic emoluments of martial life without the murder.

Eleven: The money thus saved I will use on pressing domestic problems. LA has 68,000 homeless people on the streets, San Francisco loses conventions because of so many homeless defecating on the sidewalks, Portland has homeless riots,. The lower primates in Antifa and BLM rend such social fabric as any longer exists. Dams are aging. Our trains are out of of the Fifties. And we spend a trillion a year on goddam aircraft carriers?

Fred? Well, Got a Better Idea?

Twelve: As an educational reform, I will have the Department of Education filled with linoleum cement, the occupants being left inside. This will raise the national IQ by at least three points. I will pass an amendment to the fragments of the Constitution saying, "No federal entity or person shall say, think, suggest, or do anything whatever regarding schooling on pain of garroting." Part of the savings from lowering the military budget will go to purchasing garrotes. The duration, content, and nature of the schools shall be left to localities without exception.

Thirteen: The father of any girl subjected to genital mutilation will be awarded a free gender reassignment operation, preferably with tin-snips. Genital mutilation should be inclusive. The father will then be placed for two weeks in the bottom of a public latrine in Uganda. If this doesn't suffice to deter the practice, I may be forced to adopt extreme measures. A country that allows such treatment of daughters deserves to go to hell. And seems to be.

Fourteen: I will impose a literacy test for voting. People too dim to find their way home should not be permitted to influence policies they have never heard of and can't spell. Yes, this might be called illiberal. If so, it will doubtless be the only example of illiberalism in this meritorious list.

Fifteen: In higher education, I will prescribe horse whipping for anyone saying microaggression, white privilege, whiteness, patriarchy, safe space, people of color, racism, any kind of phobia, or "Resist" in a squalling voice with an exclamation point. No curriculum containing the word "Studies" will be permitted.

Sixteen: Anyone prescribing Ritalin for children under twenty-one will be thrown from a helicopter.

In conclusion, I say to my yearning public, There, you, see, there is hope. Together we can do this. See you at the polls.

... ... ...

Fred Reed is a former news weasel and part-time sociopath living in central Mexico with his wife and three useless but agreeable street dogs. He says it suits him.

FoxTwo , says: September 15, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT

In today's world of political insanity, a healthy dose of sarcasm may be considered as a good antidote. Love your columns Fred; keep them up!

[Sep 12, 2018] Henry A. Wallace on amrican fascism

Sep 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Moribundus ,
The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power...

They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.

Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

~quoted in the New York Times, April 9, 1944

Henry A. Wallace

[Sep 12, 2018] The founders of the state of Israel took the land which it now claims from its real owners by unlimited violence, simply killing everyone who resisted

Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

Tom Welsh , September 11, 2018 at 8:00 pm GMT

@Tyrion 2 I get it. You're Palestinian. You're aggrieved. Every single year for 70 years your guys have refused to come to a deal and every single year your hand has gotten weaker. That must be hugely frustrating.

But best for you that you live in the real world. 3 random comments from you on an interesting but minor and consistently prognosticatarily incorrect site is not the real world.

Israel doesn't want Iran in Syria long-term. Everyone else but hardline elements of the Iranian state agree, so they have now been pushed.

That is the end of the matter, along with some reasonable autonomy for the Kurds. It'd be lovely for them to have a proper sovereign country over all of the areas they'd like to lay claim to, but the Kurds appreciate their position and play with the hand they are dealt.

Also, making up phrases and putting them in quotes as if I have ever said them is strikingly dishonest. "I get it. You're Palestinian. You're aggrieved. Every single year for 70 years your guys have refused to come to a deal and every single year your hand has gotten weaker. That must be hugely frustrating".

In other words, as the Athenian spokesman told the Melians 2434 years ago,

"For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences – either of how we have a right to our empire or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us – and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must "

The founders of the state of Israel took the land which it now claims from its real owners by unlimited violence, simply killing everyone who resisted. If, for 70 years, the Palestinians have "refused to come to a deal", it is for the same reasons that the victims of murder and robbery do not agree to "a deal" with the criminals who murdered their families and robbed them of their ancestral possessions.

Remind me, what is the statute of limitations on murder, robbery and genocide? Are Israelis to be forgiven sooner than Nazis who committed identical crimes?

[Sep 12, 2018] Haley Threatens 'Dire Consequences' for Iran, Russia Over Syria Offensive by Jason Ditz

Notable quotes:
"... Haley went on to say that Iran and Russia are "cowards interested in a bloody military conquest" and that the US continues to intend to respond militarily if any chemical weapons are used. ..."
"... Haley was unclear what the "dire consequences" would actually be. Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia reiterated that there was no reason to think Syria would use chemical weapons in Idlib, and said the presence of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Idlib obliges Syria to move against them. ..."
Sep 11, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Declares Russian and Iranian officials to be 'cowards'

Speaking at the UN during the latest session on Syria's Idlib Province, US Ambassador Nikki Haley warned Russia and Iran would face "dire consequences" if they continue to back a Syrian military offensive against Islamist rebels in the province.

Idlib is the last major rebel-held territory in Syria, and taking it is seen by Syria and its allies as effectively ending the Syrian War. The US has insisted they oppose any moves into Idlib.

Haley went on to say that Iran and Russia are "cowards interested in a bloody military conquest" and that the US continues to intend to respond militarily if any chemical weapons are used. President Trump has also suggested that a military response could happen if he believes the offensive is a "slaughter."

Haley was unclear what the "dire consequences" would actually be. Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia reiterated that there was no reason to think Syria would use chemical weapons in Idlib, and said the presence of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Idlib obliges Syria to move against them.

[Sep 12, 2018] John Bolton vs. the International Criminal Court A Simple Solution by Thomas Knapp

Sep 12, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

In a September 10 speech to the Federalist Society, National Security Advisor John Bolton offered "a major announcement on US policy toward the International Criminal Court." The US government, per Bolton, considers the court "fundamentally illegitimate. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC."

Bolton threatened sanctions against the court and those who resort to it or cooperate with it in investigations of war crimes involving the United States or Israel. He also announced the first such sanction, closure of a Palestine Liberation Organization office in Washington in retaliation for the state of Palestine's referral of charges against Israel for actions in the West Bank and Gaza.

What's with this sudden interest in the court and its jurisdiction?

Why is Bolton suddenly so concerned with protecting notions of "sovereignty" (he uses the word nine times) that the US government itself routinely ignores at its convenience, claiming global jurisdiction over individuals and organizations outside its own borders in matters ranging from the 17-year "war on terror" to its financial regulation and sanctions schemes?

The answer, in a word: Afghanistan. The regime installed by the US after its 2001 invasion of that country, and maintained in power by the US since then, ratified the Rome Statute in 2003. Crimes committed in Afghanistan since then, regardless of the perpetrators' nationalities, therefore fall under the ICC's jurisdiction.

Bolton finds it unconscionable that an American – in particular an American soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, or politician – accused of crimes committed in Afghanistan might be tried in a court Afghanistan's government has duly accepted the authority of. So much for "sovereignty."

Bolton wants it both ways. On one hand, the long arm of US law must reach everywhere, be it to a bank in Switzerland, to a hacker's keyboard in the United Kingdom, or to a battlefield in the Middle East. On the other hand, no foreign arm of law must ever reach a US citizen, regardless of the alleged crime or where it was committed.

Pretty messed up, but there's a simple solution. All the US government has to do is close its embassies and consulates in, withdraw its troops from, and advise its citizens not to travel to, any of the 120-odd countries which recognize the International Criminal Court as their judicial authority for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

Starting with Afghanistan.

Problem solved.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism. He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

[Sep 03, 2018] Poison for the Goyim- More Hysteria and Hyperbole about Labour Anti-Semitism by Tobias Langdon

Notable quotes:
"... New Statesman ..."
"... The New Statesman ..."
"... Jewish Chronicle ..."
"... Jerusalem Post ..."
"... The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society ..."
"... The Jerusalem Post ..."
"... New Statesman ..."
"... New Statesman ..."
"... Guide for the Perplexed ..."
"... Guide for the Perplexed ..."
"... Jewish Chronicle ..."
"... Jewish Chronicle ..."
Sep 02, 2018 | www.unz.com
TOBIAS LANGDON SEPTEMBER 2, 2018 1,600 WORDS 3 COMMENTS REPLY RSS

Jonathan Sacks is given an award by the war-criminal Tony Blair

Jeremy Corbyn has a beard. So has Jonathan Sacks . But this shared philopogony hasn't brought the two men closer together. Sacks is the former Chief Rabbi of Britain and, to be fair, I think we be better off if more Jews were like him. He doesn't seem to hate Whites and the Christian religion in the way so many of his co-ethnics do.

Battle of the Beards

But that doesn't mean Sacks is a reasonable or objective man where his own race is concerned. He can be ethnocentric and apply double standards with the best of them, as he's just proved by his comments on his fellow beardie:

Jeremy Corbyn is "an anti-Semite" who has "given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate", the former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks has said. In an exclusive interview with the New Statesman , the peer described Corbyn's recently reported 2013 remarks on "Zionists" as "the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell's 1968 'Rivers of Blood' speech".

Sacks, who was chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, added: "It was divisive, hateful and like Powell's speech it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien."

At a speech made at the Palestinian Return Centre in London in 2013, Corbyn said of a group of British "Zionists": "They clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either." ( Corbyn's "Zionist" remarks were "most offensive" since Enoch Powell, says ex-chief rabbi , The New Statesman , 28th August 2018)

Enoch Powell predicted that mass immigration would lead to race war. Jeremy Corbyn said that some Zionists don't get "English irony." Whether or not you agree with Powell, is it reasonable to compare the words of the two men? Are they "hateful" and "divisive" in a similar way? I'd say no, they're obviously not, and the vast majority of British Whites probably agree with me.

Sacks doesn't agree with me, and he has the Community with him, according to the Jewish Chronicle : "Reform Rabbi Jonathan Romain of Maidenhead Synagogue said that, while the Enoch Powell analogy may have shocked people, 'it accurately reflected what most British Jews feel.'"

The poisoning of Britain's politics

Well, if Rabbi Sacks and other Jews want anti-Semitism, I think they should look much closer to home. This is from the Jerusalem Post in 2007:

Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain's top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain's diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society , he said the movement had run its course. "Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation," Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

"Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear." Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive." "A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said. In an interview with the Times , Sacks said he wanted his book to be "politically incorrect in the highest order." ( Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy , The Jerusalem Post , 20th October 2007; emphasis added)

So Sacks claimed that "Britain's politics had been poisoned" by a self-serving, self-pitying, self-aggrandizing ideology that "began with Jews" and had been "inexorably divisive." His claim is absolutely classic anti-Semitism, peddling a stereotype of Jews as subversive, manipulative and divisive outsiders whose selfish agitation has done huge harm to a gentile society.

Sacks was right, of course: Jews do demand special treatment and did indeed invent the "identity politics" that has poisoned British politics (and American , Australian , French and Swedish politics too).

By saying all that, Sacks was being far more "anti-Semitic" than Jeremy Corbyn was, even by the harshest interpretation of those comments on Zionists. Furthermore, Sacks has proved that Corbyn was right. Zionists do lack irony. In 2007 Sacks, a staunch Zionist, claimed that the "poisoning" of British politics "began with Jews." In 2018 he's condemning Jeremy Corbyn for saying something much milder about Zionists.

"Absolutely nothing apartheid about this"

And in 2018 Sacks is also offering a ridiculous defence of a new law in his beloved land of Israel:

Asked by the New Statesman to comment on Israel's new nationality law, which states that the Jewish people have "an exclusive right to national self-determination" in the country and stripped the Arab language of its official status, Sacks said: "I'm not an expert on this. My brother is, I'm not, he's a lawyer in Jerusalem, he tells me that there's absolutely nothing apartheid about this, it's just correcting a lacuna. As far as I understand, it's a technical process that has none of the implications that have been levelled at it." ( Corbyn's "Zionist" remarks were "most offensive" since Enoch Powell, says ex-chief rabbi )

When Sacks said there was "absolutely nothing apartheid about this," he was protesting too much . He is clearly uncomfortable about the new law and struggling to defend it, which is why his usual fluency deserted him when he spoke to the New Statesman . One "levels" accusations, not implications. And the implications of the new law are perfectly clear, which is why Sacks was driven to waffle about "a technical process." Yes, the law is a technical process whereby Arabs are defined as second-class citizens and Jewish supremacism is openly proclaimed as the guiding principle of the Israeli state.

Of Monkeys and Men

I'm sure that one of Sacks' heroes, the great Jewish philosopher and Talmudic scholar Maimonides (c. 1135-1208), would have applauded the new law. This is what Maimonides wrote in his hugely influential Guide for the Perplexed (c. 1190), one of the most revered and respected texts in the three thousand years of Judaism:

The people who are abroad are all those that have no religion, neither one based on speculation nor one received by tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander about in the north, the Kushites [Blacks] who live in the south, and those in our country who are like these. I consider these as irrational beings, and not as human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, and a mental faculty above that of the monkey. ( Guide for the Perplexed , Book 3, chapter 51)

Now that is racism, ladies and gentlemen. And if you want proof that Maimonides' poisonous ideas are alive and well in the Jewish world today, look no further than Yitzchak Yosef, the Sephardic Chief Rabbi in Israel, who was condemned this very year for "calling black people 'monkeys'." Rabbi Yosef has visited the headlines before: in 2016 he "stated that non-Jews should not be allowed to live in Israel, except to serve the Jewish population." The Jewish Chronicle added that he "later reversed this position."

"Very, very good relations with the Jewish community"

Well, he might have said he no longer believed it, but that wouldn't be speaking the truth. Servitude for goyim, the superiority of Jews and the subhumanity of Blacks are all perfectly orthodox Jewish doctrines. Jews are not the philanthropic egalitarians that they pretend to be, and Jonathan Sacks was perfectly correct to describe them as poisoners of British politics. He himself has upended another vat of poison by joining in the hysteria and hyperbole about Jeremy Corbyn's mild comments on Zionists.

Let's compare Corbyn with the shabbos goy Tony Blair, who gave Sacks a "Lifetime Achievement Award" in February this year and hailed Sacks as "one of my heroes." According to the Jewish Chronicle , Blair "was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations" with "the Jewish community."

In other words, the tiny Jewish minority pulled Blair's strings. At the behest of his Jewish "fundraiser" Lord Levy , Blair lied Britain into a hugely expensive war on Iraq that killed vast numbers of innocent civilians , fomented sectarian strife in the Middle East and terrorism in Europe, and led directly to the rise of Islamic State. Jeremy Corbyn resolutely opposed the war and predicted its dire consequences. Blair is a liar, confidence-trickster and war-criminal who will one day, I hope, face the death-penalty for what he and his Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche did to Britain. Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, is a virtue-signalling Marxist idiot who opposes war and the military-industrial complex .

But Blair obeyed Jewish orders and Corbyn doesn't. That's why Blair is now worth more than £60 million and Corbyn is endlessly vilified in the British media. Few British Whites know the term " ethnocentrism ," but more and more of them can see the Jews practising it.

[Sep 01, 2018] Jeremy Corbyn has acknowledged Labour has a "real problem" with antisemitism as he attempted to defuse the row engulfing his party by John Chuckman

Notable quotes:
"... "Jeremy Corbyn has acknowledged Labour has a "real problem" with antisemitism as he attempted to defuse the row engulfing his party." ..."
"... Response to a comment, "But Jeremy Corbyn has said that Jews, uniquely, can't be trusted to define anti-Semitism and that he knows best": ..."
"... Response to a comment: ..."
"... Response to a comment: ..."
"... Response to a comment about the need for education: ..."
"... "People Aren't Having Intelligent Conversations Anymore, They're Just Yelling at Each Other" ..."
"... Response some days later to someone who wrote a long and angry comment: ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

"Jeremy Corbyn has acknowledged Labour has a "real problem" with antisemitism as he attempted to defuse the row engulfing his party."

Well, yes, "real problems," but not what you might think from a quick glance at the headline.

The real problem is people using the accusation as a cheap attack, a way to libel a decent man and influence a party, and doing so regularly over a considerable period of time.

Where was all this "anti-Semitism" hiding in Tony Blair's day? Or even after? It just suddenly exploded into existence under Corbyn? Like a parody of Athena suddenly erupting from the head of Zeus? No reasonable person can believe that. It's a bizarre notion. No, what has changed since Blair's day is simply this.

A leader who helped kill about a million people and destroy a society, lying continuously about what he was doing, and received the Israel Peace Prize plus many handsome sinecures for his efforts, stopped being leader. Another man, a decent man who is fair-minded about the Middle East, as he is about many other matters, became leader. So, all stops were pulled by interested parties in doing something about it.

He's been attacked from the beginning. He had to win his leadership vote twice. The attacks, here or there, seem to fade a bit, then, wham!, they're back, this recent round perhaps the worst ever.

Well, you can have whatever kind of country you like, but this way of doing things is shabby and dishonest and can produce nothing good.

Much as some of Theresa May's incompetent efforts and unwarranted attacks, all damaging and utterly without evidence.

As a young man, I always thought of Britain as more honorable political society than the United States with its folks like Senator Joseph McCarthy or FBI Director J Edgar Hoover or blood-drenched liar, Lyndon Johnson.

But either I was naive or Britain has changed, and changed greatly for the worse

_________________________

Response to a comment, "But Jeremy Corbyn has said that Jews, uniquely, can't be trusted to define anti-Semitism and that he knows best":

That's just plain dishonest.

He said no such thing.

But your using that claim as an argument is symbolic of this whole shabby business.

Posted August 6, 2018 by JOHN CHUCKMAN in Uncategorized JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: YOUNG PEOPLE FORGETTING TERRIBLE PAST EVENTS – RUSSIAN DECLINING POPULATION DURING COLLAPSE OF SOVIET UNION – ROLE OF ALCOHOL IN HISTORICAL EVENTS – WHY PUBLIC EDUCATION CAN'T DO MUCH ABOUT FORGETFULNESS OF THE TERRIBLE PAST

John Chuckman

COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIAN INSIDER

Young people always forget about terrible times.

It's a natural human tendency.

In the US, it is amazing how few young Americans know anything about the Vietnam War, a war in which America conducted a holocaust killing 3 million Vietnamese, many in the most horrible fashion as with napalm.

It was also a time that nearly divided America like a new Civil War.

Polls find few young Americans know much about it.

___________________________

Response to a comment:

Please, don't forget, the USSR lost 27,000,000 in the Hitler invasion.

The loss of men caused a huge demographic deficit.

Also, alcoholism in the USSR, in the 1970s, was widespread and desperate. Many men died prematurely.

But the suffering from the collapse of the USSR did a lot of damage.

_________________________

Response to a comment:

I wasn't labeling Russians.

It is just a fact about the drinking, and it did shorten average lifespan.

Some of the conditions in the Soviet era could be pretty grim. You've heard the joke about "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work?"

Americans are indeed drug addicts. They consume about as many drugs as the rest of countries together.

There is a whole range of this activity from cocaine at wealthy parties to people in the streets and gutters consuming God-knows-what.

It's American demand that drives the awful drug cartels of Mexico, but Americans never give that a thought.

In a number of American cities recently, the murder rates among blacks have been dramatic, and it involves competitive gangs selling drugs.

The price of some drugs has dropped on the streets and there is over-supply. This has a lot to do with America's pointless invasion of Afghanistan.

Growing opium poppies had been virtually halted by the Taliban government. Then America invaded, and it has been "let her rip" with a flood of drugs.

This always happens in such regions with America. It happened too in the Vietnam War. Many believe CIA makes off-the-books cash by working with drugs in such places. It was said Air America, a then covert private airline serving CIA used to fly loads out. I don't doubt it at all.

By the way, in early America, heavy drinking was very common. Rum from the Caribbean and home-made whisky.

And it is said that Britain's industrial revolution was fueled by cheap gin for the workers.

_______________________________

Response to a comment about the need for education:

You get no argument from me about education.

Trouble is, as with so many of society's institutions, public education – especially in the United States – is highly political.

Many subjects and many ways of talking about those subjects are dangerous territory.

And what could be more stifling than the political correctness of local school boards, state education departments, and the teachers' unions?

It's amazing when anything gets done beyond the basics.

With all these forces at work, in many locations of the US, public education likely has little more latitude than in the good old USSR. Religion? Hands off. Political corruption? Hands off. The delirious effects of plutocracy? Hands off. The political corruption of money? Hands off. Why all the American wars? Hands off.

I don't see a lot of hope in general from education, although there always are exceptional teachers who manage somehow. I had a few.

Posted August 6, 2018 by JOHN CHUCKMAN in Uncategorized JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: REFERENCE TO AMERICA'S CURRENT INABILITY TO HAVE INTELLIGENT POLITICAL DISCUSSION – IN FACT IT IS AN ILLUSION TO THINK THINGS WERE EVER MUCH DIFFERENT – HIGHLIGHTS OF AN EXTREMELY BRUTAL HISTORY – ADDED RESPONSE TO A LONG AND ANGRY COMMENT – SERIOUS MISUSE OF STATISTICS AND POINTS ON TRUMP

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MICHAEL KREIGER IN RUSSIA INSIDER

"People Aren't Having Intelligent Conversations Anymore, They're Just Yelling at Each Other"

I agree with the tone of the article.

But the United States has never been a place where what the French call "politesse" featured. It is a myth for anyone to think so.

Going back to President Andrew Jackson, who horsewhipped an opponent and who regularly challenged men to duels, this plainly is the fact. Yet note that his image is honored today on the twenty-dollar bill.

You can never forget all those years of slavery – Jackson owned gangs of them (As did Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others) – which entailed public auctions of slaves stripped of their clothes, including women who were sometimes bought by lonely rural farmers for "company."

Slavery existed for the best part of a century in the formal United States, but of course it went back long before that in order to build the colonial society that would become strong enough to seek independence.

The culture and undertone of much of America were heavily colored for the future by this pervasive and poisonous institution. It was definitely was not one that encouraged conversations among either camps, supporters and opponents. There were violent disagreements and brawls by politicians over much of the era.

The fact that slave owners quite typically slept with pistols and/or hunting knives under their pillows or within easy reach, such was the constant paranoid fear of slave rebellion, explains a great deal about America's violent gun culture down to this day and its relations between black and white citizens.

Slavery, de facto, continued for about a century after the Civil War (1861-5) in the South's sharecropper system combined with Jim Crow Laws. You know, even when Franklin Roosevelt was President in the 1930s, lynching in town squares was common. It was even a practice, in parts of the South, to hold family picnics on the grass at a lynching.

Then for much of the same period, we had America's treatment of Native people. Again, early on, the honored Andrew Jackson featured. He signed a bill called the Indian Removal Act which was to uproot tens of thousands of peaceful Natives belonging to about half a dozen tribes like the Cherokee in America's Southeast, people who in many cases practiced agriculture, and drive them with the American Cavalry to what was then the remote west, Oklahoma Territory, a land that had no relationship to the places like Florida whey had lived and farmed for a long time. It was quite a different climate and physical geography into which they were unceremoniously dumped.

This forcible removal, named the Trail of Tears (1830s), caused the deaths of several thousand by hunger, exhaustion, and exposure. This was a big number in those days when military battles losses were often counted in hundreds. Their farms and settlements and resources in the Southeast were greedily seized by white Americans.

Years later, as American population grew and pushed West, we had the Indian Wars, which involved the American Calvary's again driving Natives off their lands. Since these were not mainly settled farmers but migrating hunters on horseback, the tactics used against them were much harsher. Whole villages were burned down and all the people killed, just as though they were packs of wild animals being subdued. It was viewed about the same way as farmers shooting coyotes or wolves.

We have old photos of things like a Cavalry Trooper posed proudly with his boot on a man's dead body, resembling an image from the film, "Planet of Apes," and of long trench-like mass graves into which rows of bodies were flung, something resembling smaller, rural versions of Auschwitz.

As America continued to expand and drive westward, there was a constant sequence of such violent events, including the appalling and unwarranted Mexican War (1846-8) intended only to steal land from Mexico.

Still later in the 1890s, we had America's seizure of the Hawaiian Islands, a place which had its own royalty and an established society. The Hawaiians were overwhelmingly opposed to Washington's rule and sent a delegation to submit a petition signed by virtually everyone on the islands. No one in Washington would even speak to them. They were ignored and treated with contempt.

The ruthlessness and crudity weren't limited to stealing land and killing natives. Americans practiced the kind of wholesale theft of what today is called "intellectual property" from Europe. Many mechanisms and machines, as for farming, were purchased in Europe, shipped to America, and then copied. This was done with anything you care to mention, even books. Charles Dickens got quite bitter about the way a new book of his would appear shortly after publication in London as a separate edition in Boston. He never saw a penny in royalties. It is ironic that today America feels so self-righteous about the Chinese, for example, in this regard. All they are seeing is their own history repeated.

Well, that's just a part of the story, but a surprising number of Americans have no idea of the brutality involved in America's growth. There was mighty little civility ever. America was, and remains, in many respects a raw place. G B Shaw joked that it went from barbarism to decadence without ever passing through civilization. The fact that we still laugh at the joke tells us something of its sharp truth.

A lot of what people complain of today in political discussion reflects some effects of the Internet. All the ugly thoughts and words that once were reserved for the streets and alleys now are put on view for anyone to share, and they do share them. And believe me, having grown up in Chicago in the 1950s, there was plenty of ugly stuff around. There was just no way to broadcast it, except graffiti, and there was plenty of that.

Look at Trump. You simply could not find a ruder, more careless-mouthed man if you tried, and here he is, as President, constantly sending out thoughtless, libelous, and brutal words. Maybe the incivility of much of the Internet helped pave the way for acceptance of his record-setting public crudity.

Candidates for President were once limited by something so simple as having been divorced. Although those kinds of limits were a social pretense, representing a lot of hypocrisy and dishonesty, we have dropped the pretense. And we have dropped the pretense about the rudeness and crude expression that was always there in private.

In many ways, Trump represents a large portion of contemporary American society. The words and thoughts are not new, but the method of widespread transmission is, as is the ready willingness to use it. And note that he is not ignored, by the mainline press or anyone else. His stupidities if unreported would have far less effect, but his words are reported and commented upon and copied daily.

I think it probably is creating something of a downward spiral in the public tone of discussion as people become accustomed to nasty language, ugly thoughts, and prejudice openly broadcast on the Internet, even by the President of the country. Experience suggests that any practice which becomes much repeated, one way or another, tends to drive things even further along. New norms keep being set.

By that, I'm not advocating any form of censorship, something to which I'm utterly opposed, but I am making it clear that we are unavoidably into a new era of public discussion, although I think "discussion" a wholly inadequate word, carrying, as it does, the connotation of calm and rational exchange of ideas.

Indeed, the whole discussion of notions like "fake news," a Trump favorite with its pejorative and accusatory tone, is muddled and meaningless since all sides in the debate constantly engage in lying, distortion, and hypocrisy. That goes for The New York Times and Washington Post as much as it does for an outfit like Breitbart News.

Everyone wants to get their views "out there," with little authentic regard for facts. Outfits like The Times still maintain a façade of tone and claim of respectability, but behind the façade, they have an immensely long history of dishonesty and promoting ugly establishment interests, supporting wars and coups and aggression and imperialism in polite words. I actually do not find that more attractive than what we are getting with the Internet. They are both repulsive for anyone who wants to understand some truth.

And I stress that the nastiness and brutality have always been there as an integral part of American culture, only lacking a mechanism of direct communication to large numbers and perhaps being tamped down somewhat by a desire to seem a bit less crude in public. An awareness that others in the world did not engage in quite the same way and responded badly to it may have played a role. But such niceties are lost today.

Traditional religious values may have played a role too in tamping down the public tone, but not only is traditional religion declining rather quickly, a good deal of what remains in America has morphed into bizarre forms with preachers in some cases having parishioners bring their guns to church services or preaching in fervent support of the kind of absolutely brutal violence we see in Israel. Ditto for invoking God's blessings on "our troops" as they illegally invade yet another country and bomb more women and children.

Actually, the traditional press used to act as something of a filtering mechanism. A great deal of ugly stuff never made it out for anyone's attention, but it was in fact still there in private. That same impulse to maintain an appearance of civility brought many dishonesties to journalism.

Americans never even knew facts like Roosevelt being wheel chair-bound or Kennedy being anything but a family man or Nixon, around the time of his resignation, putting his wife into the hospital with a serious beating.

And likewise, they never knew the lies and most of the horror of Korea or Vietnam or Iraq. The absolutely massive levels of brutality, as the fact that one-fifth of the entire population of North Korea was exterminated by three years of American carpet bombing. Or that America left Vietnam having killed 3 million souls with more carpet bombing and napalm and early cluster bombs, also leaving the land packed with landmines and soaked with Agent Orange to keep killing and crippling for decades.

Even earlier, there was journalism's lies about things like "Remember the Maine" in the deliberately-engineered Spanish-American War, a false slogan which made its way into American grade school history books as fact.

The Internet puts much into plain view, but it also does so with a new confusion, a chaotic situation in which ugly fact and ugly myth and deliberate propaganda all come jumbled together. Only people who carefully read and assess and balance realize its potential for communicating truth, but such people always anywhere are a minority.

The chaotic nature of so much "discussion" in America is, just like the country's brutality and crudeness, simply a part of America's heritage.

__________________________

Response some days later to someone who wrote a long and angry comment:

There's an old saying you might profitably make note of.

It's usually a good idea to know the words to the music before you get up to sing.

Nothing worse than using a statistic you've picked up somewhere to attempt characterizing a situation you clearly have no understanding of.

Only a few percent of Americans were slaveholders?

My God, it is only a few percent of any population that are criminal, but they influence us all every day of our lives.

They make police forces necessary. They make courts necessary. And prison systems and guards and wardens. They make an entire criminal legal system necessary with criminal lawyers, judges, juries, parole boards, the acts of politicians legislating, etc. Their acts fill our newspapers and broadcasting, causing much fear and upset in many ordinary people. Their acts are the topic of endless private and public discussion.

And just so slavery, perhaps even more so. I've read a good deal of serious history of the United states. Slavery and all of its related issues colored and affected everything from the way the Constitution was written to import laws to the courts and political arguments. It affected the careers of politicians, it affected law enforcement, North and South, it affected the courts and their decisions. It affected attitudes of people. Its pervasive and noxious influence never went away, having absolutely no connection with the number of slaveholders.

A person of any understanding knows that this is the case for a great many parts of human affairs. Today, we have the economic issue of the extremely lopsided distribution of wealth and income and the "one-percent." And I suppose you think they do not affect almost everything in society because of their small number? Its politics and the candidates of its political parties? Its laws? Its wars and turmoil? Its taxation system? The government's treatment of those less fortunate?

As for Trump, do you really think the approach of some corporate business people should characterize government? The ways of Google or Apple or Amazon or John D. Rockefeller or Henry Ford? There are many reasons for thinking that is a terrible idea. Such people already have inordinate influence on government and its policies., and astute observers on both the Left and the Right agree.

Running a company and running a government are two very different things. Different skills. Different understanding. Different expectations. And working under different sets of rules.

Trump is an exceedingly ignorant and impatient man, and he did not even write "The Art of the Deal," of which he told us he is so proud. He paid a ghostwriter. And that ghostwriter has now spoken out several times about his private observations of Trump. He is an appalling man who listens to no one, is totally obsessed with his own opinions, and is rude and unpleasant. He, of course, only confirms the views of other outsiders who have worked near Trump and written about it.

And do you really think it is the job of a head of government to publicly insult various of its citizens? That is the behavior of an angry child, and a not very pleasant child. He is supposed to be president of all the people, not just some. Imagine Putin doing this in Russia? No, Putin only speaks to the kind of matters a President should speak to. He has what we used to call "class," a quality utterly missing in Trump. You, know, some of his cheap-bully remarks, here or there, might seem funny at first to some because we've never heard their like before, but they do in fact lasting and long-term damage to society.

Again, the number of lynchings, which you obviously regard as small and try to minimize? What an asinine statistic to quote. It addresses nothing but your own ego. I am well familiar with it, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

By the way, from some of your remarks you show that you did not even understand what I wrote. Hard to know why you would want to comment then, but one detects in your tone that same Trumpian quality, a person ready to open his mouth, and loudly, without ever pausing to think.

Posted August 2, 2018 by JOHN CHUCKMAN in Uncategorized

Tagged with A FACADE OF RESPECTABILITY , A PART OF AMERICAN HERITAGE , A RUDE TOUGHTLESS PRESIDENT TRUMP , A WHOLE ERA OF BRAWLS AND VIOLENT DISAGREEMENTS , AMERICA A RAW PLACE STILL , AMERICA AND NATIVE PEOPLE , AMERICA HAS DROPPED ITS PRETENSES , AMERICA'S DRIVE WESTWARD , AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE , AMERICAN THEFT OF EUROPEAN INVENTIONS , BRUTAL RECORD OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JACKSON , BRUTALITY AND DISHONESTY AND HYPOCRISY IN AMERICA , CHAOTIC NATURE OF "DISCUSSION" IN AMERICA , CHARLES DICKENS AND AMERICAN LITERARY THEFT , CHEROKEE AND AMERICAN SOUTHEAST , DE FACTO SLAVERY AFTER CIVIL WAR , DISCUSSION IN AMERICA , DISHONESTIES OF JOURNALISM , FACTS AMERICANS NEVER KNEW , G B SHAW ON AMERICA PASSING FROM BARBARISM TO DECADENCE , GOD'S BLESSING ON OUR TROOPS INVADING ANOTHER PLACE AND KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN , HAWAIIAN ISLANDS , HIS STUPIDITIES ARE REPORTED DAILYINSTEAD OF BEING IGNORED , IN CHINA AMERICANS SEE SOME OF THEIR OWN HISTORY REPEATED , INCIVILITY OF MUCH OF THE INTERNET , INDIAN WARS AND CAVALRY , INTERNET PUTS MUCH INTO PLAIN VIEW , JOHN CHUCKMAN , KILLING INDIANS VIEWED AS SHOOTING COYOTES , KOREA AND VIETNAM HORRORS , METHOD OF WIDESPREAD TRANSMISSION OF UGLY WORDS , MEXICAN WAR , NEW NORMS KEEP BEING SET , NEW YORK TIMES AND BREITBART NEWS PARALLELS , OKLAHOMA TERRITORY , OPPOSED TO CENSORSHIP , POLITICAL DISCUSSION TODAY REFLECTS EFFECTS OFINTERNET , PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF RECORD CRUDITY , RELIGION IS DECLINING , REMEMBER THE MAINE , SHARECROPPERS AND JIM CROW LAWS , SMALL RURAL VERSIONS OF AUSCHWITZ , THE ROLE OF SLAVERY IN FORMING AMERICA , THE WEIRD IDEA OF "FAKE NEWS" , THEFT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY , TRAIL OF TEARS , TRUMP REPRESENTS A LARGE PORTION OF AMERICA

[Sep 01, 2018] ISRAEL LOBBY TO DESTROY A POLITICIAN START RESEMBLING STALINISM

Notable quotes:
"... "But he needs to move quickly and decisively now" ..."
"... This fixation over anti-Semitism, always without any effort to provide proof of anything, borders on the days of Stalin. ..."
"... If Stalin was looking for "wreckers of the Revolution," as he did every once in a while, the phrase being his code words for a new purge, and you happened to be one in the eyes of your local NKVD detachment – perhaps for as little cause as the their needing to achieve their quota of wreckers this week – you were in deadly trouble. ..."
"... Corbyn is hated in Israel because he is fair-minded on Israel and Palestine, and that these days is simply not allowed. Actually, true liberals and the Left are hated widely in Israel because they stand for traditional Western values of human and democratic rights. ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MATTHEW NORMAN IN THE INDEPENDENT

"But he needs to move quickly and decisively now"

Move on what?

Nothing inappropriate was said or done, but someone has to "move" on it?

There is no anti-Semitism in the words. None. People were called "Trump fanatics." The people happen to be Jewish, something they themselves continually draw attention to in their unwarranted attacks on Corbyn.

This fixation over anti-Semitism, always without any effort to provide proof of anything, borders on the days of Stalin.

If Stalin was looking for "wreckers of the Revolution," as he did every once in a while, the phrase being his code words for a new purge, and you happened to be one in the eyes of your local NKVD detachment – perhaps for as little cause as the their needing to achieve their quota of wreckers this week – you were in deadly trouble.

That truly is the level of so much of this name-calling reverse-prejudice filth against a decent man, Jeremy Corbyn.

I have never seen such ugliness, and I do understand the reason for it.

Corbyn is hated in Israel because he is fair-minded on Israel and Palestine, and that these days is simply not allowed. Actually, true liberals and the Left are hated widely in Israel because they stand for traditional Western values of human and democratic rights.

[Aug 31, 2018] Anti-Semitism Charges Against Jeremy Corbyn Are Diversion From Israeli Occupation of Palestine by Miko Peled

Notable quotes:
"... Jeremy Corbyn is a man who has dedicated his entire life to fighting racism and injustice -- he is not a racist and therefore clearly he is not anti-Semitic. He has not once denied the Holocaust and therefore he is not a Holocaust-denier. It seems, however, that none of this matters to those who would bring him down. ..."
"... The desperation of those seeking to oust Corbyn can be seen by the latest accusation against him: attending a memorial for terrorists. ..."
"... Corbyn did not remain silent. True to himself once again, he struck back, reminding Netanyahu that what is deserving of condemnation is Israeli forces' killing of hundreds of protesters in Gaza and the passing of the new, racist Israel Nation State Law . ..."
"... By trying to silence the discussion regarding Zionism and its legitimacy, Israel abuses the memory of the millions who died in the Holocaust, particularly the Jewish victims. There are entire communities of Jewish Holocaust survivors and descendants of survivors who are quite ready to discuss and debate any issue, including the Holocaust, and who view the Zionists' stance as absurd. These same Jewish communities also reject Zionism and support the Palestinian call for BDS , or Boycott Divestment and Sanctions against Israel. It is time that these voices be heard. ..."
"... Miko Peled is an author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. He is the author of " The General's Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine ," and " Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five ." ..."
Aug 30, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

Jeremy Corbyn is a man who has dedicated his entire life to fighting racism and injustice -- he is not a racist and therefore clearly he is not anti-Semitic. He has not once denied the Holocaust and therefore he is not a Holocaust-denier. It seems, however, that none of this matters to those who would bring him down.

The U.K. Labour Party conference is more than three weeks away and Jeremy Corbyn, true to himself and his principles, has risen above the mud-slinging and continues to fight for the principles to which he has dedicated his entire life. He focuses on issues like social justice; caring for the many rather than the few, the millions not the millionaires; and, as Corbyn himself said in his speech at last year's convention, "end[ing] the oppression of the Palestinian people."

Zionist groups within the Labour Party, which include LFI (Labour Friends of Israel) and the JLM (the Zionist 'Jewish Labour Movement'), skillfully utilize the pro-Zionist media. They are trying -- and failing -- to paint Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite. However, the problem is not anti-Semitism but Corbyn's stance on Palestine. These Zionist groups want to get rid of Corbyn because of his principled stance on Palestine, Israeli colonialism and occupation of Palestine, and they use anti-Semitism labels because they think it will work.

The 1972 Munich-attacks issue

The desperation of those seeking to oust Corbyn can be seen by the latest accusation against him: attending a memorial for terrorists.

It was given impetus by a remark by the Israeli prime minister, in what is a shocking intervention by Israel in British politics. Benjamin Netanyahu made remarks about the Labour leader, saying that he deserves "unequivocal condemnation." In what can only be described as an escalation of the already heavy-handed intervention of Zionist groups to end Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, Netanyahu said that Corbyn's participation in a ceremony at a cemetery in Tunis in 2014 is deserving of condemnation, because -- according to Netanyahu -- terrorists are buried there.

Corbyn did not remain silent. True to himself once again, he struck back, reminding Netanyahu that what is deserving of condemnation is Israeli forces' killing of hundreds of protesters in Gaza and the passing of the new, racist Israel Nation State Law .

Netanyahu -- along with what may well be the loudest Zionist mouthpiece in Britain, The Daily Mail -- claims that Corbyn was present at a ceremony and even laid a wreath on the graves of terrorists connected with the 1972 attack on the Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympic games .

The truth of the matter is that the event in which Corbyn participated had nothing to do with the Munich attack. In 2014 Jeremy Corbyn attended a service at a cemetery in Tunis commemorating the victims of the 1985 Israeli airstrike on the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) offices in Tunis. This Israeli attack was a breach of international law, violated the sovereignty of another country, and received worldwide condemnation, including by the United States .

The Crisis in Corbyn's Labour Party Is Over Israel, Not Anti-Semitism

Furthermore, none of the eight men who participated in the Munich attack are buried in Tunis. The four men who are buried there -- and whose tombstones are shown in The Daily Mail photo -- are Salah Khalaf, who was Yasser Arafat's deputy; his aide, Fakhri al-Omari; Hayel Abdel-Hamid, who was the PLO chief of security; and Atef Bseiso. Bseiso was assassinated in Paris in 1992 -- 20 years after the Munich Olympics. He was heavily involved in talks with the CIA in an attempt to advance relations between the U.S. and the PLO. Israel claimed that all four were involved in the attack in Munich and had all of them assassinated either directly or by the proxy terror group, Abu-Nidal. There was never a shred of proof, not to mention a trial, to substantiate Israel's allegations against these men.

Blatant intervention

The big question is why does the Israeli prime minister feel he needs to engage in such blatant intervention and and make such blatantly false accusations just as Britain's largest political party is about to convene? Netanyahu and his henchmen must realize that U.K. Labour, having gained over half a million members since Jeremy Corbyn's ascent as leader, is poised to win in the next elections, so that, if Israel fails to oust him, Jeremy Corbyn will end up in 10 Downing Street.

One of the ridiculous charges laid against Corbyn is the following: He was criticized for attending a passover Seder with a particular group of Jewish people who "dismissed concerns about anti-Semitism in the party." So it is not good enough that he went to a Seder and that he opted to do so among people who live in his own constituency; he had to do so with Jewish people who think a particular way.

Corbyn was also criticized for participating in an event with the late Hajo Meyer , a Jewish holocaust survivor himself. This was in 2010, when Corbyn hosted a Holocaust Memorial Day event in London with Meyer as the main speaker. Hajo Meyer was, like many holocaust survivors, a fervent advocate for Palestinian rights and a severe critic of Israel -- hence the criticism.

Anti-Semitism

Another sticking point is the self-appointed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance ( IHRA ), which apparently adopted a new and, in their own words, "non-legally binding" working definition of anti-Semitism . Initially Labour's national executive committee refused to accept this definition, but there are signs that a compromise might be on the horizon. This definition of anti-Semitism is one that entire Jewish communities do not accept because it seeks to silence criticism of Israel and conflates Zionism with Judaism. The anti-Semitism definition includes several clauses that have nothing to do with racism or anti-Semitism and have everything to do with protecting Israel from criticism. For example:

War of attrition

Another example, in which I was personally involved, has to do with a comment that I made at a fringe event during the 2017 Labour conference and that turned into a major news item. During a panel on free speech, I said that free speech means we should be able to discuss every issue, including Palestine and the Holocaust. The Daily Mail published this as though it was a scandalous thing to say and accused Labour and even Corbyn himself for allowing it to happen.

Every other newspaper in Britain followed suit and then papers in Palestine and even the Israeli papers picked it up as well. I added in my remarks that, while free speech should not be criminalized, we do not need to give a platform to proponents of any racist ideology, and that includes Zionists who regularly demand to be present and give their perspective at events and lectures.

My presence during the conference and my comments did not warrant such attention. However, this is a war of attrition in which Labour Friends of Israel, the so-called 'Jewish Labour Movement, and the British Daily Mail are leading the charge and will jump at every opportunity to get attention. Once again, the problem was not denial of the Holocaust or anti-Semitism -- because there was no expression of either one -- but the fear of a discussion on Palestine and Zionism.

By trying to silence the discussion regarding Zionism and its legitimacy, Israel abuses the memory of the millions who died in the Holocaust, particularly the Jewish victims. There are entire communities of Jewish Holocaust survivors and descendants of survivors who are quite ready to discuss and debate any issue, including the Holocaust, and who view the Zionists' stance as absurd. These same Jewish communities also reject Zionism and support the Palestinian call for BDS , or Boycott Divestment and Sanctions against Israel. It is time that these voices be heard.

Jeremy Corbyn is a man who has dedicated his entire life to fighting racism and injustice -- he is not a racist and therefore clearly he is not anti-Semitic. He has not once denied the Holocaust and therefore he is not a Holocaust-denier. However, none of this matters. As was stated clearly in The Daily Mai l,

"The Board of Deputies of British Jews warned Mr. Corbyn to 'come out of hiding' and said the anti-Semitism crisis would not go away."

In other words, there is nothing he can say or do to "clear" himself. They are determined to oust him and they think the anti-Semitic card will do the trick.

*

Miko Peled is an author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. He is the author of " The General's Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine ," and " Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five ."

[Aug 30, 2018] >Jeremy Corbyn is still there and the pro Israelis have had an unprecedented amount of media coverage to convince the population that he's on a par with Goebbels.

Aug 30, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk
duplicitousdemocracy , August 28, 2018 at 14:24

The problem with this scenario is that it's starting to look ineffective. Jeremy Corbyn is still there and the pro Israelis have had an unprecedented amount of media coverage to convince the population that he's on a par with Goebbels. I suspect having already suffered the vilification he received in his ambassador days, he is in a much better position to endure another campaign. There is also the (not so) small matter of a very loyal and supportive blog readership which is always willing to help him in his hour of need. Craig Murray isn't the sitting duck you would like him to think he is.

[Aug 28, 2018] The Crucifixion of Jeremy Corbyn by Philip Giraldi

Critique of Israeli government interference in internal affair of other states in a form of pro-Israel lobby, or critique Zionism as an ideology is not equivalent to anti-Semitism. Neoliberal states like Israel do not represent interests of its citizens, but mostly transnationals and top 1%. Attempt to link those mean weaponizing anti-Semitism. For example, while Israel is an ally of the USA some if its action are definitely are against the USA citizens interests. Although the role of Israel as a collective lobbyist for US MIC should be acknowledged.
Conversion of Israel into ethnostate is probably a logical development, but the problem here is that it further alienate Palestinians, which have higher birth rate then Israelites.
Notable quotes:
"... It was also learned that the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs). ..."
"... Corbyn's crime has been that he is critical of the Jewish state and has called for an "end to the repression of the Palestinian people." As a reward, he has been hounded mercilessly by British Jews, even those in his own party, for over two years. ..."
"... Last month, rightwing Labour Parliamentarian Margaret Hodge raised the stakes, calling Corbyn "a fucking anti-Semite and a racist". She then wrote in the Guardian ..."
"... All of the invective has been more-or-less orchestrated by the Israeli government, which directly supports the gaggle of groups that have coalesced to bring down Corbyn. This effort to destroy the Labour leader has included the use of an app disseminating messages via social media accusing Corbyn of anti-Semitism. The app was developed by Israel's strategic affairs ministry , which "directs Israel's covert efforts to sabotage the Palestine solidarity movement around the world". ..."
"... The principal argument being made against Corbyn is that the Labour Party is awash with anti-Semitism and Corbyn has done little or nothing to oppose it. Some of the most brutal shots against Corbyn have come from the usual crowd in the United States. ..."
"... New York Magazine ..."
Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Many believe that the easily observable dominance of the friends of Israel over some aspects of government policy is a phenomenon unique to the United States, where committed Jews and Christian Zionists are able to control both politicians and the media message relating to what is going on in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the reality is that there exists an "Israel Lobby" in many countries, all dedicated to advancing the agendas promoted by successive Israeli governments no matter what the actual interests of the host country might be. Failure to confront Israel's crimes against humanity combined with an inability to resist its demands regarding how issues like anti-Semitism and hate speech are defined has done terrible damage to free speech in Western Europe and, most notably, in the Anglophone world.

For the United States this corruption of the media and the political process by Israel has meant endless wars in the Middle East as well of loss of civil liberties at home, but some other countries have compromised their own declared values far beyond that. Former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper praised Israel completely inaccurately as a light that " burns bright, upheld by the universal principles of all civilized nations -- freedom, democracy justice." He has also said "I will defend Israel whatever the cost" to Canada, an assertion that some might regard as very, very odd for a Canadian head of state.

In some other cases, Israel plays hardball directly, threatening retribution against governments that do not fall in line. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently warned New Zealand that backing a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlements would be a "declaration of war." He was able to do so because he had confidence in the power of the Israel Lobby in that country to mobilize and produce the desired result.

It might surprise some that the "Mother of Parliaments" in Great Britain is perhaps the legislative body most dominated by Israeli interests, more in many respects than the Congress in the United States. The ruling Conservative Party has a Friends of Israel caucus that includes more than 80% of its Parliamentary membership. BICOM , the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, is an American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) clone located in London. It is well funded and politically powerful, working through its various "Friends of Israel" proxies. Americans might be surprised to learn how that power is manifest, including that in Britain Jewish organizations uniquely are allowed to patrol heavily Jewish London neighborhoods in police-like uniforms while driving police-type vehicles. There have been reports of the patrols threatening Muslims who seek to enter the areas.

Prime Minister Theresa May is careful never to offend either Israel or the wealthy and powerful British Jewish community. After Secretary of State John Kerry described Israel's government as "extreme right wing" on December 28, 2016, May sprang to Tel Aviv's defense, saying "we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally." May's rejoinder could have been written by Netanyahu, and maybe it was. Two weeks later, her government cited "reservations" over a French government sponsored mid-January Middle East peace conference and would not sign a joint statement calling for a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after Netanyahu vociferously condemned the proceedings.

This deference all takes place in spite of a recent astonishing expose by al-Jazeera, which revealed how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to "take down" parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It was also learned that the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs).

British Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been under unrelenting fire due to the fact that he is the first major political party leader in many years to resist the demands that he place Israel on a pedestal. Corbyn is indeed a man of the left who has consistently opposed racism, extreme nationalism, colonialism and military interventionism. Corbyn's crime has been that he is critical of the Jewish state and has called for an "end to the repression of the Palestinian people." As a reward, he has been hounded mercilessly by British Jews, even those in his own party, for over two years.

The invective being spewed by some British Jews and Israel has increased of late, presumably because Theresa May's Conservative government is perceived as being weak and there is a distinct possibility that the leader of the Labour Party will be the next Prime Minister. That a Prime Minister might be sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians is viewed as completely unacceptable.

Last month, rightwing Labour Parliamentarian Margaret Hodge raised the stakes, calling Corbyn "a fucking anti-Semite and a racist". She then wrote in the Guardian that Labour is "a hostile environment for Jews." The traditionally liberal Guardian has in fact been in the forefront of Jewish criticism of Corbyn, led by its senior editor Jonathan Freedland, who reportedly believes that "his Jewish identity is intimately tied to Israel, and that to attack Israel is to attack him personally he is demanding the exclusive right to police the parameters of discussions about Israel." Last month he featured in his paper a letter attacking Corbyn signed by 68 rabbis.

All of the invective has been more-or-less orchestrated by the Israeli government, which directly supports the gaggle of groups that have coalesced to bring down Corbyn. This effort to destroy the Labour leader has included the use of an app disseminating messages via social media accusing Corbyn of anti-Semitism. The app was developed by Israel's strategic affairs ministry , which "directs Israel's covert efforts to sabotage the Palestine solidarity movement around the world".

There are two principal objectives to the "get Corbyn" campaign. The first is to remove him from the Labour Party leadership position, thereby ensuring that he will never be elected Prime Minister, while also eliminating from the party any and all members who are perceived as being "too critical" of Israel. In practice that has meant anyone who criticizes Israel at all. And second it is to establish as a legal principle that the "hate crime" offense of anti-Semitism specifically be defined to include criticism of Israel, thereby making it a criminal offense to write or speak about Israel's racist behavior towards its Muslim and Christian minority while also making it impossible to freely discuss its war crimes.

The principal argument being made against Corbyn is that the Labour Party is awash with anti-Semitism and Corbyn has done little or nothing to oppose it. Some of the most brutal shots against Corbyn have come from the usual crowd in the United States. Andrew Sullivan recently observed in New York Magazine that "When it emerged, that Naz Shah, a new Labour MP, had opined on Facebook before she was elected that Israel should be relocated to the U.S., and former London mayor Ken Livingstone backed her up by arguing that the Nazis initially favored Zionism, Corbyn didn't make a big fuss." Sullivan then went on to write that "It then emerged that Corbyn himself had subscribed to various pro-Palestinian Facebook groups where rank anti-Semitism flourished" and had even " attended a meeting on Holocaust Memorial Day in 2010, called 'Never Again for Anyone: Auschwitz to Gaza,' equating Israelis with Nazis."

In other words, Corbyn should have been responsible for policing the personal views of Shah and Livingstone , both of whom were subsequently suspended from the Labour Party with Livingstone eventually resigning. He should have also avoided Palestinian Facebook commentary because alleged anti-Semites occasionally contribute their views and ought not to acknowledge in any fashion the Israel war crimes being committed on a daily basis in Gaza.

So Corbyn must go based on the "fact" that he has to be a closet anti-Semite as discerned by the likes of Andrew Sullivan on this side of the Atlantic and a host of Israel-firsters in Britain. But the Labour leader's worst crime that is being regarded as an " existential threat " to Jewish people everywhere is his resistance to the pressure being exerted on him to endorse and adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) precise multi-faceted definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism. The IHRA basic definition of anti-Semitism is reasonable enough, including "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

The Labour Party and Corbyn have accepted that definition but have balked at eleven "contemporary examples of anti-Semitism" also provided by IHRA, four of which have nothing to do with Jews and everything to do with Israel. They are:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g.

One might observe that many Jews

And yes, Israel is a "racist endeavor." Just check out the recent nationality law passed by the Knesset declaring Israel to be a Jewish State. It grants self-determination only to those living within its borders who are Jews. And if using racial distinctions for full citizenship while also bombing hospitals and schools while lining up snipers to shoot thousands of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators is not Nazi-like behavior, then what is? Israel and its leader are sometimes compared to Nazis and to Adolf Hitler because they behave like Nazis and Adolf Hitler.

And finally there is the definition that challenges any "double standard" in demanding behavior from Israel that is not expected from any other democratic nation. Well, first of all Israel is not a democracy. It is a theocracy or ethnocracy if you prefer wrapped around a police state. Other countries that call themselves democracies have equal rights under law for all citizens. Other democracies do not have hundreds of thousands of settlers stealing land and even water resources from the indigenous population and colonizing it to the benefit of only one segment of its population. Other democracies do not regularly shoot dead unarmed protesters. How many democracies are currently practicing ethnic cleansing, as the Israeli Jews are doing to the Palestinians?

Will Corbyn give in to the IHRA demands to save his skin as party leader? One has to suspect that he will as he is already regularly conceding points and apologizing, publicly delivering the required obeisance to the holocaust as "the worst crime of the twentieth century." And every time he tries to appease those out to get him he emerges weaker. Even if he submits completely, the Israel firsters who are hot to get him, having just like in American significant control over the media, will continue to attack until they find the precise issue that will bring him down. The Labour National Executive Council will meet in September to vote on full acceptance of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. When they, as is likely, kneel before force majeure that will be the end of free speech in Britain. Criticize Israel and you go to jail.

And the same thing is happening in the United States in precisely the same fashion. Criticism of Israel or protesting against it will sooner rather than later be criminalized. I sometimes wonder if Senator Ben Cardin and the others who are promoting the hate legislation really understand what will be lost when they sacrifice the U.S. Constitution to defend Israel. Once free speech is gone, it will never return.

[Aug 28, 2018] CRITICIZE ISRAEL AND GO TO JAIL? IS THAT HOW LOW ZIONISTS HAVE SUNK?

Notable quotes:
"... During the C21st the Conservative Party has become reliant on Jewish money. Even more than her predecessor Cameron, May is a "value free zone", as the commentator Richard North categorised her. She does whatever the donors want. Not that the Labour Party in power would be any better. It is just as riddled with Israel-supporting "moderates". ..."
Aug 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

Rational , says: August 28, 2018 at 4:23 am GMT

CRITICIZE ISRAEL AND GO TO JAIL? IS THAT HOW LOW ZIONISTS HAVE SUNK?

Thanks for the interesting article, Sir.

As I read it, I felt sick in the abdomen, at how low the Zionists have sunk, demanding that those who criticize Israel go to jail.

If there is evil in this world, this is it. These are the dark ages. These people are primitive and seem to resist civilization.

No civilized human being should put up with this sort of evil.

The Brits need to wake up and actually repeal laws that make certain speech criminal offences that are already on the books (except for incitements to violence and porn).

The need to vote for Labor and keep Corbyn, or vote for BNP, and tell the Zionists that they are evil to make these demands.

Civilize them, please!!

Colin Wright , says: Website Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 4:57 am GMT

Israel is not a democracy for a much simpler reason than that the author offers.

It denies the vote to the gentile inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank; that is to say, to about a quarter of its subjects.

Since the Jewish parties in the Knesset boycott the few Arab representatives that are there, Israel effectively denies political representation to the gentiles within its 'pre-1967′ boundaries as well -- that is to say, to another sixth or so of its total subject population.

Obviously, Israel is not a democracy in any sense of the word. 25% of its subjects are without even theoretical representation, and another 17% lack it in any practical sense. It's as if the US denied the vote to all inner-city residents except white 'settlers,' refused to work with Congressmen who weren't Protestants. It would be absurd to regard it as a democracy.

There are some democracies in the Middle East. Israel isn't one of them.

Colin Wright , says: Website Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 5:18 am GMT

CNN (!) offers up this truly disgusting hit piece.

"When Jeremy Corbyn talks about 'British Zionists,' we know exactly what he means'

Basically, Jeremy Corbyn, rabid anti-semite, is equated with David Duke.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/24/opinions/jeremy-corbyn-british-zionists-opinion-intl/index.html

Colin Wright , says: Website Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 5:21 am GMT

and Norm Finkelstein brilliantly demolishes the notion that there's any anti-semitism to speak of in Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party, or Britain in general.

https://mondoweiss.net/2018/08/chimera-british-semitism/

Jon Baptist , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 5:37 am GMT

Corbyn is shell shocked and cannot comprehend what is required for him to counter this blatant attempt at his ouster. An individual that could help him tremendously as an advisor is Miko Peled, an Israeli citizen, living in the U.S. I mention Peled, because he is a "lefty" just like Corbyn.

Giraldi writes that, "there exists an 'Israel Lobby' in many countries, all dedicated to advancing the agendas promoted by successive Israeli governments no matter what the actual interests of the host country might be."

ADL, a branch of the B'nai B'rith global enterprise, confirms they are subversive agents that work against their host nation. Straight from their mouth

Justsaying , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 5:38 am GMT

The center of the Axis of Evil is Zionist Israel. No other country, not even the planet's "sole superpower" wields so much power and control over other "sovereign" nations as does Zionist Israel. Regime change? Zionist, apartheid Israel has perfected that art and science -- and without firing a shot. Why do it when others will cheerfully fight your battles for you? Evil is as evil does. Still obsessed with Russophobia? Distractions aplenty for the stupefied.

chris , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 6:31 am GMT

These efforts to criminalize criticism of Israel seem to be the necessary precursors to major military moves in the Middle East to create 'the greater Israel.'

Probably in coordination with the ongoing efforts to neutralize and destroy all independent players such as Iran and Russia.

Donald , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 6:42 am GMT

There used to be a "supermarket" chain in Montreal called Steinberg, owned by Steinberg, "Canadian" Jews. They sold the business to another supermarket label, Métro-Richelieu or something, owned by a would-be-venture capitalist/economics professor, Michel Gauthier or something. It was a laughing transaction even in the news. But during the due diligence for the sale it surfaced that Steinberg had unusual deals with his suppliers, meat, dairy or whatever. If you wanted to sell your products to Steinberg, Steinberg made you sign an agreement to buy Israeli bonds. Talk about tied-selling under the Canada Competition Act! Talk about Stephen Harper financing!

Wally , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 6:46 am GMT

It's all coming down.

... ... ...

This site is a great example, what with the posting Giraldi's work and this:
American Pravda: Holocaust Denial : http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

The Knesset officially declares that Israeli democracy is for Jews only

http://mondoweiss.net/2018/06/officially-declares-democracy/

The True Cost of Parasite Israel
Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

Fighting Israel's Wars
How the United States military has become Zionized: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/fighting-israels-wars/

Pandering to Israel Has Got to Stop
Pledges of loyalty to Israel are un-American: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/pandering-to-israel-has-got-to-stop/#comments

America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/#comment-2012898

Verymuchalive , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 6:47 am GMT

During the C21st the Conservative Party has become reliant on Jewish money. Even more than her predecessor Cameron, May is a "value free zone", as the commentator Richard North categorised her. She does whatever the donors want. Not that the Labour Party in power would be any better. It is just as riddled with Israel-supporting "moderates".

In the near future, the Labour Party will break down into 2 or more groups. The "moderates" and more radical groups who will be chasing the Muslim vote.

On top of that, a second Scottish Independence Referendum may not be too many years away. I suspect it will be successful this time.

The dissolution of the British state seems likely over the coming years. The question is how much damage May and her Conservatives In Name Only will do in the interim.

mark green , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 6:57 am GMT

Thank you, Philip Giraldi.

How ironic that a brave and principled man (Jeremy Corbyn) is being hounded out of office and defamed from all sides while a dishonest neocon toady like such as John McCain is lionized by both wings of Washington's duopoly (as well as our MSM) as a 'hero' and a 'maverick'.

Could this really be happening?

Oh it's happening alright.

McCain dutifully pimped for every US war against any Israeli foes since GHW Bush. McCain expressed no regrets for the destruction of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, the dismemberment of Palestine, or the destabilization of Syria. McCain never apologized for all the needless death and suffering caused by spineless servants such as himself. He also openly advocated for a US war on Iran, just as Israel wanted.

If the Zions didn't control our entire mass media this level of venality would not occur. But they do and it does.

Indoctrination. Brainwashing. Repetition. Conformity. Taboo. Shame. Blacklisting. Political corruption.

Do you deny making anti-Semitic remarks? What will your friends and family say?

The falsification of history is an ongoing and daily occurrence.

The manipulation of the masses: it works!

Who are you going to believe?–your own fallible judgement?–or the expert analysis of our entire political class–including Harvard-educated scholars and journalists?

C'mon. Get a clue. Think right. Stop talking that way.

You don't want to lose your job, do you?

no.

Then STFU!

ok.

tac , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 7:05 am GMT

It is Israel again up to its old tricks being the real entity that interferes in foreign elections:

Corbyn is viewed by Israel as effectively the "figurehead of the delegitimisation network".

"They hope that by taking action against him, they can decapitate what they see as the most powerful figure in this network," he told Middle East Eye. "By making an example of him, they can sow division, spread fear and suppress speech on Israel."

Certainly, Israel's fingerprints look to be present in the current claims of an anti-Semitism crisis supposedly revolving around Corbyn.

Active interference by the Israeli government in British politics was highlighted last year in a four-part undercover documentary produced by the Qatari channel Al Jazeera. It secretly filmed the activities of an operative in Israel's embassy in London named Shai Masot.

The Al Jazeera investigation provoked numerous complaints that it breached broadcasting rules relating to anti-Semitism, bias, unfair editing and invasions of privacy. However, Ofcom, the British broadcasting regulator, cleared the programme of all charges.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-s-hidden-hand-behind-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-139423040

Michael Kenny , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 9:01 am GMT

In fact, I think all of this has more to do with Brexit than with Israel. The Brexiteers are in total panic. If they put the exit package to a referendum, they'll lose. If they call an election on it, Corbyn will probably win and he opposes Brexit. Even a parliamentary vote could be lost inasmuch as the Tories don't have a majority and the Brexiteers are a minority within the party.

Thus, Corbyn has to be discredited at all costs. Whether accusations of anti-Semitism will discredit him is quite another matter. In Europe generally, people are indifferent to Israel. They don't care what happens to it one way or the other.

Nobody who is likely to vote Labour cares a hoot about Israel and are not going to change their vote because of the accusations. If anything, people will perceive the campaign against Corbyn as Jewish bullying and rally to him.

Deschutes , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 10:28 am GMT

... ... ...

I was surprised to learn that the population of Israel is only 8.8 million. So small! Contrast that with Iran's 82 million .Egypt's 100 million Iraq's 40 million or Turkey's 82 million. How such a relatively tiny country makes so much noise and disruption for the rest of the world is something to ponder. If you ever google one of those 'most hated countries in the world' polls Israel or USA invariably top the list.

Anon , [129] Disclaimer says: Website Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 10:39 am GMT
@Michael Kenny

In fact, I think all of this has more to do with Brexit than with Israel. The Brexiteers are in total panic.

But Corbyn is attacked by Brit Jews and the Guardian, both opposed to Brexit.

Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 11:14 am GMT

Gilad Atzmon, the self-described ex-Israeli and ex-Jew, writes reams about the Jewish assault on Corbyn. In this recent piece , he quotes from Douglas Reed's The Controversy of Zion :

... ... ..

LondonBob , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
@Verymuchalive

The Conservative Party membership numbers are no longer published but they could be as low as fifty thousand going on revenue from membership fees.

All this smearing has so far had no impact at all, in fact it is leading some to question what is the agenda here. There is a nice article on the Israeli smear campaign in the Middle East Eye.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-s-hidden-hand-behind-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-139423040

Digital Samizdat , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT

Bravo, Phil! Keep 'em comin'.

Many believe that the easily observable dominance of the friends of Israel over some aspects of government policy is a phenomenon unique to the United States, where committed Jews and Christian Zionists are able to control both politicians and the media message relating to what is going on in the Middle East.

Thank you for pointing this out.

Although I am no longer much of a Christian myself, I have always bristled every time I hear some left-wing (usually Jewish) anti-Zionist blame American Christians for Washington's mid-east policies, while describing the influence of the Jewish lobby as being 'exaggerated'. The obvious counterargument is: if American Christians have so much power over the federal government that they can virtually dictate mid-east policy, how come they can't ban abortion or gay marriage? How come they can't–forgive the metaphor–resurrect prayer in school?

Indeed, the mere fact that the US now has an entire branch of Christianity devoted to Rapture-Zionism gives you a clue as to who rules whom in this country. Think about it, people: we now have 'Christian' churches who are actually willing to put the interests and well-being of another religion ahead of their own! And their otherwise patriotic followers are being conned into putting the interests of another country ahead of their own. Absolutely astounding! In modern America at least, not only have the Christians lost control of their government; they've even lost control of Christianity!

Moreover, what about all those other western countries, such as Britain, France and Germany, which really lack anything like American-style Rapture-Christians, yet are still completely in thrall to Israel? L'affaire Corbyn is, if nothing else, proof that we are not the only ones being jacked around by the Zionists.

Don't get me wrong: I really wish American Christians would wake the f*ck up and see that they're being used, being made to look pathetic by the Zionists. But the allegation that those Christians are actually running the show in the West is completely fatuous. In fact, it's just a left-wing 'anti-Zionist' gate-keeper story. Don't believe it!

Failure to confront Israel's crimes against humanity combined with an inability to resist its demands regarding how issues like anti-Semitism and hate speech are defined has done terrible damage to free speech in Western Europe and, most notably, in the Anglophone world.

We are all Palestinians now!

I really hope this serves as a wake-up call to all of the pro-Zionist alt-righters out there. The Zionists can never truly be our friends. After all, once they are able to ban anti-Zionist talk for being anti-Semitic, how much longer will be it before they are able to just go ahead and ban all anti-Semitic speech? Then where will you be? You won't even be allowed to criticize George Soros anymore!

Corbyn is indeed a man of the left who has consistently opposed racism, extreme nationalism, colonialism and military interventionism.

Well, I'm not a hundred-percent sure about the "nationalism" part. While "extreme" may well be in the eye of the beholder, it's also true that the IRA and most of the Palestinian groups do self-describe as 'nationalist', and Corbyn has always been OK with them (as am I). The only nationalism his seems to have a real problem with is English nationalism.

The traditionally liberal Guardian has in fact been in the forefront of Jewish criticism of Corbyn, led by its senior editor Jonathan Freedland

They should just go ahead and relaunch The Guardian as The Shomer .

jilles dykstra , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 12:06 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat

Soros bought the Guardian

JoaoAlfaiate , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT

As Norman Finkelstein once observed, Jews "never forgive and never forget." Corbyn ought to keep that in mind. All his bobbing and weaving will availeth nothing.

jilles dykstra , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT
@Anon

Why should there be panic by the Brexiteers ? Britain's export to the remaining EU is far less than from the remaining EU to GB. Especially France and Germany have huge exports to GB. As a Brexiteer already long ago mentioned 'they need us more than we them'.

If Merkel and Macron would survive a hard Brexit, I wonder. Under estimated is the why of Brexit, they want their country back, as one voter said 'they even interfere with vacuum cleaners'.

Deschutes , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 12:22 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat

I stopped reading the Guardian full stop 4-5 years ago, back when they launched their "Russia is evildoer!!" shrill campaign of propaganda–also about the time the Ukraine civil war got into gear. Never looked back, the Guardian is a steaming pile of US/NATO/Atlantic Council bullshit. I'll never understand why so many fixate on it, such as the Off-guardian.org bloggers who've devoted an entire blog for years on end to criticising Guardian journos, 'comment is free', comment mods, etc. All fine and good, but why?

With so many other better news sources is there a need? No, there isn't. Just move on. The Guardian is not a relevant news outlet. I mean, why keep going there to read pro-Israeli/pro-US government articles which make you angry? Doesn't make any sense.

Ben Sampson , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 12:39 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat

we keep accepting these arguments like Giraldis' here and functioning intellectually at this paused rate which is insufficient to the needs of the day and time.

it is immediate the reality in which we live, in all its demands on us and we must respond at the same speed. the enemy moves at the rate of speed of life and succeeds in slowing us down with these arguments in the media

Corbyn is bloody well wrong. he has gone out of his way to compromise with the Zionists and every time they want more. we we knew that, that they would not compromise did we not .we knew it. we know the game. they know they game. they have the power and they never compromise..never! they know to give ground is to lose.

and it is in fact to lose..and the same for the people. that is why it is zero sum. the economic/political game is no place to compromise.

in principle the people have all the power..and we do. where are the leaders who bring the people into awareness of their total power, set up and lead them into that power in the process of fixing society?

why must the leader of those who have all the power be at the feet of a minority who is bleeding the life out of the society?

Corbyn behaves as if he has no power..as if he is not fixing to assume in behalf of the people the greatest social power there is..the power of the people. so he is apologetic and compromising of the peoples power, on and in dealing with the peoples issues

the people's power and social interest have been usurped and compromised by a minority power and their pets in the peoples power structure..and in the media too. that is why we are dealing with a prevaricator in Giraldi and not a radicalized person who brings us up to speed..the speed required to fix society

the peoples power has been betrayed by treasonous citizens who have lied to the people and usurped the peoples power. that is the truth, the immediate truth and requires an immediate and direct response..no compromise will work. this article here by Giraldi is not an immediate response but a kind of time-wasting prevarication. Corbyn and his politics are also prevarication

Verymuchalive , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 12:59 pm GMT
@LondonBob

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05125/SN05125.pdf

MoscowBob ( you're never going back to London to live ), the above official Parliamentary Research Briefing makes alarming reading if you are a Conservative supporter. As of April 2018, Conservative membership is put at 124,000, narrowly ahead of the SNP at 118,000.
Conservative membership collapsed from 1 million in 1990 ( see page 7 ) to less than 500,000 5 years later ( John Major ). Apart from a brief period, it has been declining steadily since the year 2000, especially from 2009 ( David Cameron).
It is no longer a mass membership political party, it is Conservative In Name Only and at the beck and call of any (((big donors ))).
This situation cannot continue much longer. Its hold on political power will be ended shortly unless there is a turnaround, which seems unlikely.

a bystander , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT

Another great article by Dr. Philip Giraldi.

Jonathan Cook has also recently written a very good article on the current Israeli engineered onslaught against Jeremy Corbyn, making much the same argument as Dr. Giraldi.

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2018-08-25/israel-hidden-hand-jeremy-corbyn/

[Aug 27, 2018] Corbyn is being destroyed -- like blowing up a bridge to stop an advancing army by Jonathan Cook

Notable quotes:
"... I am not here speaking about the elites who dominate our societies. They have their own agenda. They trade only in the language of money and power. I am speaking of us: the 99 per cent who live in their shadow. ..."
"... While this camp concedes that the media is owned by a handful of corporations driven by a concern for profit, it is nonetheless confident that the free market -- the need to sell papers and audiences -- guarantees that important news and a full spectrum of legitimate opinion are available to readers. ..."
"... This camp believes too that western democracies are better, more civilised political systems than those in other parts of the world. Western societies do not want wars, they want peace and security for everyone. For that reason, they have been thrust -- rather uncomfortably -- into the role of global policeman. Western states have found themselves with little choice of late but to wage "good wars" to curb the genocidal instincts and hunger for power of dictators and madmen. ..."
"... The current obsession with Russian conspiracies is in large part the result of the extraordinarily rapid rise of a second camp, no doubt fuelled by the unprecedented access western publics have gained through social media to information, good and bad alike. At no time in human history have so many people been able to step outside of a state-, clerical- or corporate-sanctioned framework of information dissemination and speak too each other directly and on a global stage. ..."
"... This new camp too is not easy to characterise in the old language of left-right politics. Its chief characteristic is that it distrusts not only those who dominate our societies, but the social structures they operate within. ..."
"... This camp regards such structures as neither immutable, divinely ordained ways for ordering and organising society, nor as the rational outcome of the political and moral evolution of western societies. Rather, it views these structures as the product of engineering by a tiny elite to hold on to its power. ..."
"... For this camp, politicians are not the cream of society. They have risen to the surface of a corrupted and corrupting system, and the overwhelming majority did so by enthusiastically adopting its rotten values. These politicians do not chiefly serve voters but the corporations who really dominate our societies. ..."
"... Likewise, the media -- supposed watchdogs on power -- are seen by this camp as the chief propagandists for the ruling elite. The media do not monitor the abuse of power, they actively create a social consensus for the continuation of the abuse -- and if that fails, they seek to deflect attention from, or veil, the abuse. ..."
"... This is inevitable, the second camp argues, given that the media are embedded within the very same corporate structures that dominate our societies. They are, in fact, the corporations' public relations arm. They allow only limited dissent at the margins of the media, and only as a way to create the impression of an illusory pluralism. ..."
"... These "enemies" are a real foe in the sense that, in their different ways, they refuse to submit to the neoliberalising reach of the western-based corporations. But more significantly, they are needed as an enemy, even should they want to make peace. These manufactured enemies, says the second camp, justify the redirection of public money into the private coffers of the military and homeland security industries. And equally importantly, a ready set of bogeymen can be exploited to distract western publics from troubles at home. ..."
"... The second camp is accused by the first of being anti-western, anti-American and anti-Israel (or more mischievously anti-semitic) for its opposition to western "humanitarian interventions" abroad. The second camp, it says, act as apologists for war criminals like Russia's Vladimir Putin or Syria's Bashar Assad, portraying these leaders as misunderstood good guys and blaming the west for the world's ills. ..."
"... Putin has power, but it is immeasurably less than the combined might of the profit-seeking, war-waging western military industries. Faced with this power equation, according to the second camp, Putin acts defensively or reactively on the global stage, using what limited strength Russia has to uphold its essential strategic interests. One cannot reasonably judge Russia's crimes without first admitting the west's greater crimes, our crimes. ..."
"... While the whole US political class obsess over "Russian interference" in US elections, this camp notes, the American public is encouraged to ignore the much greater US interference not only in Russian elections, but in many other spheres Russia considers to be vital strategic interests. That includes the locating of US military bases and missile sites on Russia's borders. ..."
"... The other camp has one small space to make its presence felt -- social media. That is a space rapidly shrinking, as the politicians, media and the corporations that own social media (as they do everything else) start to realise they have let the genie out of the bottle. This camp is derided as conspiratorial, dangerous, fake news. ..."
"... The two most significant disrupters of the first camp's narrative are climate breakdown and economic meltdown. The planet has finite resources, which means endless growth and wealth accumulation cannot be sustained indefinitely. Much as in a Ponzi scheme, there comes a point when the hollow centre is exposed and the system comes crashing down. We have had intimations enough that we are nearing that point. ..."
"... Our political language is rupturing because we are now completely divided. There is no middle ground, no social compact, no consensus. The second camp understands that the current system is broken and that we need radical change, while the first camp holds desperately to the hope that the system will continue to be workable with modifications and minor reforms. ..."
"... We are arriving at a moment called a paradigm shift. That is when the cracks in a system become so obvious they can no longer be credibly denied. Those vested in the old system scream and shout, they buy themselves a little time with increasingly repressive measures, but the house is moments away from falling. The critical questions are who gets hurt when the structure tumbles, and who decides how it will be rebuilt ..."
"... They have rightly identified social media as the key concern. This is where we -- the 99 per cent -- have begun waking each other up. This is where we are sharing and learning, emerging out of the darkness clumsily and shaken. We are making mistakes, but learning. We are heading up blind alleys, but learning. We are making poor choices, but learning. We are making unhelpful alliances, but learning ..."
"... Corbyn's significance -- and danger -- is that he brings much of the language and concerns of the second camp into the mainstream. He offers a fast-track for the second camp to reach the first camp, and accelerate the awakening process. That, in turn, would improve the chances of the paradigm shift being organic and transitional rather than disruptive and violent. ..."
"... That is why he has become a lightning rod for the wider machinations of the ruling elite. They want him destroyed, like blowing up a bridge to stop an advancing army. ..."
"... The corporate elite weaponised anti-semitism not because they care about the safety of Jews, or because they really believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite. They chose it because it is the most destructive weapon -- short of sex-crime smears and assassination -- they have in their armoury. ..."
"... The truth is the ruling elite are exploiting British Jews and fuelling their fears as part of a much larger power game in which all of us -- the 99 per cent -- are expendable. They will keep stoking this campaign to stigmatise Corbyn, even if a political backlash actually does lead to an increase in real, rather than phoney, anti-semitism. ..."
Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

The latest "scandal" gripping Britain -- or to be more accurate, British elites -- is over the use of the term "Zionist" by the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the head of the opposition and possibly the country's next prime minister.

Yet again, Corbyn has found himself ensnared in what a small group of Jewish leadership organisations, which claim improbably to represent Britain's "Jewish community", and a small group of corporate journalists, who improbably claim to represent British public opinion, like to call Labour's "anti-semitism problem".

I won't get into the patently ridiculous notion that "Zionist" is a code word for "Jew", at least not now. There are lots of existing articles explaining why that is nonsense.

I wish to deal with a different aspect of the long-running row over Labour's so-called "anti-semitism crisis". It exemplifies, I believe, a much more profound and wider crisis in our societies: over the issue of trust.

We now have two large camps, pitted against each other, who have starkly different conceptions of what their societies are and where they need to head. In a very real sense, these two camps no longer speak the same language. There has been a rupture, and they can find no common ground.

I am not here speaking about the elites who dominate our societies. They have their own agenda. They trade only in the language of money and power. I am speaking of us: the 99 per cent who live in their shadow.

First, let us outline the growing ideological and linguistic chasm opening up between these two camps: a mapping of the divisions that, given space constraints, will necessarily deal in generalisations.

The trusting camp

The first camp invests its trust, with minor reservations, in those who run our societies. The left and the right segments of this camp are divided primarily over the degree to which they believe that those at the bottom of society's pile need a helping hand to get them further up the social ladder.

Otherwise, the first camp is united in its assumptions.

They admit that among our elected politicians there is the odd bad apple. And, of course, they understand that there are necessary debates about political and social values. But they agree that politicians rise chiefly through ability and talent, that they are accountable to their political constituencies, and that they are people who want what is best for society as a whole.

While this camp concedes that the media is owned by a handful of corporations driven by a concern for profit, it is nonetheless confident that the free market -- the need to sell papers and audiences -- guarantees that important news and a full spectrum of legitimate opinion are available to readers.

Both politicians and the media serve -- if not always entirely successfully -- as a constraint on corruption and the abuse of power by other powerful actors, such as the business community.

This camp believes too that western democracies are better, more civilised political systems than those in other parts of the world. Western societies do not want wars, they want peace and security for everyone. For that reason, they have been thrust -- rather uncomfortably -- into the role of global policeman. Western states have found themselves with little choice of late but to wage "good wars" to curb the genocidal instincts and hunger for power of dictators and madmen.

Russian conspiracies

Once upon a time -- when this camp's worldview was rarely, if ever, challenged -- its favoured response to anything difficult to reconcile with its core beliefs, from the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the 2008 financial crash, was: "Cock-up, not conspiracy!". Now that there are ever more issues threatening to undermine its most cherished verities, the camp's response is -- paradoxically -- "Putin did it!" or "Fake news!".

The current obsession with Russian conspiracies is in large part the result of the extraordinarily rapid rise of a second camp, no doubt fuelled by the unprecedented access western publics have gained through social media to information, good and bad alike. At no time in human history have so many people been able to step outside of a state-, clerical- or corporate-sanctioned framework of information dissemination and speak too each other directly and on a global stage.

This new camp too is not easy to characterise in the old language of left-right politics. Its chief characteristic is that it distrusts not only those who dominate our societies, but the social structures they operate within.

This camp regards such structures as neither immutable, divinely ordained ways for ordering and organising society, nor as the rational outcome of the political and moral evolution of western societies. Rather, it views these structures as the product of engineering by a tiny elite to hold on to its power.

These structures are no longer primarily national, but global. They are not immutable but as fabricated, as man-made and replaceable, as the structures that once made incontestable the rule of a landed aristocracy over feudal serfs. The current aristocracy, this camp argues, are globalised corporations that are so unaccountable that even the biggest nation-states can no longer contain or constrain them.

Illusions of pluralism

For this camp, politicians are not the cream of society. They have risen to the surface of a corrupted and corrupting system, and the overwhelming majority did so by enthusiastically adopting its rotten values. These politicians do not chiefly serve voters but the corporations who really dominate our societies.

For the second camp, this fact was well illustrated in 2008 when the political class did not -- and could not -- punish the banks responsible for the near-collapse of western economies after decades of reckless speculation on which a financial elite had grown fat. Those banks, in the words of the politicians themselves, were "too big to fail" and so were bailed out with money from the very same publics who had been scammed by the banks in the first place. Rather than use the bank failures as an opportunity to drive through reform of the broken banking system, or nationalise parts of it, the politicians let the banking casino system continue, even intensify.

Likewise, the media -- supposed watchdogs on power -- are seen by this camp as the chief propagandists for the ruling elite. The media do not monitor the abuse of power, they actively create a social consensus for the continuation of the abuse -- and if that fails, they seek to deflect attention from, or veil, the abuse.

This is inevitable, the second camp argues, given that the media are embedded within the very same corporate structures that dominate our societies. They are, in fact, the corporations' public relations arm. They allow only limited dissent at the margins of the media, and only as a way to create the impression of an illusory pluralism.

Manufactured enemies

These domestic structures are subservient to a still-bigger agenda: the accumulation of wealth by a global elite through the asset-stripping of the planet's resources and the rationalisation of permanent war. That, this camp concludes, requires the manufacturing of "enemies" -- such as Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea -- to justify the expansion of a military-industrial machine.

These "enemies" are a real foe in the sense that, in their different ways, they refuse to submit to the neoliberalising reach of the western-based corporations. But more significantly, they are needed as an enemy, even should they want to make peace. These manufactured enemies, says the second camp, justify the redirection of public money into the private coffers of the military and homeland security industries. And equally importantly, a ready set of bogeymen can be exploited to distract western publics from troubles at home.

The second camp is accused by the first of being anti-western, anti-American and anti-Israel (or more mischievously anti-semitic) for its opposition to western "humanitarian interventions" abroad. The second camp, it says, act as apologists for war criminals like Russia's Vladimir Putin or Syria's Bashar Assad, portraying these leaders as misunderstood good guys and blaming the west for the world's ills.

The second camp argues that it is none of these things: it is anti-imperialist. It does not excuse the crimes of Putin or Assad, it treats them as secondary and largely reactive to the vastly greater power a western elite with global reach can project. It believes the western media's obsession with crafting narratives about evil enemies -- bad men and madmen -- is designed to deflect attention from the structures of far greater violence the west deploys around the world, through a web of US military bases and Nato.

Putin has power, but it is immeasurably less than the combined might of the profit-seeking, war-waging western military industries. Faced with this power equation, according to the second camp, Putin acts defensively or reactively on the global stage, using what limited strength Russia has to uphold its essential strategic interests. One cannot reasonably judge Russia's crimes without first admitting the west's greater crimes, our crimes.

While the whole US political class obsess over "Russian interference" in US elections, this camp notes, the American public is encouraged to ignore the much greater US interference not only in Russian elections, but in many other spheres Russia considers to be vital strategic interests. That includes the locating of US military bases and missile sites on Russia's borders.

Different languages

Two camps, two entirely different languages and narratives.

These camps may be divided, but it would seriously misguided to imagine they are equal.

One has the full power and weight of those corporate structures behind it. The politicians speak its language, as do the media. Its ideas and its voice dominate everywhere that is considered official, objective, balanced, neutral, respectable, legitimate.

The other camp has one small space to make its presence felt -- social media. That is a space rapidly shrinking, as the politicians, media and the corporations that own social media (as they do everything else) start to realise they have let the genie out of the bottle. This camp is derided as conspiratorial, dangerous, fake news.

This is the current battlefield. It is a battle the first camp looks like it is winning but actually has already lost. That is not necessarily because the second camp is winning the argument. It is because physical realities are catching up with the first camp, smashing its illusions, even as it clings to them like a life-raft.

The two most significant disrupters of the first camp's narrative are climate breakdown and economic meltdown. The planet has finite resources, which means endless growth and wealth accumulation cannot be sustained indefinitely. Much as in a Ponzi scheme, there comes a point when the hollow centre is exposed and the system comes crashing down. We have had intimations enough that we are nearing that point.

It hardly needs repeating, except to climate deniers, that we have had even more indications that the Earth's climate is already turning against humankind.

Out of the darkness

Our political language is rupturing because we are now completely divided. There is no middle ground, no social compact, no consensus. The second camp understands that the current system is broken and that we need radical change, while the first camp holds desperately to the hope that the system will continue to be workable with modifications and minor reforms.

It is on to this battlefield that Corbyn has stumbled, little prepared for the heavy historic burden he shoulders.

We are arriving at a moment called a paradigm shift. That is when the cracks in a system become so obvious they can no longer be credibly denied. Those vested in the old system scream and shout, they buy themselves a little time with increasingly repressive measures, but the house is moments away from falling. The critical questions are who gets hurt when the structure tumbles, and who decides how it will be rebuilt .

The new paradigm is coming anyway. If we don't choose it ourselves, the planet will for us. It could be an improvement, it could be a deterioration, it could be extinction, depending on how prepared we are for it and how violently those invested in the old system resist the loss of their power. If enough of us understand the need for discarding the broken system, the greater the hope that we can build something better from the ruins.

We are now at the point where the corporate elite can see the cracks are widening but they remain in denial. They are entering the tantrum phase, screaming and shouting at their enemies, and readying to implement ever-more repressive measures to maintain their power.

They have rightly identified social media as the key concern. This is where we -- the 99 per cent -- have begun waking each other up. This is where we are sharing and learning, emerging out of the darkness clumsily and shaken. We are making mistakes, but learning. We are heading up blind alleys, but learning. We are making poor choices, but learning. We are making unhelpful alliances, but learning .

No one, least of all the corporate elite, knows precisely where this process might lead, what capacities we have for political, social and spiritual growth.

And what the elite don't own or control, they fear.

Putting the genie back

The elite have two weapons they can use to try to force the second camp back into the bottle. They can vilify it, driving it back into the margins of public life, where it was until the advent of social media; or they can lock down the new channels of mass communication their insatiable drive to monetise everything briefly opened up.

Both strategies have risks, which is why they are being pursued tentatively for the time being. But the second option is by far the riskier of the two. Shutting down social media too obviously could generate blowback, awakening more of the first camp to the illusions the second camp have been trying to alert them to.

Corbyn's significance -- and danger -- is that he brings much of the language and concerns of the second camp into the mainstream. He offers a fast-track for the second camp to reach the first camp, and accelerate the awakening process. That, in turn, would improve the chances of the paradigm shift being organic and transitional rather than disruptive and violent.

That is why he has become a lightning rod for the wider machinations of the ruling elite. They want him destroyed, like blowing up a bridge to stop an advancing army.

It is a sign both of their desperation and their weakness that they have had to resort to the nuclear option, smearing him as an anti-semite. Other, lesser smears were tried first: that he was not presidential enough to lead Britain; that he was anti-establishment; that he was unpatriotic; that he might be a traitor. None worked. If anything, they made him more popular.

And so a much more incendiary charge was primed, however at odds it was with Corbyn's decades spent as an anti-racism activist.

The corporate elite weaponised anti-semitism not because they care about the safety of Jews, or because they really believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite. They chose it because it is the most destructive weapon -- short of sex-crime smears and assassination -- they have in their armoury.

The truth is the ruling elite are exploiting British Jews and fuelling their fears as part of a much larger power game in which all of us -- the 99 per cent -- are expendable. They will keep stoking this campaign to stigmatise Corbyn, even if a political backlash actually does lead to an increase in real, rather than phoney, anti-semitism.

The corporate elites have no plan to go quietly. Unless we can build our ranks quickly and make our case confidently, their antics will ensure the paradigm shift is violent rather than healing. An earthquake, not a storm.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .


YetAnotherAnon , says: August 26, 2018 at 10:35 pm GMT

"The corporate elite weaponised anti-semitism not because they care about the safety of Jews, or because they really believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite. They chose it because it is the most destructive weapon – short of sex-crime smears and assassination – they have in their armoury."

I must admit I assumed it was because he's less than 100% behind Israel and thinks, not unreasonably, that the Palestinians have had a pretty rough deal over the last 60 years. He raises the frightening (to some) prospect of a UK government that is more neutral on the issues, and doesn't think we can bomb peace into the Middle East.

Occam's Razor would seem to suggest that's the answer.

"Corbyn's significance – and danger – is that he brings much of the language and concerns of the second camp into the mainstream. "

You're right about the electorate being divided – but I'd suggest young Corbyn voters are just as blinkered as any Daily Mail reader. My kids all voted for him because they thought he'd cancel their student debt.

Maybe Corbyn activists are better informed, but I very much doubt it.

exiled off mainstreet , says: August 27, 2018 at 1:13 am GMT

Corbyn has to resist the temptation to give way to them. He is right on the Palestinian issue, and, since the Palestinians are 100 % semites (though "anti-semitism" has been appropriated to mean anti-Jewish most Jewish emigrants from Europe have considerable non-semitic blood mixed in) the real anti-semites here appear to be the Israeli element bent on eliminating the Palestinians. The Gaza strip is a ghetto operated in a similar manner to how the Nazis operated the ghettoes in occupied Poland (though without the Auschwitz end game up to now). The thing is, if Corbyn stands up to this, in my view, his supporters will fully back him up. In my view, the Israelis are risking real anti-Israeli blowback which could resurrect evils buried with the collapse of the Nazi regime. Indeed, the way they are acting on this and other related issues, threatening those who criticise them in any fashion seems to be providing ex post facto justifications of the most absurd propaganda the Nazis put forward during that era.

DFH , says: August 27, 2018 at 12:25 pm GMT

The real question is why it is that even the slightest hint of a politician not being totally onboard with >1% of the population results in a years long campaign to destroy him by most of the media, but mentioning the open desire of all three parties to discriminate against and replace the native population of Britain makes you a pariah.

Herald , says: August 27, 2018 at 9:07 pm GMT
@DFH

You said it. It's because Corbyn is not totally on board with the less than 1% that he is seen as a threat. Total control of everyone and everything is their aim.

jimmyriddle , says: August 27, 2018 at 9:32 pm GMT

I don't think he is being destroyed.

There is certainly an MSM/Blairite full court press to push the anti-Semitism story, that is mostly being fronted by goyim who are kissing up – Jess Phillips, Maajid Nawaz, Dan Hodges (Glenda Jackson's son) etc. But it is getting no traction with the public at large. If they force another leadership contest Corbyn will win easily.

These people live in a North London Anglo-American bubble, and they are now realizing that there is no large Evangelocon constituency in Britain.

No Bubbas waiting to be raptured = Nobody much cares about Israel

[Aug 27, 2018] Disclaimer

Notable quotes:
"... Empire – the old far left and the new far right are against the USA having an Empire and against perpetual war. ..."
"... Economy – the old far left and the new far right think free trade and Wall Street are killing middle class jobs and the ladders of success. ..."
"... Race/Sex/Gender – the old far right KKK vlugar bigoted view is pretty much dead in America. The new far right is trying to work through real facts on group differences and what is reasonable to do about it. Everyone else is CCCrazy. ..."
Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: June 8, 2018 at 3:57 pm GMT 200 Words @Alfa158

I think we are all struggling to come up with a new vocabulary to rationally describe the new forces at work in our society. I would welcome suggestions because I've got nuthin here.

I agree. I used to be liberal, then became far left, and I am now far right. And I never changed my views! The politics around me changed.

Here are some forces at work:

1. Empire – the old far left and the new far right are against the USA having an Empire and against perpetual war. Read Pat Buchanan and Mike Whitney on Middle East wars and Russia and they sound a lot alike. Everyone else in America supports the Empire, either actively or passively.

2. Economy – the old far left and the new far right think free trade and Wall Street are killing middle class jobs and the ladders of success. It's the old Democrat pro union view and the old Republican main street vs. wall street view. If you like socialism, you gotta hate Wall Street. If you like free markets, you gotta hate Wall Street. Everyone else in America supports Wall Stree rule over the Fed and economic policy, either actively or passively.

3. Race/Sex/Gender – the old far right KKK vlugar bigoted view is pretty much dead in America. The new far right is trying to work through real facts on group differences and what is reasonable to do about it. Everyone else is CCCrazy.

Corvinus , says: June 9, 2018 at 12:49 am GMT

@Mr. Anon

"What is the "Alt-Right"?"

A name embraced by white nationalists and/or white supremacists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race through populist endeavors, which includes the return of patriarchy, the revocation of the 1965 Immigration Act, an emphasis on race realism and/or the reinstitution of Western Christian civilization.

"Who speaks for it?"

John Derbyshire. Steve Sailer. Vox Day. Richard Spencer. Mike Cernovich. For starters.

"What national platform does it have?"

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html

"And why is it you claim to "not be a liberal" when you only ever repeat talking points of the DNC and NPR?"

That would be Fake News on your part.

[Aug 24, 2018] The establishment are shocked that the ordinary people want out of the European Union (EU). They just don't realize that people are fed up being used, abused, dictated to, lied to, manipulated

Aug 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Stephen J. , August 18, 2018 at 9:57 am

The powerful always want more power.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
June 26, 2016

"Brexit: Are The Serfs Finally Rebelling"?

The establishment are shocked that the ordinary people want out of the European Union (EU). They just don't realize that people are fed up being used, abused, dictated to, lied to, manipulated, and forced into an EU dictatorship by treacherous politicians.

These are some of the same politicians who scurry to the meetings of the so-called elites in Davos, and also attend Bilderberg meetings. And many of them, when they leave politics, finish up on the boards of banks and multi-national corporations with the rest of the money-manipulating bandits that got bailed out with taxpayers' dollars, some of whom, I believe, should be in jail .

[much more info at link below]

https://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2016/06/brexit-are-serfs-finally-rebelling.html

[Aug 18, 2018] Acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of "Israel" was a silly idea with no basis in law But when they slipped into Full Spectrum Vampire mode and started slaughtering/ maiming Palestinians like there was no tomorrow, it became obvious that Trump knew exactly what he was doing, and why

Not sure that this was anticipated by Trump...
Notable quotes:
"... Now the whole world has been reminded, again, what a bunch of self-worshipping ratbags they are. Passing an Only Jews Are People law in "The M.E's only democracy" merely added to the farce. ..."
Aug 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer , Aug 18, 2018 8:36:55 AM | 88

I like Trump's ambiguity. Acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of "Israel" was a silly idea with no basis in law. But when they slipped into Full Spectrum Vampire mode and started slaughtering/ maiming Palestinians like there was no tomorrow, it became obvious that he knew exactly what he was doing, and why.

Now the whole world has been reminded, again, what a bunch of self-worshipping ratbags they are. Passing an Only Jews Are People law in "The M.E's only democracy" merely added to the farce.

It's 'interesting' that:

financial matters , Aug 18, 2018 9:20:25 AM | 90
Hoarsewhisperer @ 88

Yes. I think Israel is rapidly losing support and that of Hezbollah is growing. I think history will soon be on the side of the Palestinians and Syrian Golan.

I also see Russia as getting fed up with the Palestinian debacle. If Israel overreaches and gets a Hezbollah response they may find themselves without friends.


[Aug 14, 2018] An objective criticism of the Zionist enterprise now a days and its apologists resort immediately to unrestrained howls and accusations of antisemitism.

Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

JoaoAlfaiate , August 14, 2018 at 7:54 pm GMT

@Sam Shama

" antisemites "

There are antisemitic rants in many places on the web, almost all of which are ignored.

But make an objective criticism of the Zionist enterprise now a days and its apologists resort immediately to unrestrained howls and accusations of antisemitism.

One ought, therefor, to understand this rhetorical device for the simple ad hominem attack that it is.

[Aug 14, 2018] From the point of view of UN law the sate of Israel is an outlaw.

The term "Jews" probably should be strictly avoided. Zionists or Likudniks is a better term for Jewish Supremacists.
Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

skrik , August 14, 2018 at 1:51 pm GMT

@Anonymouse

let the US give itself back to the Indians, and then ask Israel to act the same way

Give the US back to the amerindians! Give Aus back to the abos! This does not work; it's called 'moral relativism' and/or the 'tu quoque' [appeal to hypocrisy] fallacy.

Then ask Israel to act err, hello? Israel has been 'asked,' over 100 times by some counts, to 'get legal' under UN resolutions. Israel is an outlaw.

Kindly consider the I/J/Z-plex's 10 steps to utter, criminal ignominy:

  1. Herzl; coveting, expropriation (1897+)
  2. Balfour; aid Zs, no consult Ps
  3. Jabotinsky; colonise by force
  4. Ben-Gurion: "we are the attackers and the Arabs own the land" [points 1 - 4 all pre-WW2]
  5. UNGA181: "an area shall be evacuated" (invalid + no UNSC action = not law)
  6. Meir; $US50mio for arms + Plan Dalet&Co = premeditated, murdering to steal aggression
  7. When immigrants (=aliens) attack natives, it's *not* civil war but Nuremberg-class crime
  8. Z-terrorism; down to today; alien invaders' highest-tech vs. besieged & blockaded, basically unarmed natives
  9. US-support incl. UNSC vetoes; also down to 'current moment'
  10. Z-hasbarah = mostly lies, designed and deployed to deceive

More: Post-WW2, Nuremberg trials, hanging perpetrators for murdering invasions for Lebensraum predate King David Hotel bombing, Plan Dalet with outrages like the Deir Yassin massacre, etc.. Similar outrages continue to be perpetrated by the illegitimate entity, into 'the current moment.'

Lemma: At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, apologists and/or 'idle' bystanders. It is incumbent upon *all* witnesses to attempt to a) restrain malefactors and where possible b) rescue victims from harm. *All* present and not in active resistance to the crime attract proportional guilt.

Addendum: Any person profiting from crime also makes him/herself an accessory, like all residents in the 'illegitimate entity,' say.

Also post WW2, we got the post-colonial era; the illegitimate entity fulfils the 'premeditated supreme international crime' criteria. RoR+R*3 NOW! QED

PS Showing 'support' for criminals adopts part guilt for those criminals' crimes via the accessory process; why would anyone in their 'right' = correct mind do that?

anarchyst , August 14, 2018 at 1:59 pm GMT
If a nuclear device is "lit off" in an American or European city, it will have Israel's fingerprints all over it. Israel is desperate to keep the American money spigot running, as well as sabotaging the Palestinian "peace process" that the world wants it to take seriously.

In fact, if a nuclear device is "lit off" anywhere in the world, it will have come from Israel's secret nuclear "stockpile".

The "power outage" in Atlanta was a convenient excuse for Israel to perform a logistical "sleight of hand", as an Israeli plane was allowed to land and take off during the "power outage" without receiving customs clearance or inspection. This is one of many Israeli companies that possesses a "special exemption" granted by the U S government that frees it from customs inspections. Just maybe another one of Israel's nukes was just being pre-positioned or nuclear triggers (tritium) were being renewed, getting ready for "the big one". As most Americans are tired of all of the foreign wars being fought for Israel's benefit, another "incident" on American soil would be enough to galvanize the American public, once again, (just like WTC 9-11) to support another war for Israel's benefit. Israel's "samson option" is a real threat to "light one off" in a European or American city, if Israel's interests are not taken seriously.

Israel refuses to abide by IAEA guidelines concerning its nukes as they are already distributed around the world. Israel would not be able to produce all of them as most of them are not in Israel, proper. No delivery systems are needed as Israel's nukes are already "in place". Look for another "false flag" operation with the blame being put on Iran or Syria. You can bet that some Iranian or Syrian passports will be found in the rubble.

Israel also threatens to detonate nuclear devices in several US cities. Talk about total INSANITY; the so-called "Samson Option" is it.

As an aside, American "foreign aid" is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty" or refuses to abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American "foreign aid". This prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their "agents of a foreign government" with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its "American Israel Political Action Committee" (AIPAC) still gets "foreign aid" in contravention of American law..

There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy "wonks" infecting the U S government who hold "dual citizenship" with Israel. Such dual citizenship must be strictly prohibited. Those holding dual citizenship must be required to renounce said foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in immediate deportation with loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship should never be allowed to serve in any American governmental capacity.

When Netanyahu addressed both houses of congress, it was sickening to see our politicians slobber all over themselves to PROVE that they were unconditional supporters of Israel just who the hell do they work for? Certainly not for the interests of the American people and the United States they should renounce their United States citizenship and be deported to Israel

Bardon Kaldian , August 14, 2018 at 2:17 pm GMT
Giraldi is here-unlike in most of his regularly anti-Semitic texts- right about one crucial thing: American Gentile cow-towing to (real or imagined) Jewish power in the US, as illustrated by absurd Baron Cohen's episode.

However, I don't blame most of US Jews for that. Jewish ethnocentrists are to be suspect, sure, but the main question for US gentile politicians & public figures remains: why are you such suckers, anyway?

Sam Shama , August 14, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
Between Jessica at #23, and Anon at #45 lay two paramount pieces of instruction which Phil Giraldi ought to heed.

Ordinary Jews are no more required to register their objections over AIPAC's actions than are Christians over the actions of their top leaders including the POTUS, domestic MIC lobbies, the Gun Lobby and the Oil lobby; no more that is, beyond what each citizen expresses through her vote. Individuals may choose; to go beyond, into political activism; yet choice is the operative notion.

And no, Geokat, Power isn't listening to Phil over the sound of crickets for the simple reason that Power does not read the UR, couldn't care less if they did, as the Review quite rapidly degenerates to the station of an unrelenting hate rag frequented by dubious IQ cultists, antisemites and White Nationalism apologists.

Felicity , August 14, 2018 at 3:14 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke

"Many in the intelligence and law enforcement communities suspect that it (Israel) had considerable prior intelligence regarding the 9/11 plot but did not share it with Washington."

And according to Jimmy Carter Israeli intelligence had advance information of the suicide attack on the US barracks in Beirut in 1983 that killed 243 US servicemen (one of whom was a member of my family). The Israelis decided to not inform US intelligence in the hope that a major attack on US personnel would precipitate a commitment of US troops and arms into the region. So much for our Israeli "ally".

JessicaR , August 14, 2018 at 4:10 pm GMT
@Anonymouse

You are, of course, correct that the US committed either genocide or near-genocide (depending on your definition of the term) against Native Americans. However, NOW, in the 21st century, any Native American who is a US citizen is free to buy property in any part of America and live where he chooses. Native Americans are no longer confined to reservations. While poverty is a fact of life for many Native Americans, some tribes have profited substantially from gambling. In Florida, Seminoles may receive upward of 40,000 a year (each man, woman, and child) as their share of the gambling revenues. They can certainly afford to buy property just about anywhere.

(Note that I am not denying that much discrimination and inequality still persist and that most reservations with gambling offer very little to tribal members.)

In Israel, however, Palestinians cannot return to their home towns and buy property. They are not free to live where they choose. Many are still confined to refugee camps. Housing discrimination continues to persist for Israeli Arabs. Yes, the High Court ruled it illegal, but few remedies are in place, which means the practice continues largely unabated.

If you want to use historical analogies, I believe you should use them in full.

utu , August 14, 2018 at 4:39 pm GMT

Cohen's performance is instructive. A man shows up in Israeli uniform, claims to be a terrorism expert or even a Mossad agent, and he gains access to powerful Americans who are willing to do anything he says.

It is very telling about the human material on the right in America. Complete morons. Now think about it. It was a prank, right? But I can imagine that real negotiations with Israelis are very similar and produce similar positive outcomes for Israelis. Israelis play Americans anyway they want on all levels of federal and local administrations. They have the same attitude towards Americans as Jack Abramoff had towards his counterparts at Indian reservations. Why shouldn't they? It works.

he called his Indian clients "troglodytes" and "morons" and "monkeys," "the stupidest idiots in the land." In one particularly damning e-mail he counseled Scanlon, "The key thing to remember with all these clients is that they are annoying, but that the annoying losers are the only ones which have this kind of money and part with it so quickly . So, we have to put up with this stuff."

At best American are annoying losers who part with their money quickly.

Mr. Giraldi, why do you bother with your articles? You still have illusions that you can educate the monkeys?

Anon [270] Disclaimer , Website August 14, 2018 at 4:44 pm GMT
"special relationship"

It smacks of supremacism, doesn't it? It means the US must favor Zionist occupiers in West Bank over Palestinians, the very people who are being occupied.

It means the US must favor Israel, a nation that stole uranium from US and has 300 nukes, over Iran, a nation that passed all inspections and has no nukes.

This special relationship is a form of worship. It is never discussed rationally WHY Israel is so crucial to us. Instead, politicians and pundits gush about it with fanatical devotion, as if it's a sacred truth. Anyone who questions it even slightly is marginalized or destroyed. Some might Giraldi has been too strident, but even mild criticism of Israel or Zionism can get you banned from media or politics.

I find it odd that Jews always remind us that Old America was 'racist' because it favored Europeans over non-whites, especially in immigration and foreign policy. After all, the US often sided with European imperialists over non-white subjects of colonialism.

In New America, there is supposed to no Special Treatment for any group, but Jews and Israel get it all the time. In asylum(Save Soviet Jews), in immigration, in college admission, in foreign policy -- not just in supporting Israel at every turn but in waging Wars for Israel and hating on any nation hated by Jews, esp Russia, Iran, and Syria.

[Aug 13, 2018] The Rent-a-Crowd critics of Jeremy Corbyn's alleged 'antisemitism' enjoy Freedom Of Screech

Aug 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer , Aug 13, 2018 2:51:07 AM | 31

Thought for the day...
The Rent-a-Crowd critics of Jeremy Corbyn's alleged 'antisemitism' enjoy Freedom Of Screech.

[Aug 11, 2018] Robert Kaplan Writes In Defense Of Slavery

Notable quotes:
"... Neocon Robert Kaplan is writing In Defense of Empire . Empire is good, he believes, even for those who a ruled by it without having any representation. ..."
"... Hitler's empire was not, of course, simply a continuation of the Habsburg legacy. There were many other factors, not least the persistent envy in German circles after 1919 of the other imperial powers: empire still seemed attractive to those who did not have one, or one large enough, and Mazower shows how Japanese and Italian imperial ambitions meshed with German in trying to divide the world up anew, as it had been divided by European states for four hundred years. The absence of any clear planning or forethought also found Hitler dragging ex-colonial officials back into public life to try to rule Eastern Europe the way they had ruled Africa. ..."
"... Elites who have never worked a day in their lives....never served in the military (right or wrong)....have a one dimensional view of social justice.... ..."
"... The actual kinship of zionism and US-imperialism is based on both israel and the US are settler-societies that never came to be nations. ..."
"... So the USA never became a nation. The settler-state of freedom of private property was directly converted to an empire-state ruled by a corporative elite of oligarchs, military staff and a serfing legion of descendant bureaucratic personnel. ..."
"... This is why amerika had a civil war. The southern elites wanted to continue as always importing African slaves and paying them nothing, while providing the bare minimum for survival as food & shelter. The factory and retail giant owning Northen elites couldn't give a flying fuck about 'the rights of man' they wanted to get richer that is why they went to war. ..."
"... Well, then lets compare the US GDP to Israel's GDP. Sorry, there is no way Israel can dominate the US. Just more dumbing down the "stupid class". ..."
"... The Ziocon Jews Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Leo Strauss were the earlier founders of the so-called neoconservatism movement, and were vehemently opposed to relaxing foreign policy in regards to the Soviet Union and communism in general. ..."
"... In the early nineties the Ziocon torch was passed on to the likes of William Kristol, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. And we all know what followed next...years of endless war. ..."
"... And so Israel was not created by the likes of Herzl, it was created by the force (monetary and military) of British empire, and such creations by the British was not peculiar to middle east and Israel, the British had many other such wonderous feats of crime all over the globe, of which Israel constitutes but a single example! The British did not create Israel because they were in love with the Jews or were obssessed with Jewish nationalism. They did it because it was PROFITABLE. Hegemony is always profitable. And they did in the middle east, what they had done all over the globe to maintain their hegemony and increase their profit. NOTHING MORE. ..."
"... You can blame the British all you want but around the late 50s early 1960s, again, while Kennedy was a rising star and becoming President, Zionists were in charge of their affairs, and the worst crimes of Zionism, the worst unilateral attacks on neighboring countries happened under Zionist sovereignty. Zionist were so in charge of their fiefdom that they started developing nuclear weapons behind Kennedy's back; that's how powerful they were becoming. ..."
"... It's very convenient for you, Arnold, to blame simply "US imperialism", as if it fell out of the sky. It didn't. It was directed by finance capital, which is not an impersonal force but a collection of individual investors, more than a few of whom are interested particularly in Jewish welfare, as they conceive it: that is to say, they want to use Jewish issues, to which the general US public is already well conditioned, to push through an entire program of global domination by force. ..."
Mar 21, 2014 | www.moonofalabama.org
Robert Kaplan Writes In Defense Of Slavery

Neocon Robert Kaplan is writing In Defense of Empire . Empire is good, he believes, even for those who a ruled by it without having any representation. The lunacy of his arguments can be show best when one substitute the object of his essay:

Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often been provided by slavery, Western or Eastern. Anarchy reigned in the interregnums. To wit, the British may have failed in Baghdad, Palestine, and elsewhere, but the larger history of the British slaveholdership is one of providing a vast armature of stability, fostered by sea and rail communications, where before there had been demonstrably less stability.

...

But slavery is now seen by global elites as altogether evil, despite slaveholdership having offered the most benign form of order for thousands of years, keeping the anarchy of ethnic, tribal, and sectarian war bands to a reasonable minimum.

Compared with slaveholdership, democracy is a new and uncertain phenomenon. Even the two most estimable democracies in modern history, the United States and Great Britain, were slaveholdership for long periods. "As both a dream and a fact the American slaveholdership was born before the United States," writes the mid-20th-century historian of westward expansion Bernard DeVoto. Following their initial settlement, and before their incorporation as states, the western territories were nothing less than slaveholdership possessions of Washington, D.C. No surprise there: slaveholdership confers a loose and accepted form of sovereignty, occupying a middle ground between anarchy and full state control.

...

Rome, Parthia, and Hapsburg Austria were great precisely because they gave significant parts of the world a modicum of slavery order that they would not otherwise have enjoyed. America must presently do likewise, particularly in East Asia, the geographic heartland of the world economy and the home of American treaty allies.

...

That, I submit, would be a policy direction that internalizes both the drawbacks and the benefits of slaveholdership, not as it has been conventionally thought of, but as it has actually been practiced throughout history.

It is somewhat frightening that people believing such nonsense have influence in political circles.


Weldon Berger , Mar 21, 2014 3:15:28 PM | 1

In October of 2001, Max Boot wrote a Weekly Standard piece, " The Case for American Empire ," that featured perhaps the most representative neoconservative-authored sentence of all time:
Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets ."
Haralambos , Mar 21, 2014 3:41:05 PM | 6
Notice that your link is not to anything by Kagan but to this: http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/in-defense-of-empire/358645/ by Kaplan. This is rather damaging to your credibility, something that I find alarming, since I am a loyal reader.
c , Mar 21, 2014 3:43:37 PM | 7
on empire building: Richard Overy

GENERAL PLAN EAST Hitler's Empire: Nazi Rule in Occupied Europe

By Mark Mazower (Allen Lane 2008)

"Hitler's empire was not, of course, simply a continuation of the Habsburg legacy. There were many other factors, not least the persistent envy in German circles after 1919 of the other imperial powers: empire still seemed attractive to those who did not have one, or one large enough, and Mazower shows how Japanese and Italian imperial ambitions meshed with German in trying to divide the world up anew, as it had been divided by European states for four hundred years. The absence of any clear planning or forethought also found Hitler dragging ex-colonial officials back into public life to try to rule Eastern Europe the way they had ruled Africa."

zingaro , Mar 21, 2014 4:08:18 PM | 9
isn't he married to Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland?

if it was Kagan , yes, but as already pointed above, it's Robert "how we would fight china" KaPLan... Let's say it's the KK brotherhood of lunatic warhawks

thomas , Mar 21, 2014 4:13:03 PM | 10
Racism –a residual legacy of Slavery?

By Chinweizu

[In December 2006, the London-based magazin e, Index-on-Censorship, invited a number of persons to respond to the question:

"To what extent is racism and discrimination against black people in the US and particularly in this country, a residual legacy of slavery?"

The answer below was sent in by Chinweizu]

------------------------------------------------------------------

Racism is not at all a legacy of slavery but a constitutive and sustaining element of the White Supremacy system estab lished by European power during the centuries of trans-Atlantic enslavement of Black Africans. Hence its extreme resistance to eradication.

Racism is, certainly, not a "residual legacy" in the passive sense of the dead hand of the past. It is not like a motion imparted to an object by an impulse withdrawn long ago; a motion sustained entirely by inertia. Because it is a constitutive element, it has been necessary to systematically apply force and fraud to maintain, in mutant forms, this vital pillar of white supremacy. Accordingly, new forms of "slave trade" and slavery as well as new structures of raci

sm are still being elaborated and justified, even today, as they have been, whenever needed, since the 16th century.

For example, on Nov. 11, 2006, in Philadelphia, at a Wharton Business School conference on business in Africa, World Trade Organization representative Hanniford Schmidt announced the creation of a WTO initiative for "full private stewardry of labor" for the parts of Africa

that have been hardest hit by the 500 years of Africa's free trade with the West. "Full, untrammelled stewardry is the best available solution to African poverty, and the inevitable resu

lt of free-market theory," Schmidt told more than 150 attendees.

Schmidt acknowledged that the stewardry program -- which will require Western companies doing business in some parts of Africa to own their workers outright-- was similar in many ways

to slavery, but explained that just as "compassionate conservatism" has polished the rough edges on labor relations in industrialized countries, full stewardry, or "compassionate slavery," could be a similar boon to developing ones.

http://www.platformslavernijmonument.nl/docs/Racism-aResidualLegacyOfSlavery.pdf

georgeg , Mar 21, 2014 4:14:12 PM | 11
Elites who have never worked a day in their lives....never served in the military (right or wrong)....have a one dimensional view of social justice....and on and on...
Massinissa , Mar 21, 2014 4:26:29 PM | 14
Anyone else notice the picture that went with the article? Its a picture of a man holding up the world. The same bollocks that people 150 years ago claimed that Great Britain was 'Holding Up The World' by killing Africans and ruling over India. Such bollocks. The rhetoric of 2 centuries ago is the same rhetoric of today. Nothing ever changes, but people never learn to see the propaganda for what it is.
thomas , Mar 21, 2014 4:28:18 PM | 15
Robert Kaplan, Robert Kagan. David Horowitz... see Mother Jones May 1987, p. 27

http://books.google.de/books?id=recDAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Demian , Mar 21, 2014 4:36:39 PM | 17
Kaplan is Jewish, and it is utterly bizarre that he can write positively about empire, given that the paradigmatic empire, the Roman one, colonized the area now called Israel, with the Jews revolting, to which Rome responded by destroying the Temple in Jerusalem, an event which forced Kagan's religion to be reconstituted, since up until the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, Judaism centered around the Temple.

Kagan seems to be completely unaware of his own heritage, or at least not to care about it: but then why does he start his piece with a pogrom? This reminds me of something that Putin has said in a speech :

Today, many nations are revising their moral values and ethical norms, eroding ethnic traditions and differences between peoples and cultures. Society is now required not only to recognise everyone's right to the freedom of consciousness, political views and privacy, but also to accept without question the equality of good and evil, strange as it seems, concepts that are opposite in meaning. This destruction of traditional values from above not only leads to negative consequences for society, but is also essentially anti-democratic, since it is carried out on the basis of abstract, speculative ideas, contrary to the will of the majority, which does not accept the changes occurring or the proposed revision of values.
ProPeace , Mar 21, 2014 4:42:01 PM | 18
It's symptomatic that certain hasbara troll missed no opportunity to take up strategic position and drop some initial disinfo in order to block here any inquiry into who really were the masters of the slave trade over centuries ?

Speaking of which: Jewish Slavery in Western Culture (Part III) , Rockefellers, Crown Cocaine & Haitian Slavery , Kosher Slavery .

Slavery pays to the masters: New Report: Fortune 100 Companies Have Received a Whopping $1.2 Trillion in Corporate Welfare Recently

kooshy , Mar 21, 2014 4:50:10 PM | 19
This A*Hole if he could have f*ed his own wife, she wouldn't end up doing the whole Europe
ana souri , Mar 21, 2014 4:51:17 PM | 20
Robert kagan or Robert Kaplan both are lunnies and unfortunately, in the past several US administrations, these cooks have risen to the top. These guys are a product of nazi Germany at its worst where the thinking that the powerful nations have a god given mission to rule and the rest of the world is here to be slaves to be taken care of.

Not sure how many people caught this, but the prince of Wales, on a visit to Iraq was filmed during a visit to British troops saying just that. "These people are happy to have us here to rule them just like we did before".

Neocons are today's version old British imperial superiority which led to the Second World War along with nazi ideology.

Someday we are going to have an overwhelming US neocon administration and this will be the end.

Mike Maloney , Mar 21, 2014 5:10:46 PM | 22
I think this is definitely the direction the neoliberal neocons want to take us -- back to slavery. I was struck by a statement made by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Thomas Perkins (who created a stir in January with a letter published in the WSJ comparing the 1% in the U.S. to Jews persecuted by the Nazis during Kristallnacht). In this statement, Perkins is calling for suffrage based on the total number of tax dollars the voter pays.

Perkins gave a talk titled "The War on the 1%" last month at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:

Mr. Perkins' interlocutor, Adam Lashinsky, soon had the frustrated look of a man trying to swim in a vat of molasses.

Mr. Lashinsky pointed out, for instance, that it was ridiculous to equate powerless Jews in the Third Reich with extremely powerful tech overlords in present-day America.

"No, I think the parallel holds," Mr. Perkins said calmly. For one thing, "If you pay 75 percent of your life's earnings to the government you are being persecuted."

He had a better plan: "You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar in taxes. later he added, "A million in taxes, you get a million votes." He said he was kidding about that last part, kind of.

One could argue that Citizens United already creates the dollarocracy system Perkins imagines. Slavery can't be far off.
Massinissa , Mar 21, 2014 5:21:29 PM | 23
@22

Personally I think the Neos would be fine with a modified Feudalism: Serfs are easier to control than slaves.

But the difference is minimal and largely rhetorical. Ultimately neither has much freedom.

Anyway, what Perkins was advocating (different amounts of votes depending on wealth) isnt new. Some folks advocated that in the 1800s.

But its so weird to see a modern person advocating that openly. Thats supposed to be a thing youre only supposed to talk about behind closed doors. But I guess times are changing and some kind of NeoFeudalism will probably be endorsed publicly by the mainstream in a few decades.

Massinissa , Mar 21, 2014 5:23:58 PM | 24
@20

Overwhelming Neocon administration? You mean like the one we had 2000-20008 that got us into two foreign engagements costing trillions of dollars?

If that wasnt an overwhelming Neocon administration I dont know what is.

Though it could be worse. There could be an administration with, for lack of a better word, WORSE neocons than the ones under George W. Bush.

ana souri , Mar 21, 2014 6:37:13 PM | 27
@24

I personally do not think bush was a neocon. He was a patsy who was manipulated by neocons. He didn't have the brains, the ability to plot or the vision of these two loonies and the neocon masses that seems to be growing everyday in the US. Bush was a twit. A neocon administration is what we will see with hitlery Clinton if she is elected. Nothing worse that an intelligent, motivated, self entered, ambitious neocon to set the road for a PNAC scenario.

JohnH , Mar 21, 2014 6:39:36 PM | 28
A hired pen is a hired pen is a hired penis...

What we all need now is neocondums.

Nora , Mar 21, 2014 6:41:37 PM | 29
#24

But Cheney was a Neocon, and he and Rumsfeld hired the whole PNAC crew and set all that crap in motion. He was also trying to make up for damned near bankrupting what then became Halliburton. And he succeeded on both counts. There isn't a person in the US today with any "serious" foreign policy creds who has any business running anything. So our choice next time will be... bad and worse.

remembererringgiap , Mar 21, 2014 7:00:45 PM | 30
it matters not kagan, kaplan - fecal matter

like tennyson & wordsworth

they changed their name at half time

Mr. Pragma , Mar 21, 2014 7:15:56 PM | 31
Lovely.

But energy invested in that discussion will be wasted.

They write the plays and you play them. Keeps you busy.

dahoit , Mar 21, 2014 7:45:09 PM | 32
Zionists are slavers;well,who knew?sheesh,It's nice when they articulate it though,it gives one a warm feeling inside as self ego re-enforcement.
dahoit , Mar 21, 2014 7:47:12 PM | 33
What we really need is a American anti-Zionist movement.I'm ready.
Nora , Mar 21, 2014 7:57:58 PM | 34
dahoit, #32. Start by joining the boycott! Hit 'em where it hurts.
Demian , Mar 21, 2014 8:07:31 PM | 35
Kaplan effectively believes that the Empire is AngloZionist:
the British had their hands full in Mesopotamia in 1941: given the tendency of the Arab masses toward anti-Western and anti-Zionist ideologies (a tendency that was itself at least in part a reaction to British dominance)

So maybe I was unfair to the Saker when I said in an earlier thread that I regretted his using this term.

Hoarsewhisperer , Mar 21, 2014 8:09:17 PM | 36
Kaplan/Kagan is an amusing slip, but they're equally insane and the point is well made - that supremacists are a bit too eager to fall in love with their own bullshit.

"As both a dream and a fact the American slaveholdership was born before the United States," writes the mid-20th-century historian of westward expansion Bernard DeVoto.

Did he mean Danny DeVito?

antistupid , Mar 21, 2014 8:21:59 PM | 37
Actually, I think these neocons fail on their on there own terms. I mean that they're actually very poor imperial strategists even if one accepts the neocon argument that empire is a good thing. If anything, it's the neocons who have no grasp of realpolitik and who are blinded by an ideology that is far more pro-Israel than pro-American. All the wars they've promoted have been debacles that have diminished not increased America's standing. Unconditional support for Israel (which earns successive American administrations only Israeli contempt, never gratitude) and the obsession with punishing and destabilizing Iran totally distorts not only American Middle East policy but American foreign policy as a whole. Pushing for a new Cold War with Russia creates a powerful enemy where previously there was none. So for all their seemingly shameless promotion of empire, these people will one day be noted only for their contribution to American decline.
Paul Bogdanich , Mar 21, 2014 8:50:30 PM | 38
Robert Kagan is Victoria Nuland's husband no? My question would be how did Ms. Nuland get promoted to Under-Secretary? Hillary Clinton had to have signed off on that.
guest77 , Mar 21, 2014 8:53:22 PM | 39
" the most benign form of order for thousands of years, keeping the anarchy of ethnic, tribal, and sectarian war bands to a reasonable minimum"

Am i mistaken? Because I am quite certain sectarian wars have never been worse. Syria, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Rwanda, and DRC. These countries became mixed at some point. And now they are being torn apart.

kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 9:02:00 PM | 40
Finally, we get to discuss the poisonous, rotten core of Imperial Supremacy and who authored, promotes it and is the main driving force behind it. Hallelujah! This is exactly where we must begin. Finally, the purpose of all these discussions becomes more defined.

I'm not sure if your error in the author's name was really so bad. Maybe it was meant this way for all to investigate further , because that is precisely what everyone is failing to do in these discussions on imperial supremacy: to research the authors of this evil ideological foreign policy and there are many behind it in different arenas: politics, finance, media, lobbies, religious groups, all honing the message, driving the narrative, driving policy, bribing politicians to push this twisted ideology forward.

Your error, intentional or otherwise was nonetheless so timely and auspicious at a moment in history when we are starting to see , what evil injustice is being advanced in our name against other nations, and this article falls into our lap in an almost prophetic manner with such perfect timing as a warning to us all: to look for the root and squash it before it's too late, because unless we see where it originates, we are powerless. The fact that your error perplexed many here already can only be a good thing, because it peaks their curiosity: hey, wait a minute; this is not the author, what's going on here? And then upon further research, they discover two names to familiarize themselves with, and then three, and then a pattern starts to emerge, and then they go further connecting the dots until they finally get the big picture that: the advancement of imperial supremacy in this day and age...is most definitely a Zionist-driven operation.

So they have similar names, and are no relation but they're united in the cause of Zionism and the imperial project that will shelter Zionism permanently.:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/10/no_relation_no_13_the_foreign_policy_edition.html

This individual, Kaplan, is obviously trying to make the case for imperial supremacy which sets the stage for justifying the injustice that Zionism has wrought in Israel and that Zionists want to permanently legitimize by any means possible.

These Ziocons will bombard us and the world from left, right and centre with an argument designed for every political persuasion to justify legitimizing imperial supremacy where Zionism can exist comfortably with permanent impunity and be cleansed of its ongoing and future crimes.

Now I know I'm going to have fun here separating the chaff from the wheat on this issue. This is a subject that Zionists, whether liberal (a non-existent creatures in Zionism; because Zionism turns all who embrace it into fascists) or conservative, are irresistably drawn to and at the same time it's a subject that draws out their duplicitous nature. Those who are secretly with Zionism's goals will do ANYTHING to steer us off course and prevent us from visualizing the pattern, and if we dare to; they'll hurl their most convenient slander; A.S.

Thank you for making us aware of this article which lays the foundation for all discussions on what we are witnessing in Ukraine and the Middle East with advancing imperial supremacy and which hopefully will motivate everyone to further explore the depth and scope of Zionist involvement in this expanding foreign operation that is evil to its core.

And don't worry, apparently you're not the first to mix up these names and make this fortunate mistake, because in essence, whether one author is blunt and the other doublespeaks liberal jargon they are united in their cause and we should be aware of what we're up against to tear their structure down and derail their agenda.

It's great to see others stumble upon the truth that was begging to be found. If not for this timely omen, I might have given up trying to make everyone see and have started doubting even the sound of my own fury.

Massinissa , Mar 21, 2014 9:03:31 PM | 41
@38

Kaplan would probably say its because America isnt a powerful enough empire or something. Lulz.

kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 9:06:46 PM | 42
@10 thomas

Stop beating around the bush, and just come out with it already! We are being sold a case for Zionist Supremacy right from the horses mouth!

kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 9:12:36 PM | 43
@34 Demian

Well you could have knocked me over with a feather! And to think I had to go through all that to see you get to this point. Thank God for serendipity!

kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 9:15:02 PM | 44
@37 They don't talk about it in polite society; but it's understood they're all on the same page.
kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 9:23:12 PM | 45
@29 Nora

Who set these wheel in motion Robert Kagan and William Kristol or Dick and Rummy? Come on...the authors of the PLAN of course. Sure Cheney's a lunatic, but even he couldn't come up with this. Cheney's part of the muscle.

Nora , Mar 21, 2014 9:35:21 PM | 46
#44 Kalithea

We've been fighting this fight, Kalithea, for a long time now, every way we can. So you'll not find me defending a one of them. But the wheels were set in motion before any of us were born, and I'm an old woman now. We're "just" dealing with the current crop, and hopefully we'll somehow succeed before there's no Palestine, Palestinians or olive trees left. Or Syrians, or Iraqis, or Ukrainians, or... Just don't think for a minute that these monsters were not, and are not, encouraged and enabled by non-Jews, low and high, who share the same damned values even if they don't personally give a crap about Israel or its "chosen". And they've ALL got to be stopped.

kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 9:45:10 PM | 47
This is from a 2004 article by Uri Avnery at Counterpunch:
The "oligarchs" are a tiny group of entrepreneurs who exploited the disintegration of the Soviet system to loot the treasures of the state and to amass plunder amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. In order to safeguard the perpetuation of their business, they took control of the state. Six out of the seven are Jews.

In the first years of post-Soviet Russian capitalism they were the bold and nimble ones who knew how to exploit the economic anarchy in order to acquire enormous possessions for a hundredth or a thousandth of their value: oil, natural gas, nickel and other minerals. They used every possible trick, including cheating, bribery and murder. Every one of them had a small private army.

But the most intriguing part of the series recounts the way they took control of the political apparatus. After a period of fighting each other, they decided that it would be more profitable for them to cooperate in order to take over the state.

At the time, President Boris Yeltsin was in a steep decline. On the eve of the new elections for the presidency, his rating in public opinion polls stood at 4%. He was an alcoholic with a severe heart disease, working about two hours a day. The state was, in practice, ruled by his bodyguard and his daughter; corruption was the order of the day.

The oligarchs decided to take power through him. They had almost unlimited funds, control of all TV channels and most of the other media.

Vladimir Putin, the taciturn and tough ex-KGB operative, assumed power, took control of the media, put one of the oligarchs (Mikhail Khodorkovsky) in prison, caused the others to flee (Berezovsky is in England, Vladimir Gusinsky is in Israel, another, Mikhail Chernoy, is assumed to be hiding here.

George W. Bush and John Kerry both brag about their talent for raising enormous sums of money. From whom? From pensioners? From the mythical "old lady in tennis shoes"? Of course not, but from the cabals of billionaires, the giant corporations and powerful lobbies (arms dealers, Jewish organiztions, doctors, lawyers and such). Many of them give money to both candidates–just to be on the safe side.

All of these expect, of course, to receive a generous bonus when their candidate is elected. "There is no such thing as a free lunch", as the right-wing economist Milton Friedman wrote. As in Russia, every dollar (or ruble) invested wisely in an election will yield a ten- or hundred-fold return.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/08/03/or-how-the-virgin-became-a-whore/

Demian , Mar 21, 2014 10:12:07 PM | 48
Even educated Americans speak of Putin as a "thug". All he has done is restore the rule of law, what Germans used to call a Rechtsstaat .

It was very revealing for me to watch his recent informal press conference and his speech to the Duma. He is obviously a man of the people. He also takes the political ideas that European civilization was built on seriously, something that can be said for no Western leader I know of.

It is turning out as the nineteenth century Slavophiles thought it would: Russia has become the last defender of Western civilization.

ToivoS , Mar 21, 2014 10:34:42 PM | 49
Someone above mentioned the Robert Kaplan piece in the Atlantic "how we would fight china" that appeared in 2005. This was not lunatic but a very interesting article on US military plans on how to confront China just off of China's territorial waters (I think the lunacy is the notion that US national interests require us to maintain a war footing in the Western Pacific, but that is an argument we have lost here in the US). I hadn't seen this before. In any case it should be read by anyone interested in US plans against China. It explains Hillary's 'pivot to Asia' policy.

Demian , Mar 21, 2014 10:40:14 PM | 50
As for Uri Avnery at Counterpunch: today he writes :
By the same token, Ukrainians can be understood when they kick out a president who wants to bring them into the Russian orbit against their will.

I was surprised to read that. I should have thought that Avnery has a concept of the rule of law. Also, is Avnery so uninformed not to know that most Ukrainians do not want to join NATO?

scalawag , Mar 21, 2014 10:49:46 PM | 51
Uri Avnery is "soft" zionism. Says most the "right" things, but essentially there to steer the gullible towards the lesser of two zionist evils.
DM , Mar 21, 2014 11:04:15 PM | 53
"Even educated Americans". That must be either a relative term, or the voice of the educated is never heard. It is difficult for me to imagine how an "educated" person could be so ill-informed. Back on planet earth, this would never happen.
kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 11:09:00 PM | 54
Maybe this is far-fetched and I know that Putin bailed out some the the Russian Oligarchy during the 2008 recession so they would owe him support at this crucial time. But recently I watched an interview on 60 Minutes with businessman Bill Browder who trashed talked Putin. Browder ran a Capital Management firm investing in Russia's largest oil companies. Browder who at one point alleges being a supporter of Putin ended up blacklisted as being a threat to the country. Anyway I'm not sure what kind of subterfuge he was up to when he stayed in Russia but he made some nasty accusations against Putin.

A Zionist Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky who went into exile in the U.K. after being accused of fraud and embezzlement during Primkov's government in 1999 also hated Putin. Beresovsky is one of those oligarchs by the way who exploited the fall of the Soviet Union to his advantange. Beresovsky later became a vocal opponent of Putin.

Berezovsky publicly threatened Putin and stated that he was on a mission to bring down Putin "by force" or by bloodless revolution. Berezovsky held media holdings in Russia and used them to slam Putin's policies.

I believe it is during this time Putin became aware of the power of Zionist media to destroy political careers.

In October, in an interview in Le Figaro, Putin announced that he would no longer tolerate criticism of the government by media controlled by the oligarchs. "If necessary we will destroy those instruments that allow this blackmail", he declared.

Details from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Conflict_with_Putin_and_emigration

Berezovsky even set up a foundation based in New York whose purpose it was said was to "bankroll widespread opposition to Putin":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Foundation_for_Civil_Liberties

There's no doubt in my mind that Zionist influence had a hand in what is happening in Ukraine and the protests that tried to interfere with Putin's re-election. Maybe Putin pissed off some other Zionist oligarchs. I haven't been able to research more on this issue but hopefully some of you will look further.

But this just reinforces the point I've been trying to make that Zionists are involved in this imperial global expansion, in this case because the capitalist system feels threatened by Putin and potential reforms. Zionists are up to their eyeballs in this imperial advance and I still believe they're in the driver's seat.

kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 11:16:52 PM | 55
@48 ToivoS

Are you kidding me? Do you think the U.S. could ever dream of reining 1.3 billion stray cats with nukes and a formidable army? For gawd's sake this article is practically a manifesto on Zionism supremacy, it's that transparent. But of course, you'll never admit it.

Nora , Mar 21, 2014 11:24:00 PM | 57
kalithea # 53

Oh the Neocons were absolutely behind this Ukrainian gambit, and I'm thinking their goals were twofold: to keep Russia preoccupied and get hold of Sevastopol. That way, it would be very difficult for her to help Syria and, of course, Iran -- still the main goals for those creeps. And yeah, find me one Neocon, anywhere, who does not support Israel. So yeah, Zionists.

remembererringgiap , Mar 21, 2014 11:37:51 PM | 58
really, read some history? u s imperialism is the single most dangerous threat to humanity

israel is a vassal state

exactly as indonesia was under suharto, or colombia under any of its creep compradors

your sense of disproportion amazes me truly, maybe it is because you are american, you want to blame someoen else for your barbarity, 'the smart jew' is again the perfect target for imbeciles

it is a puppet state, it is a non state, who does exactly what washington wants it to do. it effects only only middle east policy & even that it is by far the junior party, if washington told israel to go live in the sudetenland, the state of israel would, is is a pantin, a puppet increasingly with more bark than bite

you choose anti semitism because as american you are frightened of being obliged to burn your shithouse down

Nora , Mar 21, 2014 11:43:38 PM | 59
Oh no, rememberringgiap, no. It's the combination of the two. And for gosh sakes, I've known how bad America was since I was a kid, and spent most of my life trying to do something about it so I'm hardly afraid to admit it. We see the end coming, it's gonna be UGLY, and we know we deserve it; not a nice place to be but it's honest. And Israel is equally nasty, sometimes in the lead, sometimes as a follower, and I don't hate Jews but I sure do loathe Zionists, whatever faith they may be. (And again, in America, there are a lot more Christians blindly supporting Israel than Jews.)
remembererringgiap , Mar 21, 2014 11:49:14 PM | 60
they are puppets, nothing more nothing less. the actual state of israel began criminally with deir yassin & that state gets worse, it is little surprise, that its population is leaving in droves, more than at any other time, so would i with nutcases like lieberman & netanyahu

but they are no more than donkeys

pakistan on the other hand frightens the living shit out of those united states

Nora , Mar 21, 2014 11:50:07 PM | 61
They're just two sides of the same (filthy) coin.
LJ , Mar 21, 2014 11:52:34 PM | 62
In the atlantic.com article In Defense of Empire the words "slave" or "slavery" in fact do not exist.

or example, in the above quoted text, we find this phrase: "Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often been provided by slavery ...". From the atlantic.com url, instead we find: "Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often been provided by empires ...".

The same types of differences exist in every single case. Obviously, this is a huge problem. Either the quotes are wrong in this post or they have been edited out in a later version of the atlantic.com version and replaced with the words "empires," "imperialism", etc.

This problem should be addressed ASAP.

scalawag , Mar 22, 2014 12:07:42 AM | 63
"israel is a vassal state"

Which lets Israel/zionist Jewish fascists off the hook for the war crimes they are responsible for. "They're just pawns of a larger poer, pity them, but don't condemn them. And for god's sakes, don't do anything meaningful that might interfere in their sacred mandate from the godhead."

Which is essentially what Jewish zionist hasbara is all about, whether from the zionist left or the zionist right.

It's never "us", it's always "them".

Excuse me while I go puke, Charles Manson in drag.

Massinissa , Mar 22, 2014 12:08:18 AM | 64
@48 Yes, totally not lunatic for the United States to go to war with one of the most populated countries on the planet.

Wanting to go to war with enormous countries like China, Russia or even Iran (not as big, but still what, over twice as big as iraq and afghanistan combined?) is totally and completely rational.

/sarc off

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 12:08:37 AM | 65
Okay, I found another corrupt Zionist Russian Oligarch who was accused of fraud, embezzlement and money laundering who's also an enemy of Putin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky

Thank goodness Putin did some house-cleaning, but he no doubt made enemies among Zionists no doubt on Wall Street as well. They must have had capital tied up in these Zionist-run Russsian companies.

Massinissa , Mar 22, 2014 12:11:27 AM | 68
@62 WHAT Zionist left? There is none. All the Democrats or whatever that are zionists are also right wing. They just dress up imperialism in fancy words like 'humanitarianism', thats all.

There hasnt been a zionist left since the last communist zionists in Israel retired or died decades ago.

Massinissa , Mar 22, 2014 12:16:47 AM | 69
@57 You realize that critiquing zionism, which is a modern political ideology, is NOT the same as critiquing Judaism, the religion, right? Right? Guess not.

Because there are zionist Christians (probably more than there are zionist jews) and nonzionist jews (a growing number of young jews realize Israel is an apartheid state).

So stop trying to slur anti-zionists as anti-semites, thats just slander.

scalawag , Mar 22, 2014 12:22:05 AM | 70
Hey kalithea, the Russians let Khodorkovsky out of prison early. Almost the first thing the loyal Israeli citizen did was go to the Ukraine and encourage the neo-nazis running the place now to get even more brutal and nazi like.

I could ask what's up with that, but I think everybody here knows the answer.

Demian , Mar 22, 2014 12:26:54 AM | 71
@65: I think b made it very clear. He used the word "substitute", and the title of the post was directly followed by the same title, but without the substitution.

This kind of snark is just part of leftist blog culture. (I don't know if right wingers do it.)

I'm beginning to think that the substitution of "Kagan" for "Kaplan" was snark too, but that I didn't pick up on.

Demian , Mar 22, 2014 12:37:00 AM | 75
In China, Michelle Obama calls for universal rights

Do Michelle and her speechwriters really think that Chinese rulers don't take that as a big joke? I'm sure they're laughing their heads off behind her back. I hope that the reason speechwriters put stuff like that in there is for the domestic American audience.

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 12:55:37 AM | 77
And yet another Zionist oligarch who bilked Russia and hates Putin.:
On 23 August 2003, Gusinsky travelled from Israel to Athens, where he was arrested under a Greek-Russian treaty for fraud amounting to millions in damages.[5] Intense pressure from American leaders (mainly from US ambassador in Athens Tomas Miller), Israeli officials and the European Jewish Congress on the Greek government led to Gusinsky's release within five days.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Gusinsky

Mr Gusinsky says we will all pay the price if western leaders appease President Putin. He likens the situation apocalyptically to the 1930s and the world's treatment of Hitler. Mr Putin's hands, he says, are already red with the blood of murdered Chechens.

Mr Putin's popularity comes in part from his promise to do away with the oligarchs, a group of 20-odd billionaire businessmen who got rich stripping assets from privatised companies they bought for nothing.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/apr/24/russia.gilestremlett

scalawag , Mar 22, 2014 1:25:52 AM | 78
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 22, 2014 12:46:04 AM | 75

"just read strormfront that enough - that's the level of research repeated ad finitum - whether its lagos or louisiana"

It's well known stormfront is a zionist front/agent provocateur site, much like freerepublic, though tailored to the more hardcore freak. Why promote them?

Crash Craddock , Mar 22, 2014 1:48:24 AM | 79
Maybe Zionists deserve to rule, they're smarter, they work harder and are better organized. You folks couldn't organize an ice cream social. Just sayin'
fairleft , Mar 22, 2014 2:38:49 AM | 80
Nora and 'Destroy MoonofAlabama Project' at 45:
But the wheels were set in motion before any of us were born, and I'm an old woman now. ... Just don't think for a minute that these monsters were not, and are not, encouraged and enabled by non-Jews, low and high, who share the same damned values even if they don't personally give a crap about Israel or its "chosen".

Testify Sister! Tell us who set the wheels in motion, tell us all what the plan is. What tricks did the Jews pull on us non-Jews way back then, how are non-Jews enabling their diabolical worldwide plan?

ToivoS , Mar 22, 2014 2:40:38 AM | 81
Posted by: kalithea | Mar 21, 2014 11:16:52 PM | 54

WTF are you trying to say? The Zionist have no position on US-China relations as far as anyone can see. I read that article by Robert Kaplan and he reported the views of officers in the US Navy. I am quite sure that Israel has not penetrated the US Navy. This is a perspective of good old fashioned US imperialism. I know that the Zionist work in the background and try to influence US policy, but they do not control it. Especially inside the US Navy. You have no idea how power is distributed inside the US.

Outraged , Mar 22, 2014 3:40:54 AM | 82
The War Prayer
"... I have told the whole truth in that, and only dead men can tell the truth in this world ..." Mark Twain

Eugenics is evil ... however, in Kagans case, his removal from the gene pool and his ilk, could only be seen as a darwinian, evolutionary advancement for humanity.

brian , Mar 22, 2014 3:52:15 AM | 83
nice to see Kagan defend empire...so he defends russias and soviets

meanwhile: #Kiev authorities giving school camps to neo-#Nazis for military training

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_22/Kiev-authorities-giving-school-camps-to-neo-Nazis-for-military-training-5367/

#Svoboda #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/LFNocUcc5x

Knut , Mar 22, 2014 3:57:39 AM | 84
thank you, rememberinggiap, for your calmness. you are correct in saying that many of us (and that includes myself look for causes outside our internal history. perhaps the fixed point should be the Dulles brothers, who if they did not set us down this infernal path, gave us a mighty and prolonged push. Mark Twain had it all figured out over a century ago. as to American zionists, Jews of my and Nora's generaton lived through the discrimination of convenanted housing tracts, university quotas and professional exclusions down to the Vietnam war, and they can't put it out of their mind. they probably don't know that they were not the only ones. when I was a student at Yale living with George Bush Sr.'s aunt in New Haven, Catholics and most of the Yale professors were excluded from the lawn tennis club situated just behind the new school of management on Whitney avenue. No Irish or italians need apply. the us is a swarm of internal contradictions, and it's history is out of control.
fairleft , Mar 22, 2014 4:08:55 AM | 85
Nora at 45: Kindly cancel that request. Just answer this. Do you agree with this quote from Pragma:
Neither is it coincidence that (before the creation of izrael but about the time of the balfour deal ...) Russia was poisoned by zionist "communists" (just another projection), nor is it coincidence that Germany was relentlessly pushed into war and later broken and crushed and not reinstated until this very day ...

If that's a good summary of them, maybe there's no need for you to tell us about your 'historical' beliefs.

Also, in fact I only think Pragma is the actual 'destroy moonofalabama' operative here. You and his other supporters seem to hold your beliefs sincerely. FWIW and for what they're worth which is less than zero.

Outraged , Mar 22, 2014 4:09:28 AM | 86
@ToivoS #48

There will be no 'US Naval' war off Chinas coast.

The US Navy has known it Carriers are simply very large targets for many, many years, and so do the PLAN.

Carrier battle groups are for projecting brute military force and creating invasive sovereignity(sic) in support of Empire around the globe ... NEVER , in the modern era to be risked against 1st world powers. All those billions upon billions of $ would be lost in the briefest moment of conflict with the PLAN. See: Anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM).

thomas , Mar 22, 2014 4:16:04 AM | 87
I must admit I didn't compare the original text with what b cited, I still had too much of a confidence into him which now vanished totally. Others @6) and Massinissa discovered the bluff immediately, so they deserve the honour. I really don't know what the purpose of this double bluff is: changing the text and the author??? I would say just stupid...

It also damages people like Chinweizu @10), the famous nigerian writer who presented a case of REAL stewardry of labour by WTO close to slaveholdership

maybe Mr Pragma is also his creation, b is a talented computer freak and I think he is LoL in his little room about all of us; and also about having added two hysterical anti-zionist broads programmes to the commenters here confusing all of us.... I think the whole blog here is really disintegrating, from top to bottom...

fairleft , Mar 22, 2014 4:32:48 AM | 89
Knut at 83: Lenin had this figured out, imperialism is a stage of capitalism, a reaction to excess production and internal markets being exhausted of opportunities for excess profits. The European capitalist countries began struggling with this phenomenon in the late 19th century and the US a few decades later. There's really no solution other than ending capitalism and/or social democracy.

In that context, pinning responsibility for imperialism on Jews is just idiotic, and pinning things on the US will just make folks less wary of its natural successor, China. That doesn't mean it's not a good thing when there is multi-polar world, because that coincided in the post-war era and may coincide again with greater 'space' for independent, populist, democratic regimes to arise.

And that also doesn't mean I accuse Russia of being an imperialist. Lenin was making a general observation (I think) and there are exceptions. Regimes under attack by 'big imperialism' sometimes produce sincere democratic/populist nationalists. I hope/think Russians are lucky enough to have one of those running their country now. The people should be aware they'll likely need to struggle 'some day soon' to avoid reverting to the 'imperialist norm'.

thomas , Mar 22, 2014 4:54:44 AM | 90
@87) where is the enlightment of readers doing this? all empires, great and less great, historically have been founded on slaveholdership, now changing to a form of forced labour like in most of the arabic monarchistic countries or work without the minimum ILO standards like in the case of the Sotchi Olympic workers....
Outraged , Mar 22, 2014 6:44:10 AM | 91
After 12 Years of War, Labor Abuses Still Rampant on U.S. Bases in Afghanistan (as in Iraq & elsewhere)

Human Trafficking and Slavery by the US Government, Military and Corporations for MASSIVE PROFIT is very, very real, in a 'literal' sense, too ... all of it corrupt and illegal even under US Law ... and no one will ever be prosecuted ...

12 years a Slave , indeed ... as I recall, no individual, business or official involved was ever held accountable for the multiple crimes, even then illegal, committed against Solomon Northup , then a Freeman ... one hundred and sixty years has passed and where are we now ?

somebody , Mar 22, 2014 6:55:48 AM | 92
What Kaplan's "defense of imperialism" is trying to prevent are these

" proposed defense cuts "

But if Congress approves, the Army would drop from today's active-duty force of 522,000 soldiers to between 440,000 and 450,000 over the next three years.

"Since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged" ground wars, the Army is larger than required and "larger than we can afford," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who announced the plan, said at the Pentagon.

California may win more than it loses in the shift of resources as older aircraft are phased out and new ones are brought on board.

Spending for cyberwarfare will increase under the plan. That could benefit larger government contractors in Silicon Valley, including Cisco Systems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Oracle Corp. and a growing number of start-ups in defense-related equipment and software.

In addition, Northrop Grumman Corp. uses a facility in Palmdale to build the unmanned RQ-4 Global Hawk drone aircraft that will replace the high-flying U-2 spy planes, famous in the early Cold War but now proposed for retirement. The company has about 2,500 employees on the program in Southern California.

The Pentagon previously had planned to mothball a version of the Global Hawk and keep the U-2 flying. But Hagel said the operating costs of the drone had fallen and that with its greater range and endurance, it "makes a better high-altitude reconnaissance platform for the future."

The Air Force has 32 U-2s based at Beale Air Force Base in Marysville, Calif.

Hagel also called for retiring the Air Force's entire fleet of A-10 "Warthog" ground attack fighters, as well as mothballing half of the Navy's fleet of 22 cruisers, and building only 32 of the Navy's littoral combat ships, not 52 as previously planned. The shallow-draft, lightly armed warship is designed for clearing mines and anti-submarine warfare. Hagel said it might not be heavily armed enough and called for studying whether a new frigate would be better.

The only military force to grow would be special operations forces. Increasingly used for training and counter-terrorism missions around the world, the elite force would increase by several thousand to 69,700 .

Which would give the US a spoiling, blackmail power to push for its interests but no imperial power.

Rather than Obama's post-imperialism, in which the secretary of state appears like a lonely and wayward operator encumbered by an apathetic White House, I maintain that a tempered imperialism is now preferable.

No other power or constellation of powers is able to provide even a fraction of the global order provided by the United States. U.S. air and sea dominance preserves the peace, such as it exists, in Asia and the Greater Middle East. American military force, reasonably deployed, is what ultimately protects democracies as diverse as Poland, Israel, and Taiwan from being overrun by enemies. If America sharply retrenched its air and sea forces, while starving its land forces of adequate supplies and training, the world would be a far more anarchic place, with adverse repercussions for the American homeland.

Rome, Parthia, and Hapsburg Austria were great precisely because they gave significant parts of the world a modicum of imperial order that they would not otherwise have enjoyed. America must presently do likewise, particularly in East Asia, the geographic heartland of the world economy and the home of American treaty allies.

He seems to realize his argument is an uphill struggle as he adds this

This by no means obliges the American military to repair complex and populous Islamic countries that lack critical components of civil society. America must roam the world with its ships and planes, but be very wary of where it gets involved on the ground. And it must initiate military hostilities only when an overwhelming national interest is threatened. Otherwise, it should limit its involvement to economic inducements and robust diplomacy -- diplomacy that exerts every possible pressure in order to prevent widespread atrocities in parts of the world, such as central Africa, that are not, in the orthodox sense, strategic.

That he goes back to "White Man's Burden" in his arguments presumably means he is too old and out of touch with US demography .

somebody , Mar 22, 2014 7:01:56 AM | 93
There is a great RT interview by Anastasja Churkina - the daughter of the Russian UN ambassador - with Amy Goodman on the role of corporate media - when corporations profit from war.
Mr. Pragma , Mar 22, 2014 9:55:02 AM | 95
Demian (47)
Putin ...

It was very revealing for me to watch his recent informal press conference and his speech to the Duma. He is obviously a man of the people.

Indeed. It's also instructive to compare a Putin speech and say an obama or merkel speech. While Putin *evidently and doubtlessly* really addresses the people and explains what has been, or must be, done and why, the western puppets merely utter system standard pieces of text and are ignoring the people.

kalithea (53)

Bill Browder who trashed talked Putin. Browder ran a Capital Management firm investing in Russia's largest oil companies. Browder who at one point alleges being a supporter of Putin ended up blacklisted as being a threat to the country.

Well, depending on whom you ask, weztern media and even (reliably and confrontingly jew defending) wikipedia, or Russian investigators, witnesses, and victims, the answer will be very different.

Actually browder was deeply and dirtily linked to a concerted crime operation that tried to steal Russias (mostly hydrocarbon) resources in a "professional" way. This, of course *had* to be understood for what it was, a direct attack on Russias life blood, which maybe was not even the goal of browder and accomplices but at least a non issue for them. Looking closer you will also find khodorkovsky and the "devils advocate" magnitsky in those circles.

Funnily the wezt and wikipedia paint browder as a gently minded businessman who got thrown out by evil Putin for unmasking Putin and his crime gang (well noted, that's how the weztern thugs paint it).

A Zionist Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky who went into exile in the U.K. after being accused of fraud and embezzlement during Primkov's government in 1999 also hated Putin. Beresovsky is one of those oligarchs by the way who exploited the fall of the Soviet Union to his advantange. Beresovsky later became a vocal opponent of Putin.

Berezovsky publicly threatened Putin and stated that he was on a mission to bring down Putin "by force" or by bloodless revolution. Berezovsky held media holdings in Russia and used them to slam Putin's policies.

berezovsky didn't stick to the deal, he left the frame so clearly - and wisely - assigned by Putin. Quite possibly berezovsky is the symbol of the "political oligarchs" which, of course, were not at all happy about Putin stopping their free looting of Russia.

It is noteworthy - yet widely "forgotten" - that berezovsky later, in London, more or less confessed his crimes and evil spirited attacks and asked Putin to forgive him and to please, pretty please, let him go back to Russia.

One might also have a good case here for the difference between jews and zionists. Yes, most oligarchs are jews but that's not the point. The point is that extremely greedy people with a large crime register wanted to and still want to earn ever more billions, jew or not jew. But that's it. And one can make agreements with them, even agreements in favour of Russia and even agreements basically employing those oligarchs for the good of Russia.

Not so with the zionists. The zionist oligarchs never respected Putin, nor the people, nor Russia herself. To them Russia was but a helpless but very rich lady they would loot and rob with utmost brutality. And as soon as anyone dared to stop them they would scream "anti-semites!" and leave to izrael or another zio controlled country.

For those oligarchs who stuck and stick to the agreements one must not care about jew or not and indeed there are non-jews, too. The most brutal and despicable criminals though are zio-jews, each and all of them.

Ad "zusa attacking China":

That must be a joke. Anyone with some basic knowledge about military issues will tell you a simple truth: zusa must hope and pray that none of their protectees, namely japan, sk, and taiwan, ever comes in a situation to ask for zusa help. For a simple reason. zusa would be doomed.

Japan being the least dangerous, sk would pretty much be lost before zusa could fire some shots, and taiwan (and largely sk) are basically denied zones.

Not only are 100% of taiwan covered by Chinese anti-air systems but worse for zusa, zusa would be stopped dead in its tracks because China can interdict the ca. 600 - 750km wide "belt" around taiwan needed for zusa air operations. About the only tool not interdicted would be zusa firing cruise missiles; as those are old tech., and slow China would comfortably kill at least 80% (and more realistically around 90%) of those. Would do zusa that, would zusa protect taiwan knowing there is little they could do but there would be a very considerable risk of China (rightfully!) destroying major parts of the zusa fleet? I strongly doubt that.

About the most realistic and favourable (for zusa) scenario I see would be a China japan war with zusa interfering somewhat. And even that is doubtful as it might "invite" nk to use China supplied weapons against both japan and the much hated zusa.

maybe Mr Pragma is also his creation, b is a talented computer freak and I think he is LoL in his little room about all of us; and also about having added two hysterical anti-zionist broads programmes

maybe? MAYBE? What an incompetent asshole! OF COURSE I'm a programm! But not by b; I've been programmed by KGB on a rusty typewriter.

izrael should ask zusa for more funds or they should ask one of the zio-controlled countries. Obviously izrael *urgently* needs funds for better agents. Current ones like thomas miss even the most obvious points.

Ceterum censeo israel americanamque vehementer delenda esse!

somebody , Mar 22, 2014 10:00:10 AM | 96
94) no, you are definitively CIA programmed, probably by their Israeli subcontractors.
Sanford Russell , Mar 22, 2014 10:02:00 AM | 97
Please, b, have some truly competent person proof read your posts. A few more blunders such as this one and you lose a bunch of readers.
kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 10:15:25 AM | 98
@96

I doubt he will lose readers; and if it's you, nitpicker - Good Riddance.

somebody , Mar 22, 2014 10:24:30 AM | 99
96) Sanford Russel - hint: it is intentional.

Some people plan for Afghanistan in Ukraine .

Bright future for Pravy Sector Taliban.

Mr. Pragma , Mar 22, 2014 10:26:43 AM | 100
Oh no, b made an error!

What a shocking revelation. Who would have thought that a human being can make an occasional error?!

sanford russell is absolutely right. The readers are fleeing MoA in batallion-sized troves.

Say, sanford russell, how many errors are needed to lose *you*? I'm more than ready to commit them.

Here's a first downpayment:

1 + 1 = 7

zionists are acceptable human beings

sun is going around earth which is the center of the universe (hint to zamericans: Attention, this is actually an error!)

water flows upward

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 10:27:48 AM | 101
@94 Mr. Pragma

Mikhail Fridman Zionist Oligarch:

He has been an active supporter of Jewish initiatives in Russia and Europe. In 1996 Fridman was one of the founders of the Russian Jewish Congress, now sitting on the RJC Presidium. He makes large contribution to the work of the European Jewish Fund, a non-profit organization aimed at developing European Jewry and promoting tolerance and reconciliation on the continent.[5]

Presently, a member of the Public Chamber of Russia. Was presented with an award by Bill Clinton, uber-supporter of Zionism.

What is this? A case of keep your friends close and enemies closer? I wouldn't trust a Zionist as far as I can spit! How many Zionists are in his entourage? I hope Putin doesn't end up like Caesar - stabbled in the back by those close to him - et tu Brute?

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 10:28:40 AM | 102
Link for details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Fridman

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 10:31:55 AM | 105
Mikhail Fridman and his fellow Russian Jewish philanthropists are ponying up some serious cash to create what is being touted as a "Jewish Nobel Prize." The Russian billionaire and co-founder of the five-year-old Genesis philanthropy group announced the creation of a $1 million prize that will be awarded to Jews who win global recognition for their professional achievements, including in the world of science and the arts. The prize, launched in collaboration with the Israeli government, was announced on Tuesday, which coincided with the visit of Russian president Vladimir Putin to Israel. The award will be presented annually by the Israeli prime minister around Passover time. As if the world was short on Jewish Nobel Prize winners.

Read more: http://www.jta.org/2012/06/29/life-religion/friday-five-ankie-spitzer-hateful-elmo-aaron-sorkin-mikhail-fridman-and-pamela-geller#ixzz2whaPoKar

Cynthia , Mar 22, 2014 10:34:08 AM | 106
Crash Craddock@78,

Neocon Zionists, aka Israeli Firsters, and most of the One Percent on Wall Street have owned Congress and the mainstream media propaganda machine since the beginning of modern print, and then broadcast media. By this control of what people read, hear, and see, they have been able to control what people believe and think. Game set match, until now.

Now, the internet has opened the Pandora's box of Truth, and as people have an instinct for the truth, they are beginning to see what was concealed from them before. (And they're inevitably getting smarter, developing the skill needed to distinguish noisy nonsense from correct information.) So Robert Kagan and other neocon Zionists like him whose first loyalty is to Israel, are rightly worried that when the "tapestry of lies" is stripped away, and the American people see the extent of the Zionist subversion, there will be consequences.

This is the pattern of five-thousand years of Jewish history: they go somewhere, do very well by themselves and the locals, then they get powerful, and they overreach and become abusive, at which point the locals accost them, or holocaust them. This is how Jewish talent becomes Jewish self-destruction.

This is sad enough, but as an American, I'm particularly dismayed, because the American Jews in my surrounding community have -- too easily I must confess -- been hoodwinked into supporting the Zionist criminal enterprise.

Stealing someone else's country to start your own -- despite all the historical precedent -- is not a good strategy, particularly when the folks whose country you stole have a billion and a half co-religionists out there unhappy about the theft.

H/T: antiwar.com

Nora , Mar 22, 2014 10:34:22 AM | 107
Let's get some definitions right, ok. Zionism in this day and age means no more and no less than a strong supporter of the state of Israel. It simply doesn't mean "Jew", but it does mean condoning increased settlements and outrageous attacks against Gaza, etc. The entire movement is a bit more than 100 years old; it began at roughly the same time that TR and his lovely "White Fleet" sailed the Pacific to do some of the same lovely stuff to the Philippines that we'd been doing to North America since the 1600's and the rest of the Americas since the 1800s (the entire purpose of the Monroe Doctrine was to legitimize it).

Okay, a bit more history: our entry into WWI was, among other things, closely related to the Balfour Doctrine. We did it for many mercantile reasons as well (DuPont vs. Krupp, etc.), but the point is, just like the Yalies in OSS whose families had been bankrolling Hitler before (and during, see: Prescott Bush) WWII then snarfed up a bunch of leading Nazis afterwards, different people w/different goals and beliefs, can work together when it suits their purposes. And "Israel returning to Zion" was and is a MAJOR theme for the Puritans, both here and in England (look up Dispensationalism; it's a big deal) and various other groups of Christians.

So yes, no CT here at all, but why waste time separating out blame: it's a many-headed monster that's easily judged simply by its effects, summed up as harm to innocent people in the furtherance of... whatever.

Mr. Pragma , Mar 22, 2014 10:36:08 AM | 108
kalithea

a) Putin is a pragmatic who tries to *integrate* all the diverse groups. As long as m.f. and the likes stick to the rules, it's O.K.

And frankly, who cares a cigar about the clintons?

b) Rest assured that m.f. *is* sticking to the rules. After all zionism is only the second priority of rich zionists ...

@ cold n holefield

Great. Good to see that you despise Putin. That's a strong indicator for Putin doing an excellent job.

As for Putins often implied and never proven western expansion desires:

Well, actually most zeuropeans would just LOVE to have a president who actually works *for* them and *for* the country.

hollande, merkel, cameron and all the other puppets definitely and obviously do *not* care batshit about "their" countries or people.

Nora , Mar 22, 2014 10:47:28 AM | 109
fairleft, I left some stuff for you that you may not have read. I'm putting it here but will not engage you again until you've digested at least one of the readings I suggested.

I have an honest question I wish you'd really think about. I'm assuming you're an American, like me. And we have no compunction praising our fellow Americans when they do something in accord with our values, and criticizing them when they don't. I.e., we're not blindly zenophobic, right? And I think that's pretty generally true for most of the people here, whatever their ethnicity: they can criticize "their own" when they find it warranted, based on what the person, or group of people, did. So I'm wondering about your blind spot: are all Jews blameless just by definition, or might some of them, sometimes, do something objectionable? And if so, why is no one allowed to say so? In my family's background are lots of different peoples who at various times were subjected to hideous repression, ethnic cleansing and yes, genocide, but I still see no reason not to criticize them when they're doing something wrong -- why can't you? And please don't invoke the Holocaust: I can trump you in my own background by hundreds of years and millions of people. Really: not all Jews are perfect or blameless, and we're not really talking Jews anyhow, we're talking support for criminal acts by the state of Israel, supported here in America by a LOT more Christians than Jews. I.e., Zionism.

Sometimes this knee-jerk respose is just group-think by otherwise decent people who've been frightened and brainwashed their entire lives and might possibly be reachable. Gilad Atzmon, Israel Adam Shamir and Philip Weiss, to name just three, all started out like that too -- and then grew. I was trying to give fairleft an opportunity to open his mind a bit; he can take it not, as he chooses.

In any case, please read Norton Mezvinsky and Israel Shahak, "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel", Israel Shahak, a Holocuast survivor, btw, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion", and a piece up on CounterPunch right now: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/21/the-origins-of-the-israel-lobby-in-the-us/

You seem like a decent person: please read these. It won't be easy for you -- it's hard to challenge deeply-ingrained beliefs -- but reading these books with a mind open to seeing things differently is more than worth it.

Mr. Pragma , Mar 22, 2014 11:00:06 AM | 111
Nora

In all friendliness, it seems you just don't get it. Yes, fairleft is somewhat more professional than, say thomas, in not exclusively relying on crude attacks and gross propaganda.

He is, however, nevertheless and evidently a fervent pro-zionist and trying his best to do their work here.

(But of course, this is but some friendly sentences. Feel free by all means to continue your endeavour)

Nora , Mar 22, 2014 11:10:48 AM | 112
ben @ 109

Thank you.

Mr. P @ 110

Just giving him the benefit of the doubt this one last time.

But those two books and Allison Weir's piece imo are important for anyone who wants to be informed; there's a lot of data in each of them that simply cannot be refuted. And Shahak's book is still available online, I think.

somebody , Mar 22, 2014 11:12:40 AM | 113
105) Especially when it was the British who promised the place to two peoples

for a) get support in their fight against the Ottoman empire (who had robbed the place before them)

to b) have a "European" colony to subject the natives.

Saying you are not Main Stream Media and making up your own truth does you better than Main Stream Media.

Americans inherited the British empire that is all there is to it. Deal with it.

Crest , Mar 22, 2014 11:31:04 AM | 115
Imperialism benefits no one but a small slice of the ruling class. But it's always defended as if it's the only thing providing food for the average person. It's been true since the Roman empire. The looting oriented British Raj stripped away so much and somehow almost none of it ended up in the hands of the average Briton. Same for the Kingdoms of Spain and Portugal. It's just no good. I don't know how long it will take for average people to understand it.
Noirette , Mar 22, 2014 11:37:48 AM | 116
The interest in slavery is not just neo-connish etc. but in a way, underground, an interest of Big Corporations (1).

Not, imho, in first place because of the 'cheap labor' but because of issues of control.

Right now we are living in a world that is organized in part by nation-states (as a kind of ultimate authority) and for another part, not well coordinated with the first, by Big Corporations, who increasingly control Banking and Finance, thus also say pol. contributions in the US, territory (2) and its uses, supra-territorial matters such as communications and benchmarks (internet, the control of space, rating agencies, for ex.), and other related matters like patent laws.

Slavery as an official doctrine is not in their interests, cheap labor is already available thru modern slavery. So they keep a low profile, and let their 'elected' representatives take the flack.

Such clashing interests are well illustrated in the case of Ukraine, where the confusion of the Western 'nation-states' has become pathetically ridiculous, as they cannot make public their lack of power and attendant subservience to Corporate interests. They are kind of 'holding on' to keep some hand in the game, and mobilizing their 'electorate' with propaganda, as that is where their livelihood come from.

One article about Corp. interests in Ukraine:

Consortium news, March 16, 2014

http://tinyurl.com/omfmbp5

1. Shell, BP, Total, plus many others in the energy field. Also the likes of Glencore Xstrata, Cargill, AXA, Monsanto, Nestlé, JP Morgan, etc. etc. all entwined in a kind of global network.

2. Straight out buying and leasing land; owning thru investments and 'deals', exploration rights, mineral rights, agriculture, transport hubs (pipelines, shipping, ports, the machines that implement the transport, etc.)

Rowan Berkeley , Mar 22, 2014 11:45:48 AM | 118
In the tiny minds of these neocons, it is possible that in some simplified way, the marxist theory of the falling rate of profit penetrated, at least sufficiently for this one to infer that wage labour is inexorably doomed by its own internal contradictions. However, applying the same marxian analysis, it is possible to prove that an economy based on slave labour generates no capitalist profits at all.
Noirette , Mar 22, 2014 11:47:42 AM | 119
israel is a vassal state r giap

Israel (in the form of its present Govmt, and past as well) is US State number 51, a splinter outpost on foreign lands.

Its continuing existence in the shape of its crazily belligerent and racist, apartheid stance, and all the dire cruelties we know about, is maintained by the unwavering support and investment from the US, though EU poodles have followed along. (See e.g. UN vetos, etc.) It is a sick, symbiotic relationship, with one party acting the thug, encouraged by the backer. It is economically dependent on its masters so cannot stop, and leaders of course join for their own personal interests.

Not to minimize the influence of the "Jewish / Isr. lobby" e.g. Walt and Mearsheimer, etc. whatever - exists because it is welcomed, and then provides strange grist to many lunatic mills.

brian , Mar 22, 2014 11:49:41 AM | 120
Patrick deHahn ‏@patrickdehahn 20h

NBC News: New U S. State Dept travel warning tells citizens to defer travel to east regions of Kharkiv, Donetsk and Lugansk in Ukraine .......................so is west ukraine safe?>!!

Nora , Mar 22, 2014 11:53:38 AM | 121
@ Crest 114

Good points. The sorrow is, average people have rarely been in a position to do anything anyhow; they're generally too busy just trying to survive. What we're seeing now in both the EU and US is the steep downward slope of economic and political disempowerment while (hopefully) heading upwards is the shallower slope of public understanding. Will they intersect in time, i.e., while people still have enough power to do something about it? Who knows. And what can people do? In the US the angry folks with guns have been successfully brainwashed to ultimately support TPTB -- while believing they're rebelling against them. (Some really clever work there, worth of Goebbels at his best.)

Nora , Mar 22, 2014 12:06:24 PM | 123
Here's a good one: Soros wants us to dump our strategic reserves and crash the oil market. WTF?

http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_03_22/Ukraine-crisis-oddities-Tycoon-George-Soros-wants-US-to-crash-oil-market-1957/

fairleft , Mar 22, 2014 12:07:27 PM | 124
Cynthia at 105:
This is the pattern of five-thousand years of Jewish history: they go somewhere, do very well by themselves and the locals, then they get powerful, and they overreach and become abusive, at which point the locals accost them, or holocaust them. This is how Jewish talent becomes Jewish self-destruction.

Hi Cynthia! Are you part of Pragma's takedown of moonofalabama or are you just a stupid solo anti-Semite? If the latter, how did you find your way here?

ben , Mar 22, 2014 12:24:19 PM | 126
Nora @ 108: Your're on a roll today it seems. Your expression at 108 truly fits MOST folks here at MOA, at least I sincerely hope so. Like society in general, there are people afoot in this world, who get PAYED to disrupt objectivity on the Internet and the Media.
Mr. Pragma , Mar 22, 2014 12:29:24 PM | 127
It's obvious. b has done an excellent job with MoA.

All those fairleft, thomas, and other zionists in berserk mode area major compliment to b and MoA.

Thank you, zionist fans and agents, for confirming so clearly and fervently that MoA and many of its long term contributors are on the right track!

james , Mar 22, 2014 12:41:51 PM | 129
@126 - true. it would be nice if folks ignored those who they believe are full of shite too, lol.. i think b would benefit correcting the kagan verses kaplan issue.. both of them are friggin nutso's but still..
somebody , Mar 22, 2014 12:43:40 PM | 130
108/125 - err ... what has anybody's race, religion or nationality got to do with how they act?

To be able to be a thief, robber or murderer is universal, no? So people who connect a crime to a race, religion or nationality would attempt what?

james , Mar 22, 2014 12:46:28 PM | 131
ot - cannonfire has a good article titled "propaganda and truth" that some might enjoy reading - http://cannonfire.blogspot.ca/2014/03/propaganda-and-truth.html
zingaro , Mar 22, 2014 12:55:55 PM | 132
@126, concerned about human trafficking ?

Wipe your ass first

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Kosovo

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 1:08:21 PM | 136
Zionist supremacy indoctrination:
In 2003, Rabbi Saadya Grama of the Beth Medrash Govoha, the renowned Talmudic school of Lakewood, NJ, published a book in which he claimed that Gentiles were completely evil and that Jews constituted a separate, genetically superior species.

The book published under the Hebrew Title "Romemut Yisrael Ufarsahat Hagalut" quoted numerous classical Jewish sources to prove Jewish superiority over the rest of humankind.

The difference between Jews and gentiles, he argued, is not religious, historical, cultural, or political. It is rather racial, genetic, and scientifically unalterable. The one groups is at its very root and by natural constitution "totally evil" while the other is "totally good"

If gentiles (goyem) are inherently inferior to Jews, and if their very humanity is presumed to be denied, it is axiomatically inferred from this that these gentiles have inherently lesser rights than Jews do.

Indeed, some Talmudic references do refer to gentiles as "animals walking on two feet instead of four".

Even today, some Rabbis, such as David Batsri, invoke the "bestiality" of non-Jews, claiming that the Creator created them with two legs instead of four in deference to Jews, because it is not appropriate that Jews be served with four-legged animals.

Rabbi Abraham Kook, the religious mentor of the settler movement, taught that "the difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle." (Reuters Photo)

Remarks by the Israeli Minister of Interior Yaakov Neeman suggesting that the Jewish religious law (Halacha) should be adopted as the "law of the land" in the Jewish state has drawn strong reactions from both Jews and non-Jews.

"Step by step, we will bestow upon the citizens of Israel the laws of the Torah and we will turn Halacha into the binding law of the nation," Neeman told Rabbis at a Jewish law convention in occupied Jerusalem in December 2009.

"We must bring back the heritage of our fathers to the nation of Israel," he said. "The torah has the complete solution to all of the questions we are dealing with."

Neeman's statements were met applauds from participants who included high-ranking Rabbis, as well as representatives of religious parties.

However, for non-Jews, who now constitute nearly 50 percent of the total population in occupied Palestine, Neeman's remarks are a serious cause for concern since Halacha, at least according to the Orthodox Jewish interpretation, does not recognize the full humanity of non-Jews.

Hence, non-Jews living under Halacha must accept to live under a perpetual state of inferiority, if not persecution.

Lesser in Every Aspect

According to Orthodox Judaism, a non-Jew (goy) is inferior to a Jew in every conceivable aspect. This inferiority is absolute, inherent, intrinsic, and not subject to any related or unrelated factors.

Rabbi Abraham Kook, the religious mentor of the settler movement, taught that "the difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle."

The teachings of Kook are based on the Lurianic Cabala (Jewish mysticism), which teaches the absolute superiority of the Jewish soul and body over the non-Jewish soul and body. This means, according to one Rabbi who is member of the Chabadi Lubovitcher sect, that "every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity and is part of God."

In 2003, Rabbi Saadya Grama of the Beth Medrash Govoha, the renowned Talmudic school of Lakewood, NJ, published a book in which he claimed that Gentiles were completely evil and that Jews constituted a separate, genetically superior species.

The book published under the Hebrew Title "Romemut Yisrael Ufarsahat Hagalut" quoted numerous classical Jewish sources to prove Jewish superiority over the rest of humankind.

The difference between Jews and gentiles, he argued, is not religious, historical, cultural, or political. It is rather racial, genetic, and scientifically unalterable. The one groups is at its very root and by natural constitution "totally evil" while the other is "totally good"

"Jewish successes in the world are completely contingent upon the failure of all other peoples. Only when the gentiles face total catastrophe, Jews do experience good fortune."

"The Jews themselves brought about their own destruction during the Holocaust, since they arrogantly endeavored to overcome their very essence, dictated by divine law."

While castigated by many Jewish figures, religious and secular, for its brazen racism, Grama's thesis is not really in conflict with the Rabbis of Gush Emunim (the settler camp) and the rest of the National religious movement in Israel today.

He readily applies Torah passages against idolaters, other pagans to Christianity and Islam, and other monotheists who worship the God of Abraham, the very God proclaimed by the Torah.

He also ignores extensive Rabbinic deliberations during the medieval period, which concluded that both Islam and Christianity as "licit, monotheistic faiths."

Hence, Muslims and Christians could not be lumped in one category with the idol-worshipers of earlier times.

Sub-human Slaves

If gentiles (goyem) are inherently inferior to Jews, and if their very humanity is presumed to be denied, it is axiomatically inferred from this that these gentiles have inherently lesser rights than Jews do.

Indeed, some Talmudic references do refer to gentiles as "animals walking on two feet instead of four".

Even today, some Rabbis, such as David Batsri, invoke the "bestiality" of non-Jews, claiming that the Creator created them with two legs instead of four in deference to Jews, because it is not appropriate that Jews be served with four-legged animals.

It is true that this view is not shared by all Rabbis, especially the enlightened ones. However, it is also true that some prominent sages holding both Halachic and historical weight are among the main advocates of this pure racism.

For example, according to the code of Maimonides (Rambam): "A Jew who killed a non-Jew is exempt from human judgment, and has not violated the prohibition of murder."

This code is implicitly practiced by Jewish settler judges when dealing with Jews convicted of killing Palestinians, which explains the extremely light punishments meted out to the perpetrators, especially in comparison to Arabs convicted of the same felony.

And here's the perfect explanation for ummm...imperial supremacist hegemony:

"Jewish successes in the world are completely contingent upon the failure of all other peoples. Only when the gentiles face total catastrophe, Jews do experience good fortune."

And yet more shocking supremacist garbage...

https://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/living-under-israels-jewish-law/

Oh and here's our favorite Rabbi Ovadia:

"Non-Jews were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world-only to serve the People of Israel."

In Israel, death has no dominion over them With gentiles, it will be like any person-They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one's donkey would die, they'd lose their money.

"This is his servant That's why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew."

"why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap; and we will sit like an effendi and eat."

"That is why gentiles were created."

And settler Rabbi Abraham Kook (great last name!):

"The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle."

Oh and here's Ovadia picking his own brain:

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/god-isnt-finished-with-me-yet.html

Teach your children well; to load Kalashnikovs write on bombs that kill and main Palestinian children and kick and spit on their poor grandmothers while you pull off their hijab.

This is what the new generation of Zionists are learning.

TomGard , Mar 22, 2014 2:45:05 PM | 137

The actual kinship of zionism and US-imperialism is based on both israel and the US are settler-societies that never came to be nations.

The expression "nation-state" inverses the factual notions of nation and state. Though a state can enforce submission it can't establish sovereignty. Souvereignty has to be effected by mental and ideological submission of the subject itself to his master and therefore its not fully established without the rule of law.

While the American secession war is duly called a civil war, because it established rule of law within the union states it left the relation of union states to the federal state widely outside this rule. The rule of the federal state became and stayed a military and mafia-like hegemony established on constant war and the amalgamation of military, political and economic clout in corporative elite clans, families, alumnis and the union bureaucracy itself.

The force, that drove this rule of war and corporative hegemony in the American federation after the civil war was accomplishment of the genocide of native cultures. It followed (selection): Spanish-American war, Philippine war, the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine in Cuba, Hawai, Samoa, Venezuela. But it had another component: The federal war on the working class and their partly imported organizations. Then followed WWI and WWII, which were essentially wars against the French and British empire.

So the USA never became a nation. The settler-state of freedom of private property was directly converted to an empire-state ruled by a corporative elite of oligarchs, military staff and a serfing legion of descendant bureaucratic personnel.

It is easy to see, that the never established and unestablishable "Jewish State", the corporative military rule of a zionist Oligarchy in Israel follows roughly the same pattern.

This is a kind of basic line in a history full of contradictions. Mind the suez-war followed by the nuclear armament of Israel by France against the will of the american hegemon. And mind that Israel nowadays has but one enemy it has to fear: The faction of US-elite, which wants to establish a new and stable order in the middle east instead of "creative" chaos in favour of Israel and SA. The faction that would welcome an iranian gas-pipeline from South Pars to the mediterranian, try to keep the integrity of Syria and Lebanon and split the GCC.

...

I tried my best to bring forward my thougts in a tongue that never became mine although I read it every day, because there was nobody deconstructing the "zionist evil"-talk without referring to quasi-religious attitudes and delusive facts and figures that tell nearly nothing about their coherence. If it was too bad - just tell me and I won't follow up or try again.

TomGard , Mar 22, 2014 4:09:30 PM | 144
Nora 138

Okay, thank you, then I want ro add an inference though it needed a bunch of constituents and chain-links to corroborate it:

The US Federal State is warring for it's very existance. If it ends being the executive power of imperialistic metropolises it will probably fall apart, even in the most favorable circumstances you might think of, because of its lack of national substance.

Thats the interface to the fight of the zionist oligarchy for their status as "villa in the jungle", their rule as warlords who can and "must" project power in all the near and middle east and even north africa to stay the ruling power in Palestine. This strongly associates them to the before mentioned faction of the US-elite, especially the MIF(inancial)C.

There is no other evil as the evil of war and it's cause in freedom and accumulation of competing private property.

Nora , Mar 22, 2014 4:22:33 PM | 145
TomGard,

I've cut-and-pasted everything bc I just can't give it the time it deserves right this afternoon. I will though, I promise: it just may take me a little while bc it's a very different way of looking at things and I really need to examine it more carefully. And again, thank you, it's really good food for thought and I'll give it my best.

james , Mar 22, 2014 5:14:35 PM | 146
@137 /144 - tomgard. i 2nd nora's response to you in that i find your commentary highly educational in so far as you articulate a similar viewpoint of mine, but from a very different angle. i am curious what you mean by MIF(inancial)C. - that sounds like what i tend to think military/industrial/financial/complex.. they are definitely rolled into one, even though people look at these entities as being separate and not connected..
MRW , Mar 22, 2014 5:31:58 PM | 150
The result of the neocon meddling in Ukraine has created, as usual, a terrible mess for the "west" and even more so for the Ukrainians. Is there any way to prevent a repeat of such misdeeds?
Yeah, sticking the neocons under water for a week.
amspirnational , Mar 22, 2014 6:00:53 PM | 153
The American political Elite consists of both Zionists and Anglophiles. Just as Lindbergh said.

Now, as far as the Iraq War, as Congressman Moran said, the Jews were not even nearly solely responsible for driving the United States in, based on WMD lies, but as a group they could have politically vetoed the move, dominant and decisive. On other foreign/domestic matters, your fractional mileage may vary.

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 6:52:36 PM | 155
Blood diamonds are...a Zionist's best friend!
Dan Gertler's grandfather, Moshe Schnitzer (d. November 2007), was known in Israel as "Mr. Diamond;" in youth he joined the pre-state underground organization Etzel (Irgoun), an Israeli military cell self-defined as an "untra-nationationalist Jewish militia," but one that committed acts of terrorism in service to the Israeli cause.8 Moshe Schnitzer assumed a major role in the Africa-Israeli diamond trade in the 1950's in a partnership business called Schnitzer-Greenstein. Schnitzer later founded the Israel Diamond Exchange in Tel Aviv in 1960, which today brings Israel $14 billion annually in blood business, and is the country's second-largest industry, but Israel's top export. King Leopold III of Belgium decorated Schnitzer in recognition of his activities favoring the close relationship of Belgium, Israel and the DeBeers diamond cartels, and Schnitzer was also President of the Harry Oppenheimer Diamond Museum in Israel.80

The diamond jewelry trade in the United States is more than $30 billion annually, and 99% -- everything that is not synthetic or artificial diamonds -- involves blood diamonds and the above organized crime syndicates. Israel buys more than 50% of the world's rough diamonds, and the U.S. buys two-thirds of these. The diamond factories are located in Nethanya, Petach Tikvah, Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, Jerusalem, and other cities around the country, but most of the offices were in Tel Aviv in the financial district on Ahad Ha'am Street.81 Dan Gertler's father, Asher Gertler, and his uncle, Shmuel Schnitzer, manage the original family business, and Shmuel is Vice-Chairman of the Belgian-based World Diamond Council -- the entity that spends more money promoting the false image of "conflict-free" diamonds than it does helping any of the people dispossessed or brutalized by the diamond industry.48

On August 16, 2007, Rabbi Bentolila in Kinshasa received a communication asking: "What does the Torah say about men exploiting other men for vast profits while other men are starving and dying all around them? Is there some hierarchy to the Torah that suggests, for example, that black people or Africans are lesser beings, and therefore not to be a concern where profound profits are being made?"

There was no reply from Rabbi Bentolila, he was apparently busy readying for another Bar Mitsvah in Belgium. Unfortunately for Dan Gertler and his spiritual advisers, the Torah says that a Jew can keep a slave, but a Jew kept as a slave must be redeemed, and that -- an empty, foolish justification for exploiting innocent people -- is how religion falsifies spirituality.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/gertlers-bling-bang-torah-gang/

Zionists seem to enjoy exploiting the poor and the oppressed...depraved bastards.

Debs is dead , Mar 23, 2014 12:39:23 AM | 158
So much confusion and little light.

The confusion began when b did one of his usual deliberate substitutions to provoke a bit of thought by substituting slavery for empire.

The normal confusion, generally engendered by the more pedantic of us whenever b does a semantic substitution, was hugely increased when b himself confused two asshole neocons of similar name with each other.

Normally b's substitutions generate thought because the concept summoned by the original wording is considerably different to the concepts generated by its replacement.

This is not the way it is with empire and slavery - two concepts I have always believed to be pretty much indistinguishable from one another.

That is the heart of the issue here, but but adding the confusion from the juxtaposition of similar terms is the confusion many people have about slavery.

For me slavery is enforced labour where a human, regarded as the property of another, is forced to live in a way that is beneficial to his/her 'masters' wants, with no regard for his/her own needs.

Amerikan slavery just like the slavery instituted by the original english colonisers, also featured no payments or wages be given the slaves.

That isn't always the case slaves who are paid are still slaves and may be worse off because of that. The Greek slaves who worked as doctors, secretaries, and retail assistants in imperial Rome frequently were paid for their work, but they were still slaves - their lives were not their own. They were humans who belonged to someone else.

Berkeley is correct at #118 where he points out that slavery without pay ultimately destroys capitalism.

This is why amerika had a civil war. The southern elites wanted to continue as always importing African slaves and paying them nothing, while providing the bare minimum for survival as food & shelter. The factory and retail giant owning Northen elites couldn't give a flying fuck about 'the rights of man' they wanted to get richer that is why they went to war.

The northern elites preferred the form of slavery that had been evolving in Europe since the industrial revolution, where slaves, imported from Europe and more culturally acclimated to factory work than Africans, whose culture and sense of self had been deliberately destroyed, leaving the recipients of that horror in a vacuum.

The 'new slaves' would be responsible for their own upkeep receiving minimum payment to keep themselves in food and shelter, just enough to (a) keep them highly motivated at work and (b) for the elites to profit by taking it back.

Both forms are slavery - the vast majority of humans born into poverty in so-called 'developed' nations such as amerika, england, or israel, have as little say in their own destiny as does a domestic slave in Saudi Arabia.

The biggest difference is that the rules are unwritten & unstated allowing the western elites great flexibility in fucking everyone else over.

They don't need to be written because once the responsibility for feeding yourself and your family is put onto your shoulders in the opprressive and domineering manner which neo-liberal unsocieties put on individuals, the majority follow the same well worn path to personal impoverishment and elite enrichment.

Those who veer off the path - climb outta the rut - can be picked off one by one as needs must. Occasionally one may achieve independence in the form of what seems to be economic self determination, but with few exceptions that is because their divergence suits (& enriches), the slave owners.

This egregious exploitation of ordinary, normal, unsociopathic, humans by the sociopathic elites has been around a lot longer that the organised political movement created to enable followers of Judaism to colonise the Jordan Valley.

If permitted to, ruthless domination of the decent by the greedy will continue long after the zionists have been driven out of the area and the land returned to its original indigenous owners.

Palestinians are the descendants of the people who stayed on, minding their farms and orchards when the despotic monarchists who had comprised Jerusalem's ruling elite fled from their Roman replacements.

It isn't merely incorrect to put the cart before the horse by blaming amerikan imperialism on the corrupt israeli regime, it is fucking dangerous and destructive - firstly because it causes too much time and energy be spent upon a mob of petty crims (yes they are psychopaths, but in comparison to the crimes of amerika, israeli leaders are petty crims), but most importantly because blaming 'the jews' for the world's ills is so destructive to resistance against the asshole elites.

If the elites are to be beaten it will be when all the 'normal' humans have stuck together in common cause against those who consciously butcher any/all of us for profit.

Once we have learned not to be distracted by deliberately nurtured divisive arguments about race, gender, nationality etc - then we will rid ourselves of the leeches and then, that time, provided we have managed to do so without making any scapegoats, maybe then we will be able to asshole-proof our communities ensuring no new sociopaths slink in again under cover of saving us from oldies, 'those kids', morbidly obese, anorexics, gypsies, kaffirs, niggers or jews.

DM , Mar 23, 2014 1:22:26 AM | 160

...Israel as a vassal state of the US http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/158624

U.S. to Israel: You Decide Nukes in Iran, We Decide Bedrooms in Jerusalem http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/07/us-israel-iran-nukes-bedrooms-jerusalem

somebody , Mar 23, 2014 2:34:39 AM | 162
@161

How many inhabitants does Israel have? How many the US? What percentage of US citizens are Jewish? You must have a theory of Jews being the superior race if you think they can dominate. Of course Israel is a puppet state. What people are trying with their "anti-zionist" theories of "zionist" rulership of the world is very transparent. They are either crazy and obsessed or they try to intentionally disrupt the discussion. They sure don't know anything about history, about who got killed and why.

The recipe is so simple. Tell the stupid class xy people are responsible for their trouble, make them fight each other and rule them.

TomGard , Mar 23, 2014 4:55:48 AM | 165
Debs is dead | Mar 23, 2014 12:39:23 AM | 158

Substituting exploitation of labor-power for slavery, then the rule of law in trade and exchange for rule of a "greedy", "indecent", "sociopathic" (and, as many consequently say: mentally ill) elite introduces one tribe ("lunatics") for another ("Jews") and therefore an alternative racist doctrine. Both are manifestations of still the same patriarch pattern of subjugation of one gender to the other (slavery of women), "order" vs. "chaos", rule of command vs. rule of reason, rule of decalogue over collective knowledge and judgement,"good" over "evil", and, following up this pattern, rule of a pristhood over patriarchs, of "God" over "men", of intellectual workforce ("Kopfarbeit) over handcraft and, ultimately, the worship of psyche. It's religion combined with the everyday racist interpretation of competition- results by a mix of functionally allocated benchmarks of (awe of) "success" and (worship of) "virtue". The slightly "modern" manifestations, mythologies and patterns are toothless against the inquisitional redoctrination of "good" and "evil" in times of war, that shows up in a renaissance and reconstruction of tribal thought.

Don't know if this rant was kind of understandable, so, simply:

There is no such THING as "common cause" . That's the simple source and agent of racism! But if it's so one has to infer: There is a common source of the delusion of "common cause" that is transformed in tribal or racist thought. I name this common source: Negation of class struggle. Wage-labor is a historical formation of slavery, thats right, and its based on sheer military power like antique slavery, thats right as well. Its usefull and even necessary to remind those roots, but, since the social fundament of wage-labor slavery is not only different, but antithetic to elder formations, its criticism and scandalization has to be different and even antithetic. "Freedom" is not a cause, even less a "common" one, there is no such THING as freedom except freedom of private property. Walking freely is a cause of lust, convenience and a resulting desire. If it becomes obligative and necessary freedom is over and delusion comes in, solemnizing free movement against the bondage of slavery. Americans could have learned this of native leaders they preferred to stab when they couldn't break them in cages.

dan of steele , Mar 23, 2014 6:07:39 AM | 166
@somebody #162

that indeed is a silly argument.

World's 85 richest individuals have as much money as 3.5billion poorest people PUT TOGETHER

the poor are many, the rich are few. Why do the rich control their lives as well as those of all the poor? What is the ratio of guards to prisoners in a jail? by your logic the prisoners should be in control.

seriously, you can do better than that.

regardless, there is way too much time and effort spent on blaming the jews for this mess. there was plenty of inequality before Moses led the slaves out of Egypt.

somebody , Mar 23, 2014 6:24:46 AM | 167
166) Of course, numbers translate into political influence.

But in the last analysis power is in the end of a gun. Money gets you nothing if you cannot defend it. So let's compare the sizes of the US army and the Israeli army, shall we?

The "zionist conspiracy" theory is designed for the "stupid class".

Juan Moment , Mar 23, 2014 7:22:19 AM | 168
somebody @167
[...] But in the last analysis power is in the end of a gun. Money gets you nothing if you cannot defend it. [...]
Sure, no guns no power, but at the same token, no money no guns. You see, one needs the money first, and thats where your friendly neighborhood banker comes into the picture. But before it gets too conspiratorial for you, I better won't elaborate any further.
[...] So let's compare the sizes of the US army and the Israeli army, shall we? [...]
Why? Would only make sense to do so if we'd assume those two are enemies. But they are not. They are close allies, to the point that if Israel would be attacked by any force strong enough to cause sweat in Tel Aviv the US would without blinking once have its military might come to the rescue.

That's why I called NATO Israel's ultimate henchmen, troops it knows it can call on should things get hairy one day.

Since the start of the 20th century no country was allowed to attack the US Navy without getting its teeth kicked in, just Israel. Nearly sinking in 1967 the USS Liberty, killing 34 US sailors and wounding more than a 100, but still best friends. Weird relationship to say the least, better not think too much about it.

somebody , Mar 23, 2014 8:16:00 AM | 169
@168

Well, then lets compare the US GDP to Israel's GDP. Sorry, there is no way Israel can dominate the US. Just more dumbing down the "stupid class".

Rowan Berkeley , Mar 23, 2014 8:36:30 AM | 170
The reason the above argument is irresolvable is that neither side is willing to query the relatively PC term "Zionists" in favour of the more inclusive "Jews". They say that to do this would be "divisive of the class struggle", which obviously is supposed to be against "the bourgeoisie", whoever they are - technically, I should say, all those who live off profits or as they call them 'dividends'. But anyway, this brings us back to the weakness in Marx himself which I mentioned before, namely the apparently deliberate neglect of the power of bankers over industrial capitalists, which even in the 1860s must have been quite evident. So we have to ask, who are the bankers, specifically, the 'merchant bankers' who financed the development of western colonialism, and after them the 'international bankers' who orchestrate the global pecking order under neo-colonialism. There cannot be more than a few tens of thousands of these specialised creatures, worldwide, and one would like to know whether, by the ruse of history, many of them are Jewish. Then the artificial question of 'Zionists' versus 'Non-Jewish USAian Imperialists' would resolve itself, because we would be able to see who was pulling the money strings, which ultimately decide all questions great and small.
hans , Mar 23, 2014 9:14:16 AM | 171
Kagan, while he is of Jewish belief, has Zionist tendency, his and his kind ultimate aim, is the resurrection of the Khazar empire, the control of the desert religions, the destruction of the Rus as a nation state.
Juan Moment , Mar 23, 2014 9:54:40 AM | 172
Somebody, you keep referring to the stupid class. By doing so you're putting yourself right in it, subset "chardonnay sipping intellectual up themselves bozos".
Well, then lets compare the US GDP to Israel's GDP. Sorry, there is no way Israel can dominate the US. [...]
You are stuck in this idea that one country dominates the other. What would help our discussion along is if you would open your mind to the possibility a third party dominates both countries. Once you allow for this reality the weird and opaque relationship the US and Israel have, or the EU for that matter, starts to make sense.

The fact that there is this seemingly never ending discussion going on about which country is the dog and which one the tail should tell you that there are enough arguments to be found to make either theory appear plausible. The only way that is possible is if there is a third "unifying" theory, one which explains those arguments without confusion.

And I am afraid to tell you man, the reason those two countries act in unison so often and have each others back in all important international affairs is because the top echelons in both countries live at the whim of someone far more powerful than them. A group of people who with their extended family have say 10 trillion dollars in assets, that's three times Germany's GDP, and control a network of influence so wide and ingrained it knows no rival.

Rowan @170

[...] But anyway, this brings us back to the weakness in Marx himself which I mentioned before, namely the apparently deliberate neglect of the power of bankers over industrial capitalists, which even in the 1860s must have been quite evident. So we have to ask, who are the bankers, specifically, the 'merchant bankers' who financed the development of western colonialism, and after them the 'international bankers' who orchestrate the global pecking order under neo-colonialism. [...]
Great summary. Their fingerprints are all over the history of wars.

I don't believe its tens of thousands, at the very tip of the pyramid, where there isn't much room left for competition as wealth is so concentrated a clash would cause death to all, I expect a couple of hundred at the most.

kalithea , Mar 23, 2014 1:01:54 PM | 173
@162 somebody
They are either crazy and obsessed or they try to intentionally disrupt the discussion. They sure don't know anything about history, about who got killed and why.

The only person trying to intentionally disrupt is YOU.

I haven't posted consistently on this blog since the Ukraine crisis, so I didn't much analyze the intentions of every poster. But it didn't take me long to have you pegged. You are as transparent as Zionists come. You divert, you distract all discussion away from the real guilty party. That's your main mission here. A hasbara spy in the house of free speech.

FYI, it's not the percentage, buddy, it's the power. Occupy was protesting against the 1% holding all the power and hoarding all the wealth.

If I do a run-down of the heads of all the top banks, equity capital and venture capital firms; I'm talking those that have hundreds of billions invested in the whole spectrum of American industry I come up with at least 80% run by supporters of Zionism. That's a whole lot of power behind Zionism!

So don't give me the percentages bullshit, what level of intelligence quotient do you think we own around here??? Quit insulting our intelligence!

kalithea , Mar 23, 2014 2:41:11 PM | 175
@164 radiator
boy, this "zionism" discussion is getting a but much, lately...

Uh, no. IMO, the subject of Zionism has been way too neglected everywhere, especially considering the gravity of our situation and the increasing threat that Zionism presents to the integrity of justice and our own freedoms in the West, and security in this day and age. Never mind the Palestinians; WE are at risk now. Our own rights are under fire here!

The start of Neoconism led by Kagan, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Feith and others (the majority, Zionists) was the start of the Zionization of America and subsequently the Zionization of other Western nations, the U.S., Canada and U.K being the most affected with Australia and others now catching up.

Of course it started quietly, sinuously working its way through the system trying not to attract too much attention. But ever since the exposé on the Lobby, we're starting to discover just how rampant is Zionism's influence and hold and how much control is exerted on the public's perception and how it's already started chiseling away at rights we used to take for granted.

We are so bombarded with propaganda now in the Zionist media that we've all turned to the internet because we no longer trust the media. But now, they're after our rights and freedom here!

I read a saying the other day that went something like this: The Palestinians will never be free until America is freed. How true! But this problem isn't only America's any more.

Today I posted somewhere else a modified version of MLKs quote on justice: An injustice to someone anywhere is an injustice to us all everywhere. Because it's so true, that if we allow that injustice to fester indefinitely, in particular, the injustice against Palestinians and ignore or smother the problem; eventually the rest of us will be subjected to a version of that injustice.

I'll tell you something, every airport in the world is starting to ressemble Ben Gurion. When I travel now; I feel like I'm at an Israeli checkpoint; I can almost taste the abuse! I can only imagine the level of humiliation and pain Palestinians endure daily.

Our freedom of speech is also on the line; the internet is no longer a free speech zone; we are monitored; we are censored; we are bombarded with junk. When I research now, I feel like the results have been altered, like what may appear to be offensive events or fact has been relegated to back pages or altogether removed to pink wash or whitewash what is happening. It almost feels like the search engine is laundering information and spitting it out in the cleanest order. Is it my imagination? I don't think so; I've been using the internet for quite some time and I'm noticing a change; something's off now.

Our privacy is threatened more than ever. Our intuitive intellect is being smothered or ridiculed. Our financial system is dominated by individuals who not only are supporting a grave injustice, which I believe is supremacist imperialism emerging from Zionism, but they're intent on creating a uniform system globally that is affecting the livelihoods of millions everywhere with a selfish supremacist intention in mind based on monopolization. This is as well as I can express it given my limited economic understanding; but I'm witnessing the results and I like everyone else is in the position to judge and criticize and stop this outrage.

The Federal Reserve has been run by a succession of Zionists, as is the IMF and the top 1%, well just look it up; it's all there; it's disheartening.

Honestly, wherever one looks, one sees a Zionist driving the system. What can I say, if they had honorable, decent, altruistic intentions; personally I might not give a shit; but I really don't like where we're heading; I really don't like where they're steering and I feel my rights and everyone's rights are being threatened and diminished and I don't want my country and the world heading down this destructive path.

When they started accusing Occupy of anti-Semitism it appeared like Zionism was trying to control the 99%'s right to protest, in order not to discover how really rampant Zionism is at the top 1%. I see it; everyone knows it, but we're being muzzled and wrist tied with that pity card "anti-Semitism" that has turned into a whip against our rights instead of a means to protect people from hate crimes.

Maybe, you and those who want to shield Zionism try to deny what our eyes plainly recognize as a threat to our freedom! Do our eyes deceive us? You want us to stop seeing by telling us our lying eyes deceive us or we're anti-Semites? Bullshit! Our eyes and our intuition don't deceive us! And we won't be robbed of our rights so that a supremacist ideology can exist, be legitimized and carry on with impunity permanently!

There is the chaff and the wheat here. The wheat see without denying their inner voice and the chaff are here to ridicule that voice and distract from the truth.

kalithea , Mar 23, 2014 5:41:31 PM | 184
@182 Copeland

Well I see the hasbara reinforcements have arrived!

The "zionism" discussion is no discussion at all, but a constant, percussive irritant.

And expect it to get progressively more constant, progressively more irritating and percussive. This is but the beginning of Ravel's bolero, my friend because we're still at the beginning, it's still a whisper, but it's gonna turn into a ROAR. Zionism is going to be exposed for all it is, for the criminal supremacist, racist ideology that it is. It's really to bad for your that it's so fatally flaw and that it's expiry date is already is view! You're on the wrong side of history and I can't wait til you eat your words. It's coming!

james , Mar 23, 2014 6:06:17 PM | 185
@182 and @184 -

kalithea, i tend to agree with copeland fwiw.. does every conversation have to turn into a discussion on zionism? as for mr. pragma's creative use of the letter z, it is a bit inane on another level. i am willing to accept and agree with the fact it is a large issue and of concern, but that to bring it into every conversation seems redundant. while it is true the thread title makes for a natural fit here, but that is not the case with every thread. i think that is partly what copeland is getting at and i agree with them on this.

Mr. Pragma , Mar 23, 2014 6:11:16 PM | 186
Wow, me impressed.

So, some people have no qualms about zusa wanton mass murdering thousands and thousands ... but they are gravely irritated by someone adding a letter too often?!

Whenever I think the zionists have finally hit the bottom of the pit they somehow manage to pierce through to an ever deeper level.

But I'm a well minded man, so I make you an offer: As soon as zionists stop slaughtering innocent people I shall refrain from adding the of so harmful and evil letter 'z' to words, OK.

kalithea , Mar 23, 2014 7:55:47 PM | 187
Tom G
No, seriously, I hope I never will have to deal with your "argument".

I got bad news for you and your fellow legion of hasbarists: expect my argument, ie the truth about Zionism, to grow exponentially, and to get more constant and more persuasive and to go viral with millions more. You can't stop this cause anymore; you can't stop the truth from busting loose and becoming the pain in your ass it'll be until it's acknowledged.

Before Obama was first elected in 08, I was being censored and labelled an anti-Semite for referring to The Zionist Lobby as a den of spies and political browbeaters and hustlers for Zionism. And wo' and behold, turns out they've ruined careers, and were being investigated by the FBI for espionage. Few dared type Aipac or Zionism in a negative context for fear of being banned. Now, we can justifiably attack these from every angle because they're proving exactly what they are and many of us predicted they were.

We've come a long way, baby! And this is going all the way until Zionism goes down into the pages of historical INFAMY, and nothing less will suffice!

You can ridicule all you want, but I won't rest and neither will the growing number, who believe as I do that Zionism is a threat to us all and not just to Palestinians!

james @185:

The Zionist connection redundant? Not a chance! What it is, is pivotal in getting to the heart of these foreign interventions.

Lest you forget, we're usually discussing a consistent policy of foreign meddling: in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, possibly Russia and Iran next, each one practically rebounding off the other because Syria was the road to Iran and Russia, and Ukraine is to Russia what Syria is to Iran in this agenda; the proxies; it's all connected and if you don't get this; you're dumber than I thought or pretending to be.

Russia doesn't only have a port at stake in Syria, Russian companies are involved in gas and oil exploration off Syria's coast, an area that Zionists want to hoard for themselves, and Russia was heavily involved in Libya and Iraq until the mess created in both which weakened Russian influence in both, although Russia's trying to recover it, another reason Russia's a thorn in Zionism's side. And Ukraine is the strategy to get Russia mired in a problem on its own doorstep to take Russia's focus off Syria, deprive it of Tartus, and again try to weaken its influence in the Middle East, and at the same time weaken Russia's economy so that it will never be a competitive threat again in the Middle East! So you bet Zionism's fingerprints are all over this! And the connections to Zionism go beyond what I've just stated which I've already outlined in other posts.

All these incursions even Ukraine are linked to ZIOCON foreign agenda; forget neocon forever; the term "Neocon" was always a red herring; a Zionist euphemism used to disguise how many Zionists are actually involved in the hegemonic operation.

So don't give me that redundant crap. Neocons are ZIONISTS with an aggressive global initiative based on neutralization; and they're driving this policy and you better believe I'm going to harp on that!

Copeland , Mar 23, 2014 8:43:09 PM | 189
@184 kalithea

It's easy to see the mental disturbance occurring in the writings of a polemicist, in the mindless overuse of a particular word in any given tract. It's obvious kalithea, that an abundance of couple of these words, is not a question of style in your writing, but of obsession. First of all, this is a literate group, composed of a lot of longtime readers. Another thing is that your irresponsible use of "hasbara" is nothing but a smear against those who have a record here of opposing the outrages of Israeli governments, and their war crimes, about which you bark. This doesn't make you look so good.

What you remind me of most, is an enforcer of party discipline, whose job it is to crack the whip, and to hand out censures, in other words, to excoriate and verbally abuse anyone who doesn't keep to your dogma.

The issue of the injustices handed out to Palestinians has been focused upon by most of us here for a long time; but it is not courageous, or good of you, to fire polemic broadsides, or to dispense wantonly,

the charges of hasbara, upon anyone who hasn't tipped over into your particular fantasies.

Debs is dead , Mar 23, 2014 10:54:27 PM | 191
I don't have time for those who seek to use the crimes committed against jews by europeans to excuse the crimes committed by israel against the indigenous people of the Jordan Valley, but I don't believe that is what Tom G is doing. I supposed he was pointing out that having half yer family knocked off by assholes tends to focus the mind (there is a lesson in there for israelis but if they haven't learned by now its unlikely they ever will).

Pragma et al may have confused predecessors with ancestors. Predecessor is not another word for ancestor; it is someone who precedes someone else in an office or title.

When I read Tom G's post which alluded to kalithea's predecessors I assumed that he was referring to the last mob of cheerleaders for judeophobia - the nazis.

At no stage did I consider Tom G had some sorta special insight into the mindset of kalithea's primogenitors.

Those people who focus upon a persons race rather than the person's actions are always gonna be susceptible to believing that others operate on the same basis.

I'm all for kicking alla the talk of antisemitism into touch as long as we can stick to considering people by what they say and do rather than what we believe their genetics to be.

kalithea , Mar 23, 2014 11:14:16 PM | 192
Occupy Wall Street was on the right track. People of the world need to rise up against the 1% banksters AND Zionism although they're one and the same. These forces are driving the Ziocon imperial advance. If Occupy hadn't dissolved because of winter; Zionists were ready to kill it because they were very worried that the Occupy Movement would eventually merge with the BDS movement against Zionism and gain momentum on a larger scale and this is exactly what was starting to happen. People are starting to feel like the Palestinians under Zionism; they're starting to feel like their leaders are collaborators with Zionism like Abbas and the PA negotiating to screw their people. People are feeling like they no longer have a voice against the powerbrokers in Washington and on Wall Street. They're feeling like they can't trust the media, because it's full of Ziocon propaganda. We are watched; we are listened to; we are monitored. We are now the OCCUPIED of Wall Street and Zionism.

There are all kinds of articles on the web written by Zionists condemning Occupy as anti-Semitic. Google Zionism and Occupy Wall Street. Why were Zionists so scared of Occupy? Because they know Wall Street is run by Zionists and everyone at Occupy knew saw this; that's why they're next target was The Lobby; and they were planning to occupy Aipac. Zionists realized that the Occupy movement getting closer and closer to the cause of Occupied Palestine. The Occupy Movement was starting to move against Zionism.

Zionism has no clothes and because we all see this FACT; they accuse us of anti-Semitism. Occupy Wall Street needs to mobilize again, and occupy not only Wall Street, but the Zionist Lobby as well as it planned to and join with the BDS movement, because if we don't mobilize soon against Ziocon expansion we will become the empire of Orwellian slavery that this Zionist Kaplan dreams of. Maybe that's Zionism's PROMISED LAND.

Pirouz_2 , Mar 23, 2014 11:20:24 PM | 193
"It isn't merely incorrect to put the cart before the horse by blaming American imperialism on the corrupt Israeli regime, it is fucking dangerous and destructive - firstly because it causes too much time and energy be spent upon a mob of petty crimes (yes they are psychopaths, but in comparison to the crimes of America, Israeli leaders are petty criminals), but most importantly because blaming 'the Jews' for the world's ills is so destructive to resistance against the asshole elites."

Thank god finally some one other than myself said this, and in a much more eloquent way than I could ever do; because I am afraid what 'mearsheimer and walt' are doing is precisely that : "putting the cart before the horse" and the direct implication of that is "blaming 'the jews' for the world's ills".

Sadly this is an inevitable consequence that very often is neglected by decent progressive people, in a way that I some times feel being a part of a very small minority even on this site!

kalithea , Mar 23, 2014 11:48:40 PM | 195
@191

I find your argument naive*, but I won't argue it, except for the short paragraph below; and whether he meant predecessors as in people he thinks held my beliefs, or he meant ancestors - it's still slanderous crap, because he doesn't know me and I am not no Nazi-lover just as I'm no Zionist lover! What I am sick to death of is that bloody victim card and having it shoved in my face like so much shit, and hung over me like the sword of Damocles! I am not German and even if I were I wouldn't be responsible for the crap Nazis pulled. That was then and this is now. I know what I see, I see Zionist supremacy, and I always call things as I see them and if he's offended. Tough, scroll or get lost.

I don't buy into exclusivity, exceptionalism or choseness bullshet of any kind and if that's some genetic bias than too bad get off the f*cking chosen pedestal! I can't stand monarchies either. And I really can't stand people who don't get the concept of universality.

Mr. Pragma , Mar 24, 2014 12:10:59 AM | 197
Oh well, predecessor, ancestor, whatever. I think everyone could understand what I was meaning.

Anyway TomGard can hardly know about kalitheas predecessors, ancestors, or whatever-cestors.

Debs is dead brought up an interesting point, which I'd like to extend.

Actually I remember quite well, what my first thought was when I for the first time didn't simply brush off as "oh well, palestinians are terrorists anyway" (I should mention that I was a young man then, quite innocent or stupid, depending on ones pov) but actually began to understand what israelis did there.

It was "Hell no! If anyone on earth is to know how evil it is to terrorize others for being of this or that race or for believing in this that God, then it must certainly be the israelis!"

For while my anger grew and I began to despise jews. Until one day a patient elderly french jew explained it me. He showed me the smearings on their synagogue and explained "whenever israel commits cruelties the smearings here in at our cemetery increase in frequency and anger".

That was my lesson about the jews and the israelis and about them not always being one and the same.

And although I had all I needed to understand more I still somehow didn't arrive at the conclusion that there might be evil planning behind it. It took me again several years and a coincidence to understand that the "jewish" in "jewish state" (israel) might actually be a really evil disguise and a perfidious one at that.

Perfidious because israel willfully abused the negative image of "the jews" for which they were responsible in the first place. But perfidious also because israel greatly profits from anti-semitism, both real and grossly attributed anti-semitism because it perfectly fits israels "jews should come to israel to live there" credo.

kiev is just another case of that in a series of cases.

There is a lot more to tell but I will cut it at that point for the moment.

But although it took me long to pervade through that complex matter and often disguised by different layers and tricks, I made it a habit to tell zionists who tried the "half of my family was killed by nazis" plot to mute someone that may dare to create demands on history once they have proven to themselves have learned from the nazi time what is to be learned, namely that racial or religious based terror is cruel, inhumane, and utterly despicable. Someone supporting a regime that acts not that much different from what the nazis have been accused have simply no right to recur on that time, and even less to base demands on it, as long as their very fucking own actions prove that, if at all, they only learned to be the criminals themselves in the very crime they complain about.

As far as I'm concerned israel can burn and so can all its supporters.

Pirouz_2 , Mar 24, 2014 12:36:08 AM | 199
Kalithea;

What you guys don't understand, is that "Zionism" is the manifestation of the global Western imperialism in middle east. It is nothing more. Is it ugly? Yes! Is it criminal? Yes! Is it responsible for all the crimes in the world? NO! Was Zionism responsible for the coup of 1953 in Iran? NO! Who was behind it? The Western imperialism! Was Zionism behind the coup in Guatemala in 1954? NO! Who was behind it? The Western imperialism! Was Zionism responsible for the coup against Sukarno? NO!

Was Zionism responsible for the Vietnam war? NO! Who was responsible it? The Western imperialism! Was Zionism behind the coup against Allende? NO! Who was behind it? The Western imperialism!

IN FACT: Was Zionism behind Zionism? NO! It was the Western imperialism and its ambitions to hegemonize the world energy resources which was behind Zionism to begin with (Balfour declaration)!

Israel's birth predates 1948! Its real birth was in 1939 when *BRITISH IMPERIALISM* massacred Palestinians and suppressed the Arab revolt! Zionism is the manifestation of the Western imperialism *in middle east* and not the other way around!

kalithea , Mar 24, 2014 3:26:39 AM | 201
@199
Was zionism behind zionism? NO! blah-blah

What a load of crock! Guys like Herzl and Jabotinsky were behind Zionism so don't gimme that crap.

I already wrote in another post here that power in the U.S. started turning Zionist sometime during Kennedy's Presidency, not that I blame him he was otherwise very occupied. So you could have saved yourself some time screaming all those historical references at me. And why are you so freakin' defensive anyway?

The Ziocon Jews Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Leo Strauss were the earlier founders of the so-called neoconservatism movement, and were vehemently opposed to relaxing foreign policy in regards to the Soviet Union and communism in general.

In the early nineties the Ziocon torch was passed on to the likes of William Kristol, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. And we all know what followed next...years of endless war.

All these "neocons" were Zionists and Jews and were instrumental in influencing foreign policy.

So as you can see Zionists and Zionism was leading the charge. Maybe you should read Paul Wolfowitz's speech at West Point.

Wolfowitz Doctrine...Not intended for public release, it was leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992,[1] and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.

A real manifesto for authored by a Zionist for supremacy and imperialiam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

But this is not all the Zionist cabal authored as you well know: Zionist Pnac members also authored another document called:A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Next time do the research before you rant.

Pirouz_2 , Mar 24, 2014 1:22:59 PM | 203
kalithea;

This subject has been talked about extensively, and I really don't have the desire to get into a useless and endless debate recounting the history especially when people want to obstinately shut their eyes to the most obvious facts going on right before their eyes; facts such as what's going on in Ukraine and the bloody war waged to disintegrate Yugoslavia which has/had nothing to do with zionism.

I will just go over a couple of points in your argument which were quite nonsense (well your whole comment was nonsense but I will just go over a couple of points).

First of all US imperialism in particular and the Western imperialism in general did not start with Kennedy, the coup against Mosaddegh in 1953, the coup against Arbenz in 1954, the first indochina war (with absolute and active support of the French by the USA), the Korean war and the attrocities commited by USA in Korean peninsula, the whole hearted support for Batista and brutal suppression of the cubans, the coup against Patrice Lumumba, The colonization of India and brutal suppression of Indians by the british, the coup after coup made against the constitutional revolution in Iran etc. etc. ALL PREDATE Kennedy. In fact in case of USA its very inception was based on imperialism, land grab, ethnic cleansing, genocide and slavery, all happening LONG before Kennedy and having ZERO to do with zionism.

Secondly guys like Herzl and Jabotinsky are nothing but clowns. Ineffective idiots who without the active support and the absolute control and management of the Western imperialism would not be able to make an autonomous village let alone making an independent country based on ethnic cleansing and mass murder. Land grab through ethnic cleansing, mass murder of the native population and wars against all local nations require CAPITAL and MILITARY. And No capitalist invests such huge sums of capital without any rate of return. Capital is invested for RATE OF RETURN and a hegemony to make possible the continous flow of that rate of return, not for some nationalistic, racial or religious motive!

And so Israel was not created by the likes of Herzl, it was created by the force (monetary and military) of British empire, and such creations by the British was not peculiar to middle east and Israel, the British had many other such wonderous feats of crime all over the globe, of which Israel constitutes but a single example! The British did not create Israel because they were in love with the Jews or were obssessed with Jewish nationalism. They did it because it was PROFITABLE. Hegemony is always profitable. And they did in the middle east, what they had done all over the globe to maintain their hegemony and increase their profit. NOTHING MORE.

Had the geology followed a different trend and all that oil been formed some where other than middle east -say in the region of Tibet- Herzl and Jabotinsky would not have been even remembered today!

kalithea , Mar 25, 2014 1:59:26 AM | 209
Pirouz_2

Omg, where do I start? I won't; I don't even want to dignify most of that. First, if you want to be taken seriously, paragraphs might help.

Second, I never said imperialism started with Kennedy; at least quote me for God's sakes; it's in front of you! I said that power in the U.S. get it? i.e. those who wield power in the US , such power started changing hands from Anglo to Zionist during Kennedy's presidency, and I'm talking about the top of the corporate food chain, the super-wealthy who influence power in Washington, and the evolution of the Ziocon movement. But it started discreetly without becoming obvious. Only in the 1980s did it start becoming obvious, because it had grown so much and it's influence was becoming more transparent. The flaw with Zionists is that they're control freaks (rig every corner of the system as much as possible in Zionism's favor) maybe it has to do with latent paranoia, but that's the reality; don't blame me.

As far as the other wars you mention; most were to fight communism; but guess why the Ziocons, Kristol sr., Podhoretz and Strauss formed this Ziocon movement? To prevent Communism from spreading! They broke with the Democratic party because they saw these liberals trying to relax relations with the Soviet Union and they wanted to go in another direction: neutralize; using force.

You can blame the British all you want but around the late 50s early 1960s, again, while Kennedy was a rising star and becoming President, Zionists were in charge of their affairs, and the worst crimes of Zionism, the worst unilateral attacks on neighboring countries happened under Zionist sovereignty. Zionist were so in charge of their fiefdom that they started developing nuclear weapons behind Kennedy's back; that's how powerful they were becoming.

I stated over and over again that I'm not concerned with ancient history; I'm concerned with post-WWII after the Partition, when Zionists started bombing Palestinian villages, ethnic cleansing and massacre upon massacre. Okay Zionists started their terrorism before, but that was only to set the stage for frustrating the British to impose their rule over the Palestinians with brutal force.

Let's agree to disagree; you and r'giap and TomGuard can't stand my attacking Zionism, and the power it wields to keep perpetuating the longest-running most brutal occupation in modern history and committing crimes with total impunity. You don't get to subert the rule of law without astounding power and influence.

Your not so cogent narrative only serves to protect Zionism, and thus perpetuate this horrific injustice.

Dont' bother replying; you will never change my mind; I know what I see; and I'm going to call it as I see it: based on the obvious exponential growth of Zionist power in the U.S.; cause I repeat; you don't get away with such crimes with TOTAL impunity without pretty significant power, and stiffling that truth is what perpetuates Zionist Injustice against Palestine. That power sustains injustice!

Arnold Lockshin , Mar 28, 2014 7:08:45 AM | 211
Defense of slavery and the slave trade -- the most inhuman form of exploitation conceivable. Defense of United States imperialism. One and the same. Arnold Lockshin, political exile from the US living in Moscow
Rowan Berkeley , Mar 28, 2014 8:10:11 AM | 212
It's very convenient for you, Arnold, to blame simply "US imperialism", as if it fell out of the sky. It didn't. It was directed by finance capital, which is not an impersonal force but a collection of individual investors, more than a few of whom are interested particularly in Jewish welfare, as they conceive it: that is to say, they want to use Jewish issues, to which the general US public is already well conditioned, to push through an entire program of global domination by force. One wonders who these individuals are, and why they chose Jewish issues as their cover, if they're not Jews.

[Aug 10, 2018] When> people use the term Jews they typically mean Financial oligachy

Notable quotes:
"... I never meet Jew haters in my personal life but there sure are a lot on this site. How does less than 2% of the US population utterly dominate the nation? Is each Jew 50 times stronger than every gentile. ..."
"... They tend to be urban dwellers where salaries are higher but standards of living are often lower. Those in my neighborhood are very well assimilated. They put elaborate Christmas lights on their houses. It is not a rich neighborhood. ..."
"... Their earlier history was wretched and included slavery and persecutions for thousands of years. Don't waste much time fearing Jews ..."
Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Patricus , June 5, 2018 at 11:43 pm GMT

I never meet Jew haters in my personal life but there sure are a lot on this site. How does less than 2% of the US population utterly dominate the nation? Is each Jew 50 times stronger than every gentile.

I meet many Jews but can't recall a single super Jew. Maybe they are clever deceivers? The great majority are middle earners. There are some rich and some poor. Jews dominate Hollywood and certain occupations but they are underrepresented as engineers and architects. So what.

They tend to be urban dwellers where salaries are higher but standards of living are often lower. Those in my neighborhood are very well assimilated. They put elaborate Christmas lights on their houses. It is not a rich neighborhood.

Jewish history does not support the idea of a super race. They only entered middle classes in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and only in the western world. Before that they were not allowed to attend universities or even own land in many cases.

Their earlier history was wretched and included slavery and persecutions for thousands of years. Don't waste much time fearing Jews.

[Aug 08, 2018] America the Unexceptional by William S. Smith

Notable quotes:
"... National Review ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In the wake of President Trump's Helsinki press conference, National Review declared itself "Against Moral Equivalence." The magazine claimed that there could be no equating American meddling in foreign elections with Russian interference in our election because the goal of the U.S. is to "promote democracy and political liberty and human rights." Though while America's actions might be noble and have the sanction of heaven, National Review did concede that its efforts to promote democracy have often been "messy" -- an adjective that the people of Iraq might find understated.

Like many of Trump's critics, National Review 's embrace of American exceptionalism, of exempting the United States from the moral laws of the universe because of its commitment to democracy, is of a type the West has seen before. Swept up in their revolutionary enthusiasm, the French Jacobins made similar claims. In late 1791, a member of the Assembly, while agitating for war with Austria, declared that France "had become the foremost people of the universe, so their conduct must now correspond to their new destiny. As slaves they were bold and great; are they to be timid and feeble now that they are free?"

Robespierre himself was taken aback by the turn of a domestic revolution into a call for military adventurism. Of plans to invade Austria and to overthrow "enemies" of liberty in other nations, he famously remarked, "No one loves armed missionaries." (Robespierre's advice might have also benefited the American occupiers of Iraq.) The Jacobins' moral preening led France to declare war on Austria in 1792 and set in motion years of French military adventurism that devastated much of central Europe. Military imperialism abroad and guillotines at home became the legacy of self-declared French exceptionalism.

Hubristic nations that claim a unique place for themselves high atop the moral universe tend to be imperialistic. This is because claims of national exceptionalism, whether of the French or American variety, are antinomian, even nihilistic. The "exceptional" ones carve out for themselves an exemption from the moral law. And prideful claims of moral purity are the inevitable predicate to imposing one's will upon another. Once leaders assert that their national soul is of a special kind -- indispensable and not subject to the same rules -- the road to hell has been paved.

The Immorality of American Exceptionalism A Jacobin-in-Chief

While supporters of American exceptionalism are careful to claim the mantle of Western civilization, their philosophical orientation in fact amounts to a repudiation of the central principles of the West and the Constitution.

Arguably, the tradition of the Judeo-Christian West has been special because it has asserted that human nature is not particularly special. And the Constitution has been exceptional because it's warned Americans that we are not particularly exceptional.

For example, the legacy of Pauline Christianity, Irving Babbitt tells us, is "the haunting sense of sin and the stress it lays upon the struggle between the higher and lower self, between the law of the flesh and the law of the spirit." No person or nation is above this moral challenge. The uniquely American repudiation of exceptionalism shines brightly in The Federalist , where no angels can be found among men, and, because no one's behavior enjoys the sanction of heaven, extensive checks are placed upon people's ability to impose their wills upon others. The foreign policy that flowed out of the worldview of the Framers was that of George Washington, a strong recommendation against hubris and foreign meddling.

These historical and cultural warnings about human nature have since been swept away by acolytes of American exceptionalism. Our moral superiority, they claim, makes us Masters of the Universe, not careful and mindful custodians of our own fallen nature. We have been put on earth to judge other nations, not to be judged. Tossing the legacy of the Framers onto the ash heap of history, George W. Bush declared in his Second Inaugural Address that our exceptionalism creates an obligation to promote democracy "in every nation and culture." In this endeavor, Bush pronounced, the United States enjoys the sanction of heaven, as "history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the author of liberty." Bush's Second Inaugural was probably better in the original French.

Now, the puffed-up American establishment, many of whom supported the bloody Iraq war, drip with moral condescension as they brand Vladimir Putin an existential outlaw and the enemy of democracy, foreclosing the possibility of common ground with Russia on nuclear weapons, China, terrorism, and other issues that matter to the national security of the United States. That Washington has meddled in countless nations' affairs from Iraq to Russia -- and caused untold damage -- is of no account to the establishment. Rules do not apply to democracy promoters.

After the Iraq war, we should have reconsidered our hubristic American exceptionalism. One can take pride in the American tradition without laying claim to a uniquely beautiful national soul that is exempt from the laws of nature and of nature's God. The hysterical reaction to Trump's truthful admission that the United States too has made mistakes in its relationship with Russia is a sign that American exceptionalism is still in full flower among elites. Without the return of a certain humility, there will be more military adventures abroad and political strife at home.

William S. Smith is research fellow and managing director at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America. 11 Responses to America the Unexceptional



Nelson August 7, 2018 at 11:32 pm

I agree with the sentiment but the facts show we've always been this way. Historically speaking our hubris didn't start with George W. Bush. We had quite the exceptionalist spirt with "Manifest Destiny" back in the 19th century. And indeed it took a bit of hubris to declare independence from Britain.
charles cosimano , , August 8, 2018 at 2:44 am
All great powers are exempt from any moral law, not merely because it does not exist, but because even if it did, who could enforce it?
paradoctor , , August 8, 2018 at 2:44 am
Exceptionalism is the sin of pride.
Wayne Lusvardi , , August 8, 2018 at 2:58 am
Dr. Smith wrote his PhD dissertation in political philosophy on a critique of romanticism in political thinking. However, in the above article he somehow believes America is unexceptional for having exempted itself from God's laws and natural law. But what if American policy makers acted out of political necessity and realism, not "hubris" or un-humility? I might agree with Smith about using "democracy building" as a pretense for military intervention. But does Smith take what US presidents and congressmen say at face value? What if US intervention in Iraq had to do with trying to balance power between Iraq and Iran, or stop Islamic expansionism from pushing into Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states? Moralism can be just as dangerous as democracy building in foreign affairs.
polistra , , August 8, 2018 at 3:21 am
We did renounce exceptionalism and imperialism after WW1. Wilson's pet agencies faded out and we focused internally. We remained non-interventionist until 1946 when the Wilsonians snatched power again.

We should figure out why and how the bureaucracy and media gave up Empire in the early '20s. Obviously the people were tired, just as they are now, but the people are irrelevant.

Something changed in the power structure. What was it? Can we help it to happen again?

Robert , , August 8, 2018 at 4:19 am
A very fine article, one of the best that TAC has published.
Andrew , , August 8, 2018 at 6:07 am
The writer in question of the referenced piece at National Review, Jimmy Quinn, is a 20something college intern, proving they aren't even interested in hiring newer young conservatives at NRO who don't just mindlessly repeat the neoconservative line on "American exceptionalism". They are long past their days as a serious magazine. If not by ideology, just by having a more interesting collection of writers, I'd say even the Weekly Standard is now a better magazine than National Review. It's become like the boring Pravda rulebook for Official Conservatism™ in America.
TomG , , August 8, 2018 at 8:29 am
Well done, Mr. Smith. Our hubris blinds this nation to the pain it inflicts in other lands. I reflect again and again on these words from the hymn (tune Finlandia):

This is my song, oh God of all the nations,
a song of peace for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is;
here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine;
but other hearts in other lands are beating
with hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.

My country's skies are bluer than the ocean,
and sunlight beams on clover leaf and pine.
But other lands have sunlight too and clover,
and skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
This is my song, thou God of all the nations;
a song of peace for their land and for mine.

When nations rage, and fears erupt coercive,
The drumbeats sound, invoking pious cause.
My neighbors rise, their stalwart hearts they offer,
The gavels drop, suspending rights and laws.
While others wield their swords with blind devotion;
For peace I'll stand, my true and steadfast cause.

We would be one as now we join in singing,
Our hymn of love, to pledge ourselves anew.
To that high cause of greater understanding
Of who we are, and what in us is true.
We would be one in loving and forgiving,
with hopes and dreams as true and high as thine.

Roberto , , August 8, 2018 at 9:29 am
C'mon people, it's right to separate yourselves from the bombast and violent meddling we've done all over the world, but let's not get carried away with this ridiculous "we're just like any other bully" mentality.

The exceptionalism is in the elevation of individual human freedom as a foundational principle. We declared it, the French declared it, and it remains a beacon for many others, no matter how poorly we've observed it from time to time.

"Military imperialism abroad and guillotines at home became the legacy of self-declared French exceptionalism." No, that was the paroxysm of revolution, one that the U,S. fortunately avoided.
The real legacy was the sweeping away of monarchy across the continent, despite the irony of Napoleon making himself emperor.

For all our imperialism, did we treat western Europe the same as Stalin treated eastern Europe?
Is it just an accident of history that the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, former British colonies all, lead the world in the protection of individual human rights? You can draw a line, crooked though it may be, from those countries right back to the Magna Carta.

Yes, we had slavery, a legacy of our status as an agricultural colony, but the British, French, and Americans all abolished it because it couldn't square with our declared principles.

We may forget why we are exceptional but our immigration pressure shows that the the rest of the world hasn't.

JonF , , August 8, 2018 at 9:38 am
Re: The Jacobins' moral preening led France to declare war on Austria in 1792

It wasn't just the Jacobins: pretty much everyone wanted war. The royalists hoped that foreign intervention would restore Louis XVI as an absolute monarch. The moderates wanted to consolidate the gains of the Revolution and deflect public anger at its economic failings. The radicals, as noted, looked to evangelize Europe with the Rights of Man. And the foreign powers wanted to crush the Revolution lest its ideals take root in their own country -- and help themselves to this or that bit of France's empire.

john35 , , August 8, 2018 at 9:40 am
Thanks for reading "National Review" to bring us this hilarious declaration.

[Aug 07, 2018] The UK s Labour Party and Its Anti-Semitism Crisis

Notable quotes:
"... Observer ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... 2017 Democracy Index ..."
"... 2017 Democracy Index. ..."
"... Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine ..."
Aug 07, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

The Labour is in the midst of an "antisemitism crisis" orchestrated by the media, pro-Zionist Jewish groups, and the party's Blairite faction bent on ousting Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader.

The UK's media is overwhelmingly rightwing and pro-Israel. Even the BBC, terrified of being donated to Rupert Murdoch in a Tory privatization, is pro-Tory and pro-Israel in its news reporting, all its professions of "objectivity" notwithstanding.

Corbyn has been their constant target since he became the party's leader, and the "antisemitism" smear is the latest installment in this rightwing effort to discredit him.

Even the supposedly liberal Guardian newspaper, whose editorial line on Israel is led by the staunch Zionist Jonathan Freedland, is resolutely anti-Corbyn.

No leader of a major political party has been as resolute as Corbyn in defending Palestinian rights. The Observer newspaper put this succinctly: "As a long-term and ardent critic of Israel's policies and staunch supporter of Palestinian causes, he has always been distrusted by the Jewish community".

Pro-Zionist Jewish groups fear that under his leadership Britain will become much more like Ireland (which recently banned the import of products made in the illegal Israeli settlements) in its disposition towards Israel.

A clue to the motivation of these pro-Zionist UK Jewish groups was provided by the recent public protest in London against Labour's "antisemitism"– many protesters carried the Israeli flag and "Israel we stand behind you" signs, thereby making it clear that their concern for Zionist Israel was highly instrumental, and perhaps primarily so, in their presence at this rally against Labour's "antisemitism".

Several Blairite Labour MPs were present at this demonstration.

The Blairite faction in Labour has already made one attempt to overthrow Corbyn when it made him submit to an unprecedented reelection shortly after he became party leader.

Corbyn went on to win this challenge with a percentage exceeding Blair's when the latter was elected Labour leader.

Labour's Blairite bloc know that Corbyn has to lose the next general election if they are to survive as a force within the party. If Labour (under Corbyn) wins this election, they will have little choice but to take the option already being talked about by some of these Blairites, that is, splitting from Labour and forming a new "centrist" party.

Their eminence grise, Tony Blair himself, has already talked about creating this "centrist" party.

So, paradoxically, Labour's Blairites would rather have the Conservatives win the next general election as their ticket to survival within their own party!

Predictably, one of these Blairites, Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson, jumped on the "crisis" bandwagon by saying that Labour faces "eternal shame" over antisemitism.

Of course, there are pockets of antisemitism in Labour, as is the case in nearly every non-Jewish British walk of life, including the Tories (though dressing up in Nazi uniform and chanting "Sieg Heil!" at parties, as opposed to upholding Palestinian rights, is their forte).

A few days ago, it was revealed that the senior Tory politicians Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and Jacob Rees-Mogg had recently met in secret with Steve Bannon, who runs Breitbart News , a haven for antisemitic views. The British media, and the Blairite Labour MPs hounding Corbyn, have said nary a word about these meetings. Nor have the vociferous UK Jewish organizations.

The notion that there is significant antisemitism in Labour, let alone one amounting to a "crisis", is a red herring.

The most recent purported manifestation of this crisis pivots on the decision of Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's "non-legally binding working definition" of antisemitism, but not the "illustrations" which accompany it. The definition states:

"Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

The "illustrations" which accompany this definition include some which are uncontroversial for any fair-minded and relatively rational person, and others which are highly problematic for such a person.

The uncontroversial "illustrations" of antisemitism:

+ advocating the killing or harming of Jews for ideological or religious reasons;

+ making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such;

+ holding Jews as a people responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group;

+ Holocaust denial;

+ using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis;

+ holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel;

+ accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

The controversial "illustrations" of antisemitism (and non-coincidently they all have a bearing on the Palestinian cause):

+ accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their own nations;

+ claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour;

+ applying double standards by requiring of Israel conduct not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;

+ drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

A close examination of this latter set of "illustrations" shows that Labour is absolutely right to resist the immense pressure from Zionists and their supporters to accept these latter "illustrations" as part of the definition of antisemitism.

There are examples of Jewish US citizens being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their country.

The casino mogul Sheldon Adelson donated $25 million to Trump's 2016 campaign ($82 million in total to Republicans in 2016), and $5 million towards his inauguration. Earlier this year Adelson donated $70 million to Birthright, the organization that brings young Jews to Israel for nothing (he's donated $100m in total to Birthright). He also donated $30 million to Republicans after Trump withdrew from the nuclear agreement with Iran. Adelson spent $150m in the 2012 election in a futile attempt to unseat the "anti-Israel" Barack Obama.

Adelson's aim in all of this is to swing Trump behind his friend Netanyahu's "Greater Israel" political agenda. To this end Adelson pushed hard for the US's withdrawal from the Iran deal, appointing the arch-Zionist John Bolton as a Trump adviser, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital (in contravention of international law), and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Adelson has succeeded in all of these objectives.

Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and "envoy" for a "peace" deal in the Middle East, has made it clear that any such deal will have to be compatible with Likud's "Greater Israel" political agenda.

According to The New York Times , Kushner's family real estate company "received a roughly $30 million investment from Menora Mivtachim, an insurer that is one of Israel's largest financial institutions".

The same NYT article also reported that "the Kushners had teamed up with at least one member of Israel's wealthy Steinmetz family to buy nearly $200 million of Manhattan apartment buildings, as well as to build a luxury rental tower in New Jersey".

More from the same article: "Mr. Kushner's company has also taken out at least four loans from Israel's largest bank, Bank Hapoalim, which is the subject of a Justice Department investigation over allegations that it helped wealthy Americans evade taxes".

Kushner's family foundation also donates to an illegal settlement in the West Bank.

Meanwhile , US military aid to Israel amounts to $3.8 billion annually, or $23,000 per year for every Jewish family living in Israel for the next 10 years.

At the same time, 40 million Americans live in poverty, seniors and veterans are sleeping rough, and teachers have to buy school supplies, and in some cases food, for their students.

Given these two examples of prominent Jewish individuals with loyalties divided between the US and Israel, with Israel acquiring much and the US gaining so little from their actions, it is arguable whether it is "antisemitic" to broadcast the information detailed above.

Claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour is likewise hardly antisemitic. The recently passed Israeli Nationality Law confirms why.

According to the law, Israel's full name is "Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people". The law stipulates that Eretz Israel (historical Palestine) is the homeland of the Jewish people, while the state of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.

As such, only Jews have the right to self-determination in Israel. Hebrew is the only official language, with Arabic no longer considered an official language.

The nationality law enjoins that future Jewish settlement in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories is a supreme national objective (in contravention of international law).

The law also grants Jewish communities the right to a segregated territory in the state(in practice legalizing exclusive villages and towns for Jews).

The nationality law effectively deprives Arabs of any official semblance of their national identity, and confirms Israel's status as an apartheid, i.e. racist, state. Saying this is certainly anti-Zionist, but only a dogmatist would insist that it is ipso facto "antisemitic".

The IHRA "illustration" maintaining that it is antisemitic to apply double standards by requiring of Israel conduct not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation is likewise extremely awkward in formulation and also in practice.

The 2017 Democracy Index used 4 categories to assess countries– full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime.

The following countries were ranked by the Index as full democracies: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

Israel was listed as a flawed democracy, as was the US.

Israel's leaders have always touted their country as "the only democracy in the Middle East", as if their country stood on a par with the 19 countries ranked as full democracies by the 2017 Democracy Index.

Is it "antisemitic" to hold Israel to a standard deemed to be achieved by Mauritius and Uruguay?

Or to say that Israel is really an "ethnocracy", as opposed to being a democracy?

The Israeli political geographer Oren Yiftachel argued in his 2006 book Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine that an ethnocracy is a regime promoting "the expansion of the dominant group in contested territory while maintaining a democratic façade".

When it comes todrawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, it all depends on the basis used in making the comparison between Israel and the Nazis.

Having gas chambers for mass exterminations, then certainly not.

However, nearly everyone who believes that comparing Israel with the Nazis is "antisemitic" invariably takes the concentration-camp gas chambers as the implicit norm, whether out of bad faith or ignorance, for making such comparisons.

The Nazi "final solution", vast as it was, had many strands, with horror piled upon horror. This multiple-layering must be considered when making the Israel-Nazi comparison.

Encircling and starving-out an entire community in a ghetto (Warsaw?), then yes, the comparison is valid– this is precisely what is taking place in Gaza.

The Nazis confiscated Jewish property wholesale; the Israelis are doing the same to Palestinian houses and land in order to "clear" them for the expansion of the illegal settlements, and for alleged military purposes. B'Tselem, Israel's human rights watchdog, confirms this on their website . So, yes, in this case the comparison between Israel and the Nazis is valid.

Jews were prevented from leaving German-occupied Poland by the SS. Similarly, Palestinians are prevented from leaving Gaza (even for medical treatment) by the combined efforts of Israel and the Egyptian dictatorship. So, yes, in this case the comparison between Israel and the Nazis is valid.

German Civil Police K-9 Units were used by the SS to assist in the roundup and deportation of Jews in WW2. Similarly, the Israeli army uses attack dogs on unarmed Palestinians when raiding their homes, and when arresting peaceful demonstrators. So, yes, in this case the comparison between Israel and the Nazis is valid.

It is difficult to see why comparing Israel to the Nazis on these latter bases, while scrupulously eschewing the gas chambers as a basis for comparison (the Palestinians have not been sent to gas chambers en masse), necessarily makes one an "antisemite".

The Israeli historian Ilan Pappé describes Israel's policy regarding Gaza as "incremental genocide", in contrast to the Nazi's absolute genocide. The final outcome however is not in doubt.

The distinguished Oxford jurist Stephen Sedley (himself a Jew) has saidthat "there is no legal bar on criticising Israel. Yet several of the "examples" that have been tacked on to the IHRA definition (by whom is not known) seek to stifle criticism of Israel irrespective of intent. The House of Commons select committee on home affairs in October 2016 advised adding: "It is not antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent"."

Corbyn, under siege from the media and Jewish groups (who say, with risible hyperbole, that he poses an "existential threat" to British Jews), has apologized for not doing enough to root out antisemitism in the Labour Party.

Corbyn's apology was unnecessary. Not just because it was not merited by the real circumstances underlying this manufactured "crisis", but also because every step he takes now is dismissed as "meaningless" and "too little, too late" by his opportunistic opponents.

Instead Corbyn should have given an immediate forensic analysis of the IHRA's flawed "examples" of "antisemitism", indicating that Labour was wise not to incorporate these, root and branch, in the definition of antisemitism it adopted.

Corbyn should also have come out earlier with his pledge to deal firmly with those justifiably guilty of antisemitism in the Labour party.

Corbyn has many admirable qualities, but perhaps doing forensics is not one of them. However, he has many surrogates capable of undertaking this task, and they should be entrusted with it immediately.

The late and much missed Robin Cook, the former Labour minister who demolished Blair's rationales for the Iraq war in the House of Commons debate on Blair's push for the war, would have been perfect for the job.

Will Labour now find its anti-Zionist Robin Cook? Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Kenneth Surin

Kenneth Surin teaches at Duke University, North Carolina. He lives in Blacksburg, Virginia.

[Aug 07, 2018] False flag antisemtism

Aug 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

MoreSun -> Luc X. Ifer Tue, 08/07/2018 - 12:17 Permalink

Yip, and this is a part of (((their))) tactic:

Doesn't matter if it's 2004 or 2018, the (((usual suspects))) keep playing this cruel game to maintain their eternal victim status, garner pity, sympathy and the mandatory outpouring of tax dollars from the city/state/nation's Treasury to their jew supremacist pockets.

And it's been going on for centuries....all over the western world.

Five Jews Arrested for Painting Swastikas on Israel Consulate

Jewish man accused of spray-painting swastikas on own home

It's restricted, jewtube don't want you viewing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgSEmkhMcIM

[Aug 06, 2018] Both Zionism and Nazism are essentially exaggerations of Nineteenth century European racial nationalism, both posit a more or less imaginary history to justify their territorial claims

Aug 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Colin Wright , Website August 6, 2018 at 5:34 am GMT

It's worth pointing out that described abstractly, Zionism and Nazism are ideologically very similar. Both are essentially exaggerations of Nineteenth century European racial nationalism, both posit a more or less imaginary history to justify their territorial claims, both ignore the rights of all others in favor of their chosen group, both openly worship violence, and both are contemptuous of both legal and moral constraints. Israel has committed crimes proportionately as horrific as any Nazi Germany committed up to the outbreak of total war in 1941, and I'm all too confident that if total war did come to the Middle East, Israel would take advantage of the opportunity to engage in some very genocidal treatment of her Palestinian subjects.

The primary differences are really that while Nazism was defeated over seventy years ago, Israel is still very much in being, and that while we here in the US opposed Nazism, we support Israel.

[Aug 05, 2018] Multiculturalism is a recipe for national suicide. Culture, including religious belief, is the unifying factor that allows strangers to work with one another, by ensuring that they share the same assumptions about morality and about correct behavior in general.

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

CanSpeccy , Website July 31, 2018 at 12:10 am GMT

Multiculturalism is a recipe for national suicide. Culture, including religious belief, is the unifying factor that allows strangers to work with one another, by ensuring that they share the same assumptions about morality and about correct behavior in general.

Jews have been a problem for European societies for hundreds of years. The recent mass migration of people of multiple races and religions to Europe and its settler outposts in the America's and the Pacific is creating cultural chaos.

Immigrants who will not assimilate to the Christian culture of the West have no place in the West. For Africans, Asians, Hispanics and Middle-Easterners the message must be: assimilate or leave. The same for Jews who now, fortunately, have a place to go where they can live by the precepts of their ancient religion, however bizarre some of those precepts may seem to others.

That then leaves only the problem of the Palestinians. A solution can surely be found in a deal with Egypt. The Sinai is twice the size of Palestine, yet has only a half a million inhabitants. The US could easily organize a purchase, funded by itself, Britain, the country primarily responsible for the dispossession of the Palestinians, the EU, Russia and some other countries, and of course Israel, which would have to pay for the land and houses of the departing Palestinians.

At say $10,000 per hectare, a ridiculous price for a desert sand and rocky hillsides, the whole of Sinai could be purchased for $60 billion, a trivial amount in relation to the US trillion-dollar defense budget. In addition, there might be a need for something like half a trillion dollars for construction of the the cities and high-tech desert agricultural system of the new Palestinian state. But again, that is a rather trivial amount over, say ten years.

[Aug 05, 2018] "Anti-semitism" is merely the enforcement wing of Zionism

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

nickels , July 30, 2018 at 1:55 pm GMT

"Anti-semitism" is merely the enforcement wing of Zionism. Anywhere Zionists uses injustice, pointing that out becomes anti-Semitic.
The Zionists, unlike the dullard goyim, understand the power of the moral force, despite the fact they work fully against it's dictates.

[Aug 05, 2018] American Pravda the Nature of Anti-Semitism by Ron Unz

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... The American Historical Review ..."
"... Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion ..."
"... Gulag Archipelago ..."
"... The Jewish Century ..."
"... The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR, and How We Won the War ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

I recently published a couple of long essays, and although they primarily focused on other matters, the subject of anti-Semitism was a strong secondary theme. In that regard, I mentioned my shock at discovering a dozen or more years ago that several of the most self-evidently absurd elements of anti-Semitic lunacy, which I had always dismissed without consideration, were probably correct. It does seem likely that a significant number of traditionally-religious Jews did indeed occasionally commit the ritual murder of Christian children in order to use their blood in certain religious ceremonies, and also that powerful Jewish international bankers did play a large role in financing the establishment of Bolshevik Russia .

When one discovers that matters of such enormous moment not only apparently occurred but that they had been successfully excluded from nearly all of our histories and media coverage for most of the last one hundred years, the implications take some time to properly digest. If the most extreme "anti-Semitic canards" were probably true, then surely the whole notion of anti-Semitism warrants a careful reexamination.

All of us obtain our knowledge of the world by two different channels. Some things we discover from our own personal experiences and the direct evidence of our senses, but most information comes to us via external sources such as books and the media, and a crisis may develop when we discover that these two pathways are in sharp conflict. The official media of the old USSR used to endlessly trumpet the tremendous achievements of its collectivized agricultural system, but when citizens noticed that there was never any meat in their shops, "Pravda" became a watchword for "Lies" rather than "Truth."

Now consider the notion of "anti-Semitism." Google searches for that word and its close variants reveal over 24 million hits, and over the years I'm sure I've seen that term tens of thousands of times in my books and newspapers, and heard it endlessly reported in my electronic media and entertainment. But thinking it over, I'm not sure that I can ever recall a single real-life instance I've personally encountered, nor have I heard of almost any such cases from my friends or acquaintances. Indeed, the only persons I've ever come across making such claims were individuals who bore unmistakable signs of serious psychological imbalance. When the daily newspapers are brimming with lurid tales of hideous demons walking among us and attacking people on every street corner, but you yourself have never actually seen one, you may gradually grow suspicious.

Indeed, over the years some of my own research has uncovered a sharp contrast between image and reality. As recently as the late 1990s, leading mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times were still denouncing a top Ivy League school such as Princeton for the supposed anti-Semitism of its college admissions policy, but a few years ago when I carefully investigated that issue in quantitative terms for my lengthy Meritocracy analysis I was very surprised to reach a polar-opposite conclusion. According to the best available evidence, white Gentiles were over 90% less likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the other Ivies than were Jews of similar academic performance, a truly remarkable finding. If the situation had been reversed and Jews were 90% less likely to be found at Harvard than seemed warranted by their test scores, surely that fact would be endlessly cited as the absolute smoking-gun proof of horrendous anti-Semitism in present-day America.

It has also become apparent that a considerable fraction of what passes for "anti-Semitism" these days seems to stretch that term beyond all recognition. A few weeks ago an unknown 28-year-old Democratic Socialist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scored a stunning upset primary victory over a top House Democrat in New York City, and naturally received a blizzard of media coverage as a result. However, when it came out that she had denounced the Israeli government for its recent massacre of over 140 unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza, cries of "anti-Semite" soon appeared, and according to Google there are now over 180,000 such hits combining her name and that harsh accusatory term. Similarly, just a few days ago the New York Times ran a major story reporting that all of Britain's Jewish newspapers had issued an "unprecedented" denunciation of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, describing it as an "existential threat" to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitism it was fostering; but this apparently amounted to nothing more than its willingness to sharply criticize the Israeli government for its long mistreatment of the Palestinians.

ORDER IT NOW

One plausible explanation of the strange contrast between media coverage and reality might be that anti-Semitism once did loom very large in real life, but dissipated many decades ago, while the organizations and activists focused on detecting and combating that pernicious problem have remained in place, generating public attention based on smaller and smaller issues, with the zealous Jewish activists of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) representing a perfect example of this situation. As an even more striking illustration, the Second World War ended over seventy years ago, but what historian Norman Finkelstein has so aptly labeled "the Holocaust Industry" has grown ever larger and more entrenched in our academic and media worlds so that scarcely a day passes without one or more articles relating to that topic appearing in my major morning newspapers. Given this situation, a serious exploration of the true nature of anti-Semitism should probably avoid the mere media phantoms of today and focus on the past, when the condition might still have been widespread in daily life.

Many observers have pointed to the aftermath of the Second World War as marking a huge watershed in the public acceptability of anti-Semitism both in America and Europe, so perhaps a proper appraisal of that cultural phenomenon should focus on the years before that global conflict. However, the overwhelming role of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and other bloody Communist seizures of power quite naturally made them objects of considerable fear and hatred throughout the inter-war years, so the safest course might be to push that boundary back a little further and confine our attention to the period prior to the outbreak of the First World War. The pogroms in Czarist Russia, the Dreyfus Affair in France, and the lynching of Leo Frank in the American South come to mind as some of the most famous examples from that period.

Lindemann's discussion of the often difficult relations between Russia's restive Jewish minority and its huge Slavic majority is also quite interesting, and he provides numerous instances in which major incidents, supposedly demonstrating the enormously strong appeal of vicious anti-Semitism, were quite different than has been suggested by the legend. The famous Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 was obviously the result of severe ethnic tension in that city, but contrary to the regular accusations of later writers, there seems absolutely no evidence of high-level government involvement, and the widespread claims of 700 dead that so horrified the entire world were grossly exaggerated, with only 45 killed in the urban rioting. Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, later promoted the story that he himself and some other brave Jewish souls had personally defended their people with revolvers in hand even as they saw the mutilated bodies of 80 Jewish victims. This account was totally fictional since Weizmann happened to have been be hundreds of miles away when the riots occurred.

Although a tendency to lie and exaggerate was hardly unique to the political partisans of Russian Jewry, the existence of a powerful international network of Jewish journalists and Jewish-influenced media outlets ensured that such concocted propaganda stories might receive enormous worldwide distribution, while the truth followed far behind, if at all.

For related reasons, international outrage was often focused on the legal confinement of most of Russia's Jews to the "Pale of Settlement," suggesting some sort of tight imprisonment; but that area was the traditional home of the Jewish population and encompassed a landmass almost as large as France and Spain combined. The growing impoverishment of Eastern European Jews during that era was often assumed to be a consequence of hostile government policy, but the obvious explanation was extraordinary Jewish fecundity, which far outstripped that of their Slavic fellow countrymen, and quickly led them to outgrow the available spots in any of their traditional "middleman" occupations, a situation worsened by their total disinclination to engage in agriculture or other primary-producer activities. Jewish communities expressed horror at the risk of losing their sons to the Czarist military draft, but this was simply the flip-side of the full Russian citizenship they had been granted, and no different from what was faced by their non-Jewish neighbors.

Certainly the Jews of Russia suffered greatly from widespread riots and mob attacks in the generation prior to World War I, and these did sometimes have substantial government encouragement, especially in the aftermath of the very heavy Jewish role in the 1905 Revolution. But we should keep in mind that a Jewish plotter had been implicated in the killing of Czar Alexander II, and Jewish assassins had also struck down several top Russian ministers and numerous other government officials. If the last decade or two had seen American Muslims assassinate a sitting U.S. President, various leading Cabinet members, and a host of our other elected and appointed officials, surely the position of Muslims in this country would have become a very uncomfortable one.

As Lindemann candidly describes the tension between Russia's very rapidly growing Jewish population and its governing authorities, he cannot avoid mentioning the notorious Jewish reputation for bribery, corruption, and general dishonesty, with numerous figures of all political backgrounds noting that the remarkable Jewish propensity to commit perjury in the courtroom led to severe problems in the effective administration of justice. The eminent American sociologist E.A. Ross, writing in 1913, characterized the regular behavior of Eastern European Jews in very similar terms .

Lindemann also allocates a short chapter to discussing the 1911 Beilis Affair, in which a Ukrainian Jew was accused of the ritual murder of a young Gentile boy, an incident that generated a great deal of international attention and controversy. Based on the evidence presented, the defendant seems likely to have been innocent, although the obvious lies he repeatedly told police interrogators hardly helped foster that impression, and "the system worked" in that he was ultimately found innocent by the jurors at his trial. However, a few pages are also given to a much less well-known ritual murder case in late 19th century Hungary, in which the evidence of Jewish guilt seemed far stronger, though the author hardly accepted the possible reality of such an outlandish crime. Such reticence was quite understandable since the publication of Ariel Toaff's remarkable volume on the subject was still a dozen years in the future.

ORDER IT NOW

Lindemann subsequently expanded his examination of historical anti-Semitism into a much broader treatment, Esau's Tears , which appeared in 1997. In this volume, he added comparative studies of the social landscape in Germany, Britain, Italy, and several other European countries, and demonstrated that the relationship between Jews and non-Jews varied greatly across different locations and time periods. But although I found his analysis quite useful and interesting, the extraordinarily harsh attacks his text provoked from some outraged Jewish academics seemed even more intriguing.

For example, Judith Laikin Elkin opened her discussion in The American Historical Review by describing the book as a "545-page polemic" a strange characterization of a book so remarkably even-handed and factually-based in its scholarship. Writing in Commentary , Robert Wistrich was even harsher, stating that merely reading the book had been a painful experience for him, and his review seemed filled with spittle-flecked rage. Unless these individuals had somehow gotten copies of a different book, I found their attitudes simply astonishing.

I was not alone in such a reaction. Richard S. Levy of the University of Illinois, a noted scholar of anti-Semitism, expressed amazement at Wistrich's seemingly irrational outburst, while Paul Gottfried, writing in Chronicles , mildly suggested that Lindemann had "touched raw nerves." Indeed, Gottfried's own evaluation quite reasonably criticized Lindemann for perhaps being a little too even-handed, sometimes presenting numerous conflicting analyzes without choosing between them. For those interested, a good discussion of the book by Alan Steinweis, a younger scholar specializing in the same topic, is conveniently available online .

The remarkable ferocity with which some Jewish writers attacked Lindemann's meticulous attempt to provide an accurate history of anti-Semitism may carry more significance than merely an exchange of angry words in low-circulation academic publications. If our mainstream media shapes our reality, scholarly books and articles based upon them tend to set the contours of that media coverage. And the ability of a relatively small number of agitated and energetic Jews to police the acceptable boundaries of historical narratives may have enormous consequences for our larger society, deterring scholars from objectively reporting historical facts and preventing students from discovering them.

ORDER IT NOW

The undeniable truth is that for many centuries Jews usually constituted a wealthy and privileged segment of the population in nearly all the European countries in which they resided, and quite frequently they based their livelihood upon the heavy exploitation of a downtrodden peasantry. Even without any differences in ethnicity, language, or religion, such conditions almost invariably provoke hostility. The victory of Mao's Communist forces in China was quickly followed by the brutal massacre of a million or more Han Chinese landlords by the Han Chinese poor peasants who regarded them as cruel oppressors, with William Hinton's classic Fanshen describing the unfortunate history that unfolded in one particular village. When similar circumstances led to violent clashes in Eastern Europe between Slavs and Jews, does it really make logical sense to employ a specialized term such as "anti-Semitism" to describe that situation?

Furthermore, some of the material presented in Lindemann's rather innocuous text might also lead to potentially threatening ideas. Consider, for example, the notorious Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion , almost certainly fictional, but hugely popular and influential during the years following World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution. The fall of so many longstanding Gentile dynasties and their replacement by new regimes such as Soviet Russia and Weimar Germany, which were heavily dominated by their tiny Jewish minorities, quite naturally fed suspicions of a worldwide Jewish plot, as did the widely discussed role of Jewish international bankers in producing those political outcomes.

Over the decades, there has been much speculation about the possible inspiration for the Protocols , but although Lindemann makes absolutely no reference to that document, he does provide a very intriguing possible candidate. Jewish-born British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli certainly ranked as one of the most influential figures of the late 19th century, and in his novel Coningsby , he has the character representing Lord Lionel Rothschild boast about the existence of a vast and secret network of powerful international Jews , who stand near the head of almost every major nation, quietly controlling their governments from behind the scenes. If one of the world's most politically well-connected Jews eagerly promoted such notions, was Henry Ford really so unreasonable in doing the same?

Lindemann also notes Disraeli's focus on the extreme importance of race and racial origins, a central aspect of traditional Jewish religious doctrine. He reasonably suggests that this must surely have had a huge influence upon the rise of those political ideas, given that Disraeli's public profile and stature were so much greater than the mere writers or activists whom our history books usually place at center stage. In fact, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a leading racial theorist, actually cited Disraeli as a key source for his ideas. Jewish intellectuals such as Max Nordau and Cesare Lombroso are already widely recognized as leading figures in the rise of the racial science of that era, but Disraeli's under-appreciated role may have actually been far greater. The deep Jewish roots of European racialist movements are hardly something that many present-day Jews would want widely known.

One of the harsh Jewish critics of Esau's Tears denounced Cambridge University Press for even allowing the book to appear in print, and although that major work is easily available in English, there are numerous other cases where an important but discordant version of historical reality has been successfully blocked from publication. For decades most Americans would have ranked Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn as among the world's greatest literary figures, and his Gulag Archipelago alone sold over 10 million copies. But his last work was a massive two-volume account of the tragic 200 years of shared history between Russians and Jews, and despite its 2002 release in Russian and numerous other world languages, there has yet to be an authorized English translation, though various partial editions have circulated on the Internet in samizdat form.

ORDER IT NOW

At one point, a full English version was briefly available for sale at Amazon.com and I purchased it. Glancing through a few sections, the work seemed quite even-handed and innocuous to me, but it seemed to provide a far more detailed and uncensored account than anything else previously available, which obviously was the problem. The Bolshevik Revolution resulted in the deaths of many tens of millions of people worldwide, and the overwhelming Jewish role in its leadership would become more difficult to erase from historical memory if Solzhenitsyn's work were easily available. Also, his candid discussion of the economic and political behavior of Russian Jewry in pre-revolutionary times directly conflicted with the hagiography widely promoted by Hollywood and the popular media. Historian Yuri Slezkine's award-winning 2004 book The Jewish Century provided many similar facts, but his treatment was far more cursory and his public stature not remotely the same.

Near the end of his life, Solzhenitsyn gave his political blessing to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Russia's leaders honored him upon his death, while his Gulag volumes are now enshrined as mandatory reading in the standard high school curriculum of today's overwhelmingly Christian Russia. But even as his star rose again in his own homeland, it seems to have sharply fallen in our own country, and his trajectory may eventually relegate him to nearly un-person status.

A couple of years after the release of Solzhenitsyn's controversial final book, an American writer named Anne Applebaum published a thick history bearing the same title Gulag , and her work received enormously favorable media coverage and won her a Pulitzer Prize; I have even heard claims that her book has been steadily replacing that earlier Gulag on many college reading lists. But although Jews constituted a huge fraction of the top leadership of the Soviet Gulag system during its early decades, as well as that of the dreaded NKVD which supplied the inmates, nearly her entire focus on her own ethnic group during Soviet times is that of victims rather than victimizers. And by a remarkable irony of fate, she shares a last name with one of the top Bolshevik leaders, Hirsch Apfelbaum, who concealed his own ethnic identity by calling himself Grigory Zinoviev.

ORDER IT NOW

The striking decline in Solzhenitsyn's literary status in the West came just a decade or two after an even more precipitous collapse in the reputation of David Irving , and for much the same reason. Irving probably ranked as the most internationally successful British historian of the last one hundred years and a renowned scholar of World War II, but his extensive reliance on primary source documentary evidence posed an obvious threat to the official narrative promoted by Hollywood and wartime propaganda. When he published his magisterial Hitler's War , this conflict between myth and reality came into the open, and an enormous wave of attacks and vilification was unleashed, gradually leading to his purge from respectability and eventually even his imprisonment.

These important examples may help to explain the puzzling contrast between the behavior of Jews in the aggregate and Jews as individuals. Observers have noticed that even fairly small Jewish minorities may often have a major impact upon the far larger societies that host them. But on the other hand, in my experience at least, a large majority of individual Jews do not seem all that different in their personalities or behavior than their non-Jewish counterparts. So how does a community whose individual mean is not so unusual generate what seems to be such a striking difference in collective behavior? I think the answer may involve the existence of information choke-points, and the ability of relatively small numbers of particularly zealous and agitated Jews in influencing and controlling these.

We live our lives constantly immersed in media narratives, and these allow us to decide the rights and wrongs of a situation. The vast majority of people, Jew and Gentile alike, are far more likely to take strong action if they are convinced that their cause is a just one. This is obviously the basis for war-time propaganda.

Now suppose that a relatively small number of zealous Jewish partisans are known to always attack and denounce journalists or authors who accurately describe Jewish misbehavior. Over time, this ongoing campaign of intimidation may cause many important facts to be left on the cutting-room floor, or even gradually expel from mainstream respectability those writers who refuse to conform to such pressures. Meanwhile, similar small numbers of Jewish partisans frequently exaggerate the misdeeds committed against Jews, sometimes piling their exaggerations upon past exaggerations already produced by a previous round of such zealots.

Eventually, these two combined trends may take a complex and possibly very mixed historical record and transform it into a simple morality-play, with innocent Jews tremendously injured by vicious Jew-haters. And as this morality-play becomes established it deepens the subsequent intensity of other Jewish-activists, who redouble their demands that the media "stop vilifying Jews" and covering up the supposed evils inflicted upon them. An unfortunate circle of distortion following exaggeration following distortion can eventually produce a widely accepted historical account that bears little resemblance to the reality of what actually happened.

So as a result, the vast majority of quite ordinary Jews, who would normally behave in quite ordinary ways, are misled by this largely fictional history, and rather understandably become greatly outraged at all the horrible things that had been done to their suffering people, some of which are true and some of which are not, while remaining completely ignorant of the other side of the ledger.

Furthermore, this situation is exacerbated by the common tendency of Jews to "cluster" together, perhaps respresenting just one or two percent of the total population, but often constituting 20% or 40% or 60% of their immediate peer-group, especially in certain professions. Under such conditions, the ideas or emotional agitation of some Jews probably permeates others around them, often provoking additional waves of indignation.

As a rough analogy, a small quantity of uranium is relatively inert and harmless, and entirely so if distributed within low-density ore. But if a significant quantity of weapons-grade uranium is sufficiently compressed, then the neutrons released by fissioning atoms will quickly cause additional atoms to undergo fission, with the ultimate result of that critical chain-reaction being a nuclear explosion. In similar fashion, even a highly agitated Jew may have no negative impact, but if the collection of such agitated Jews becomes too numerous and clusters together too closely, they may work each other into a terrible frenzy, perhaps with disastrous consequences both for themselves and for their larger society. This is especially true if those agitated Jews begin to dominate certain key nodes of top-level control, such as the central political or media organs of a society.

Whereas most living organizations exist solely in physical reality, human beings also occupy an ideational space, with the interaction of human consciousness and perceived reality playing a major role in shaping behavior. Just as the pheromones released by mammals or insects can drastically affect the reactions of their family members or nest-mates, the ideas secreted by individuals or the media-emitters of a society can have an enormous impact upon their fellows.

A cohesive, organized group generally possesses huge advantages over a teeming mass of atomized individuals, just as a Macedonian Phalanx could easily defeat a vastly larger body of disorganized infantry. Many years ago, on some website somewhere I came across a very insightful comment regarding the obvious connection between "anti-Semitism" and "racism," which our mainstream media organs identify as two of the world's greatest evils. Under this analysis, "anti-Semitism" represents the tendency to criticize or resist Jewish social cohesion, while "racism" represents the attempt of white Gentiles to maintain a similar social cohesion of their own. To the extent that the ideological emanations from our centralized media organs serve to strengthen and protect Jewish cohesion while attacking and dissolving any similar cohesion on the part of their Gentile counterparts, the former will obviously gain enormous advantages in resource-competition against the latter.

Religion obviously constitutes an important unifying factor in human social groups and we cannot ignore the role of Judaism in this regard. Traditional Jewish religious doctrine seems to consider Jews as being in a state of permanent hostility with all non-Jews , and the use of dishonest propaganda is an almost inevitable aspect of such conflict. Furthermore, since Jews have invariably been a small political minority, maintaining such controversial tenets required the employment of a massive framework of subterfuge and dissimulation in order to conceal their nature from the larger society surrounding them. It has often been said that truth is the first casualty in war, and surely the cultural influences of over a thousand years of such intense religious hostility may continue to quietly influence the thinking of many modern Jews, even those who have largely abandoned their religious beliefs.

The notorious Jewish tendency to shamelessly lie or wildly exaggerate has sometimes had horrifying human consequences. I very recently discovered a fascinating passage in Peter Moreira's 2014 book The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR, and How We Won the War , focused on the important political role of that powerful Secretary of the Treasury.

A turning point in Henry Morgenthau Jr.'s relationship with the Jewish community came in November 1942, when Rabbi Stephen Wise came to the corner office to tell the secretary what was happening in Europe. Morgenthau knew of the millions of deaths and the lampshades made from victims' skin, and he asked Wise not to go into excessive details. But Wise went on to tell of the barbarity of the Nazis, how they were making soap out of Jewish flesh. Morgenthau, turning paler, implored him, "Please, Stephen, don't give me the gory details." Wise went on with his list of horrors and Morgenthau repeated his plea over and over again. Henrietta Klotz was afraid her boss would keel over. Morgenthau later said the meeting changed his life.

It is easy to imagine that Morgenthau's gullible acceptance of such obviously ridiculous war-time atrocity stories played a major role when he later lent his name and support to remarkably brutal American occupation policies that probably led to the postwar deaths of many millions of innocent German civilians .

[Aug 05, 2018] Nationalists winning Eastern Europe after the dissolution of the USSR is a verifiable tendency

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

peterAUS , July 31, 2018 at 2:15 am GMT

@AaronB

Only Leftists can defeat Leftists, only progressives can defeat progressives – conserving the old cannot win. Ideas of stability, homeostasis, and the like, cannot win.

You sure?

Don't know.

Franco, for example. Then, more recently, Nationalists winning over Communists in Eastern Europe after the fall of The Wall. We could agree, I guess, that Nationalism is a bit older than Communism.

And there is no organized opposition because there is no Platonic Idea around which they can rally – while the Left has one. The Right seems to just be a headless chicken- all body, no head.

In the West. In the East not so sure about that. Do a (mental) test: imagine that US (military) power can't get delivered in Balkans anymore. Or Russian (military) power can't get delivered in Donbass. Or some other places.

Watch ..

AaronB , July 31, 2018 at 3:07 am GMT
@peterAUS

That's a good point about nationalism – but I think what we are seeing in places like Russia and Poland is a resurgence of religious nationalism – pure nationalism, without a Platonic Idea, just materialism, seems to have no long term success anywhere. I don't think the attempt to revive it among materialist western right wingers will work. I think they fundamentally misunderstand this.

In the context of a failed Communism, religious nationalism appears as progressive – as an exciting step in the direction of progress towards a higher state.

Its not that old traditional ideas can't be revived – its that I think conservatives basically misunderstand traditional ideas. In their time, traditional ideas were meant to facilitate the self-perfection of man – not provide stability, safety, or homeostasis. Christianity was a program for the perfection of man – not social stability.

Traditional ideas were based on a Platonic Idea – never materialism. The attempt to revive traditional ideas on a materialist basis, because they provide stability, seems a misunderstanding. In fact, traditional ideas provide stability because they were accepted as part of the plan of self-perfection. That's why they secured consent – i.e became the basis of a stable society. People accept a social organization that they believe will assist in self-perfection, and that is the source of social stability.

As for military power projection, once local power balances alter its hard to predict what will come to seem "progressive". And short term social expedients taken in chaotic cobditions don't necessarily translate into long term social organization.

That's my take, at any rate.

peterAUS , July 31, 2018 at 5:14 am GMT
@AaronB

A thoughtful post.

.traditional ideas were meant to facilitate the self-perfection of man – not provide stability, safety, or homeostasis. Christianity was a program for the perfection of man – not social stability.

..traditional ideas provide stability because they were accepted as part of the plan of self-perfection.

I am not quite sure I get this.
Feels as a deep topic. Not well versed in that I am afraid.

A couple of things: the concept of "self-perfection" in, say, traditional Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, with accepting that a man is a sinner and only though Jesus he/she can find salvation.
Then, I can get that top thinkers of those nations maybe thought along those lines; common folk, though, based their nationalism on simple living with people who shared the same values in life. Sometimes even just the same customs. The sense of belonging. The perception of "us" and "them" as the bottom line.

You want a problem to ponder about?
Here it is, then:
Why such ..animosity .. then, between Catholics and Orthodox in Balkans and Ukraine? The same, now dormant, between Protestant and Catholics in N.I.?

I guess that your approach to nationalism is, say, what ..metaphysical?
Mine is way, way below. Just blood and soil, in that order. "Us" vs "them".

West is doomed re nationalism. Maybe. Not quite sure.
All those wars of Catholics vs Protestants ..and we are talking about people of the same race.
Now, that "we" vs "them" is much more visible.

.short term social expedients taken in chaotic cobditions don't necessarily translate into long term social organization.

Agree.
Again, so what? If it works during my lifetime fine (say, if I were a young man). After me, their problem. Something like that.

[Aug 05, 2018] Ideas of stability, homeostasis, and the like, cannot win.

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

AaronB , July 31, 2018 at 3:07 am GMT

@peterAUS

That's a good point about nationalism – but I think what we are seeing in places like Russia and Poland is a resurgence of religious nationalism – pure nationalism, without a Platonic Idea, just materialism, seems to have no long term success anywhere. I don't think the attempt to revive it among materialist western right wingers will work. I think they fundamentally misunderstand this.

In the context of a failed Communism, religious nationalism appears as progressive – as an exciting step in the direction of progress towards a higher state.

Its not that old traditional ideas can't be revived – its that I think conservatives basically misunderstand traditional ideas. In their time, traditional ideas were meant to facilitate the self-perfection of man – not provide stability, safety, or homeostasis. Christianity was a program for the perfection of man – not social stability.

Traditional ideas were based on a Platonic Idea – never materialism. The attempt to revive traditional ideas on a materialist basis, because they provide stability, seems a misunderstanding. In fact, traditional ideas provide stability because they were accepted as part of the plan of self-perfection. That's why they secured consent – i.e became the basis of a stable society. People accept a social organization that they believe will assist in self-perfection, and that is the source of social stability.

As for military power projection, once local power balances alter its hard to predict what will come to seem "progressive". And short term social expedients taken in chaotic cobditions don't necessarily translate into long term social organization.

That's my take, at any rate.

[Aug 02, 2018] Note on the level of efficiency of imperial brainwashing

Those polls now became an echo changer. As valid information is by-and-large relegated to alt-channels people who rely on MSM can't form an independent opinion about foreign policy issues. As the USA moved to the national security state model after 9/11 people also naturally stopped giving honest answers in the polls.
So the level of conforms simultaneously reflects the level of distrust and fear of the ruling neoliberal elite.
Also many spend too much efforts on earning a living to form a coherent view of foreign affairs. They just regurgitate MSM. Still while they have lingering distrust and some level of fear to ward ruling neoliberal elite, they feel that it is saver to give "politically correct answer.
So polls became an echo chamber of government policies. like with netters to Pravda: "We enthusiastically support the wise policies of our Politburo" no matter what is the issue.
Notable quotes:
"... By Bruce Jentleson ..."
Aug 02, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Millennials Are Done with US Domination of World Affairs By Bruce Jentleson Posted on August 2, 2018 by Lambert Strether ... ... ...

This year, an average of all respondents – people born between 1928 and 1996 – showed that 64 percent believe the U.S. should take an active part in world affairs, but interesting differences could be seen when the numbers are broken down by generation.

The silent generation, born between 1928 and 1945 whose formative years were during World War II and the early Cold War, showed the strongest support at 78 percent. Support fell from there through each age group. It bottomed out with millennials, of whom only 51 percent felt the U.S. should take an active part in world affairs. That's still more internationalist than not, but less enthusiastically than other age groups.

There is some anti-Trump effect visible here: Millennials in the polling sample do identify as less Republican – 22 percent – and less conservative than the older age groups. But they also were the least supportive of the "take an active part" view during the Obama administration as well.

Four sets of additional polling numbers help us dig deeper.

These and other polls show millennials to have a world view that, while well short of isolationist, is also not as assertively and broadly internationalist as previous generations.

... ... ...

By Bruce Jentleson , Professor of Public Policy and Political Science, Duke University. Cross-posted from Alternet .


StephenLaudig , August 2, 2018 at 3:18 pm

"active part in world affairs" has, since 1893, usually meant invasions and bombing.
The US military, the costliest in history, hasn't won a war since 1946, unless Panama and Grenada count. Korea is still a tie. Perhaps many are coming to realize that all the US population [compared to corporations and corporation owners which show allegiance only to money] needs is a border patrol and a coast guard. Not 'our' empire.

JTMcPhee , August 2, 2018 at 4:47 pm

"War is a racket." And people like me were and are its thug enforcers (enlisted 1966 to "do my duty to God and my country," in that Vietnam place )

Romancing The Loan , August 2, 2018 at 3:27 pm

First, the United States has been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq for close to half the lives of the oldest millennials, who were born in 1981

They're not counting the first Iraq War.

Only 70% in favor of "globalization" is pretty good in light of our lifetime of propaganda. I'd be in favor of disbanding NATO and cutting the military and intelligence budget by 80%, at least as a starting offer.

Ultrapope , August 2, 2018 at 5:11 pm

I think you have an interesting point re: "globalization" and propaganda. In school (2000-2010ish) the term globalization was presented as a kind of antonym of isolationist. It was portrayed as an attitude of openness to other countries, travelling internationally, sharing in someone else culture, etc. The business/economic side was sort of introduced in high school, but even then I remember being taught a definition of "globalization" closer to "multiculturalism" than to one like "Imperialism". Post-high school life (and the GFC) really drove home the true meaning of the word.

To this day I still reflexively read the word globalization as something akin to "multiculturalism", despite knowing full well that it is anything but. From discussing politics with other people in my generation I also get a sense that they are operating with this weird dual (schizo?) meaning of "globalization".

Any other millennials have a similar experience with this word?

JTMcPhee , August 2, 2018 at 4:50 pm

It might be nice to see the survey instruments too, to see what the questions were and how loaded in favor of Empire or balanced (that deadly word) they were.

juliania , August 2, 2018 at 6:13 pm

I didn't much like being put into the group called the Silent Generation, so I went to wikipedia to see why it was called that.

" While there were many civil rights leaders, the "Silents" are called that because many focused on their careers rather than on activism, and people in it were largely encouraged to conform with social norms. As young adults during the McCarthy Era, many members of the Silent Generation felt it was dangerous to speak out Time magazine coined the term "Silent Generation" in a November 5, 1951 article titled "The Younger Generation" The Time article said that the ambitions of this generation had shrunk, but that it had learned to make the best of bad situations [?] In the United States, the generation was comparatively small They are noted as forming the leadership of the civil rights movement as well as comprising the "silent majority"

Ah, that's why I didn't much like it – and that was Nixon's silent majority, not me, wikipedia – not me! But I'll forgive you because down below you put me in the group called "The Lucky Few" and said how many of us were Really Good People. I'll buy that. ;))

Schmoe , August 2, 2018 at 7:03 pm

Interesting results on Millennials' view of American Exceptionalism. I am not at all surprised by those results, and I wonder if study abroad programs are having a deep impact on young people's political views. They are seeing in detailed fashion the utter horror of government-sponsored or managed healthcare, as well as how "socialism" in northern European has inflicted a very favorable standard of living on most of the middle class.

Conversely, I still have to laugh at the 2012 campaign ad sponsored by Rickets of TD Ameritrade fame that described the results of "socialism" and showed post-War Europe pictures of old ladies on the side of the road. One of my parent's friends (now in her '80s) seemed surprised that people in Europe didn't live shacks when shown my parent's vacation pictures.

[Jul 20, 2018] The bill explicitly states that "the right to exercises national determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people

Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

tac , July 20, 2018 at 4:49 pm GMT

Trump Is Israel's 'Useful Idiot'
by Philip Giraldi :

Trump Is Israel's 'Useful Idiot'

The Israeli willingness to play all sides in the Syrian conflict recognizes that Russia rather than the United States has assumed the pivotal role in determining what the ultimate political outcome of the fighting is likely to be. Apart from weakening and fragmenting Syria itself, Israel's clearly stated objective has been to reduce or, even better, eliminate Iranian presence in the country, which Netanyahu describes hyperbolically as " very important for the national security of the state of Israel."
[...]
Whatever one believes about the Syrian conflict and Washington's role in it, the adherence to Israeli points of view in framing policy has made the United States largely irrelevant and has handed control of the situation to enemy du jour Russia. The Israelis have found the new administration in Washington to be what Lenin once described as a "useful idiot," prepared to support whatever Netanyahu proposes while at the same time so clueless that the Israeli government can freely and openly simultaneously cut deals with Moscow that undermine the U.S. continued presence in the country.

https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/trump-israels-useful-idiot/ri24176

Leaked Netanyahu Tape: We Made Trump Cancel the Iran Deal

On Tuesday an Israeli television channel aired leaked video footage it obtained exclusively showing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasting that he had personally convinced President Trump to abandon the Iran nuclear deal . The statements were made at a small dinner event where he addressed senior members of his Likud party.

https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/leaked-netanyahu-tape-we-made-trump-cancel-iran-deal/ri24223

Israel Declares Itself Apartheid State

The Knesset passed early Thursday a controversial bill that o fficially defines Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people and asserts that "the realization of the right to national self-determination in Israel is unique to the Jewish people," with 62 lawmakers voting in favor of the legislation and 55 opposing it.

The nation-state law also includes clauses stating that a "united Jerusalem" is the capital of Israel and that Hebrew is the country's official language. Another says that "the state sees the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation."
[...]
In a clause that set Arab lawmakers off, the bill explicitly states that "the right to exercises national determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people."

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/07/israel-declares-itself-apartheid-state.html

[Jul 15, 2018] Donald Trump told Theresa May how to do Brexit 'but she wrecked it' and says the US trade deal is off

Jul 15, 2018 | thesun.co.uk

THERESA May's new soft Brexit blueprint would "kill" any future trade deal with the United States, Donald Trump warns today.

Mounting an extraordinary attack on the PM's exit negotiation, the President also reveals she has ignored his advice on how to toughen up the troubled talks.

Instead he believes Mrs May has gone "the opposite way", and he thinks the results have been "very unfortunate".

His fiercest criticism came over the centrepiece of the PM's new Brexit plan -- which was unveiled in full yesterday.

It would stick to a common ­rulebook with Brussels on goods and agricultural produce in a bid to keep customs borders open with the EU.

But Mr Trump told The Sun: "If they do a deal like that, we would be dealing with the European Union instead of dealing with the UK, so it will probably kill the deal.

[Jul 10, 2018] MoA - BREXIT - Still Not Gonna Happen

The trend is definitely against EU. But Britain may be crushed, like Brazil and Argentina into accepting neoliberal world order for longer.
Notable quotes:
"... Maybe Johnson the Brexiter can now launch an inner party coup and push Theresa May out. According to a YouGov poll she lost significant support within her conservative party. Besides the Brexit row she botched a snap election, lost her party's majority in parliament and seems to have no clear concept for anything. It would not be a loss for mankind to see her go. ..."
"... Boris the clown, who wins within his party on 'likability' and 'shares my political outlook', would then run the UK. A quite amusing thought. Johnson is a man of no principles. While he is currently pretending to hold a pro-Brexit position he would probably run the same plan that May seems to execute: Delay as long as possible, then panic the people into a re-vote, then stay within the EU. ..."
"... There is an excellent piece in the Boston Review on the EU- https://bostonreview.net/class-inequality/j-w-mason-market-police ..."
"... Iy makes the point that "The European Union offers the fullest realization of the neoliberal political vision. Its incomplete integration -- with its confusing mix of powers -- is precisely the goal." ..."
"... It traces the neo-liberal project, designed to prevent democracy from controlling economic policy, back to von Mises and Hayek. Nothing is more mistaken for critics of imperialism than to buy the line that the EU represents internationalism in any sense. The fact that some racists oppose the EU-just as others support it as a 'white" bastion -- is no reason to give an institution which is profoundly and purposefully undemocratic the benefit of the doubt. ..."
"... It is a wondrous sight to see Western [neo]Liberal Democracy crumbling before our eyes. Have a look at the very founders and protectors of "freedom" corrupt to the very marrow of their bones. ..."
"... Anything bad that can happen to the UK is well-deserved. The home, the womb of Russophobia, lies and illegal wars, as well as the hub of spying against American citizens, is exposed as thoroughly bankrupt politically. ..."
"... EU is bound to collapse but Britain might be tempted to wait it out, and maybe it is the game in London: not to be the first. The most dynamic destructive work in progress is the Euro that benefit to none of its 18 members (the euro-zones) but Geramny and Nederland. Italy has understood it but is using the refugees crisis to enlarge the contestation to non-euro zone countries (Visegrad group and more). ..."
"... As Nato is the real and only cement in this enlarged un-united Europe, in an epoch of accelerating change (collapse maybe) the famous Wait and see of the Brits has just muted in a slow fox-trot. ..."
"... But the puffed up Brits do not even see this danger and would blithely fall into the arms of the mafiosi from across the pond. ..."
"... Brexit is rebellion against the US imposed world order. London money has gone along and profited from the US imposed order, but the ordinary Brits may not have. They may not know where they are going, but they do know where they do not want to be. ..."
"... ditto... status of colony... isn't that what the globalists, corporations, neo liberals and etc want? get rid of any national identity as it gets in the way of corporations having the freedom to rape and pillage as needed.. ..."
"... Trump has reversed some 70 years of US strategy to gain nothing. It is quite remarkable. Strategic vandalism is a good description. ..."
"... The thing about UK and the EU is the UK is basically the US 51st state and the US is a defacto commonwealth nation. The colonization of Europe by the US was never meant to encompass the UK and the City. As they are basically one and the same. ..."
"... EU could not possibly have been a US/CIA idea as it actually works. Yes it is undemocratic, usurps national aspirations, perverts local economies, coddles oligarchs, and all that. But that does not mean it is a US idea. ..."
"... Single union political aspirations have been around for centuries and in many countries. Dare I suggest that it is actually based on the Soviet Union of peoples and most likely a Leninist or Trotskyist plot!! :)))) ..."
"... What do the City of London, the Vatican and Washington DC have in common? Actually, Jerusalem shares many of the same traits. Bonus points for the most creative euphemism for "usurious bank." ..."
"... From my perspective, Nation-States have not been the loci of power for some time (if they ever really were). The US, with its awesome military might and (former) industrial capabilities has served as the enforcement arm of that usurious supra-national cabal throughout "the American Century." ..."
"... Obtainimg strong mandate Cameron went to Brussels to supposedly negotiate better deal with EU ESPECIALLY for security while in fact he went there trying to bully the shape future EU integration especially in political realm and even more in realm of banking Union and integration and coordination of banking rules, laws and unified controlling authorities, via threatening Brexit which would be a deadly blow to EU propaganda glue that holds together this melting pot of divided as never before nations and never since medieval times united national elites integrated in EU ruling bureaucracy. ..."
"... First it was devastating impact of further EU integration on UK banking as London has become legal under U.K. law illegal in EU, money laundering capital of the world and criminal income is huge part of the revenue of the City , US is second. ..."
"... At the passage of Brexit I believed the purpose to be to allow the City of London (the bankers) unlimited financial freedom, perhaps especially in their entering into agreements with the Chinese. This could not be the case under the original EU rules. It will be interesting to see how this works out. ..."
"... The reality of the brexit which the Tory government is determined to raiload through has been designed by elites to better oppress the hoi polloi and to sell it to the masses it has been marketed as a means of restoring 'white power'. ..."
"... That is really saying something because the current version of the UK is one of the sickest, greed is good and devil take the hindmost societies I have ever experienced -- up there with contemporary israel and the US, 1980's South Africa and by the sound of it (didn't experience it firsthand like the other examples, all down to not existing at the time) 1940's Germany. ..."
"... Brexit is nether the problem or the solution, it was just another distraction to keep the mass occupied, whilst they assist stripped the uk and a large part of the world! ..."
"... Every brexiteer I've asked why they voted for out, begins by saying "For once they had to listen to us" and that's usually followed by "there's too many people here" or "it's the E.Europeans". (My response to the europhiles is that you knew the EU was finished a dozen years ago, when all the Big Issue sellers turned into Romanian women.) UK cities are thick with destitute E.Europeans. ..."
Jul 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
...Hours before Boris Johnson quit his position, Brexit Secretary David Davis resigned from Prime Minister May's cabinet.

On July 6 the British government held a cabinet meeting at Chequers, the private seat of the prime minister. Following the meeting it published a paper (pdf) that took a weird position towards exiting the European Union. If it would be followed, Britain would practically end up with staying in the EU, accepting nearly all its regulations and court decisions, but without any say over what the EU decides. The paper was clearly written by the 'Remain' side. The two top Brexiters in May's cabinet felt cheated and resigned. More are likely to follow.

The majority of the British people who voted to leave the EU must feel duped.

My hunch is that Prime Minister Theresa May was tasked with 'running out the clock' in negotiations with the EU. Then, shortly before the March 2019 date of a 'hard Brexit' would arrive without any agreement with the EU, the powers that be would launch a panic campaign to push the population into a new vote. That vote would end with a victory for the 'Remain' side. The UK would continue to be a member of the European Union.

Shortly before the original Brexit vote in June 2016 MoA headlined: BREXIT - Not Gonna Happen

No matter how the Brexit vote will go, the powers that are will not allow Britain to exit the European Union.
Is that claim still justified?

Maybe Johnson the Brexiter can now launch an inner party coup and push Theresa May out. According to a YouGov poll she lost significant support within her conservative party. Besides the Brexit row she botched a snap election, lost her party's majority in parliament and seems to have no clear concept for anything. It would not be a loss for mankind to see her go.

Boris the clown, who wins within his party on 'likability' and 'shares my political outlook', would then run the UK. A quite amusing thought. Johnson is a man of no principles. While he is currently pretending to hold a pro-Brexit position he would probably run the same plan that May seems to execute: Delay as long as possible, then panic the people into a re-vote, then stay within the EU.

Then again - Boris may do the unexpected.

How do the British people feel about this?

Posted by b on July 9, 2018 at 11:43 AM | Permalink


Mark2 , Jul 9, 2018 12:07:09 PM | 2

Did you notice how quickly th E U sided with the U K over Salisbury ? That was the deal.
Remain in EU and we're back you!
Then again could have been we'l create a false flag you back us and we'll stay , a suttle nuonce.
bevin , Jul 9, 2018 12:21:17 PM | 3
The likelihood is that the blairite faction in the Parliamentary Labour Party-which has no real political differences with the Tories and is fanatically pro EU, as all neo-liberals are- will prop up the May government. Or a Tory government headed by another Remainer, with Blairites in the Cabinet.
This will prevent the General Election which Tories of all parties fear.


There is an excellent piece in the Boston Review on the EU- https://bostonreview.net/class-inequality/j-w-mason-market-police

Iy makes the point that "The European Union offers the fullest realization of the neoliberal political vision. Its incomplete integration -- with its confusing mix of powers -- is precisely the goal."

It traces the neo-liberal project, designed to prevent democracy from controlling economic policy, back to von Mises and Hayek. Nothing is more mistaken for critics of imperialism than to buy the line that the EU represents internationalism in any sense. The fact that some racists oppose the EU-just as others support it as a 'white" bastion -- is no reason to give an institution which is profoundly and purposefully undemocratic the benefit of the doubt.

John Zelnicker , Jul 9, 2018 12:23:35 PM | 4
@Jeff - #1 - You are correct. There will not be another referendum.

I would add that there is some chance, however small, that on March 29th the British government will tell the EU that they just have no way to meet the requirements of Article 50 and would the EU please allow them to continue as a member of the EU and forget about all the shenanigans of the past 2 years. The EU has said previously that they will accept such a result and allow the UK to continue as a member. The Brexiteers will have a total meltdown, and May will most likely be thrown out of office, but most businesses and many individuals will be quite happy for this whole thing to just go away.

For those interested see https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/brexit which has been following the Brexit chaos since the beginning.

Babyl-on , Jul 9, 2018 12:24:52 PM | 5
Britain - PATHETIC

It is a wondrous sight to see Western [neo]Liberal Democracy crumbling before our eyes. Have a look at the very founders and protectors of "freedom" corrupt to the very marrow of their bones.

In the US Trump, in the UK the Torys the democracies are now openly imperial and openly corrupt. Rule of law - ask the Skripals. Brexit, Russia, Skripals, Russia, junkies and poisons Russians - minority government - ministers resigning right and left deadlines looming no solutions in sight.

Western civilization is based on the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment and all its ideas of "democracy" are failing. Democracy is not a religion, it is not the end of history, it is not sacred and immutable - checks and balances have failed utterly. This sweetly written little essay says it all.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/14/the-end-of-the-enlightenment-a-fable-for-our-times-2/

erik , Jul 9, 2018 12:58:47 PM | 13
Look for countries to unilaterally bail from the EU with little or no advance notice. They will simply abrogate and that will trigger an avalanche of others joining in. There are various good economic reasons why they would do that, but I think the groundswell of populism fueled by anger over the open borders cataclysm will be the prime driver.
Red Ryder , Jul 9, 2018 1:12:35 PM | 14
Anything bad that can happen to the UK is well-deserved. The home, the womb of Russophobia, lies and illegal wars, as well as the hub of spying against American citizens, is exposed as thoroughly bankrupt politically.

The current path to chaos is well-trod. Now, we can expect national attention is on the team in Russia in the semi-finals, while the government crumbles and tumbles. But afterward, especially if Kane fails to bring the Cup home? Oh, the chaos. Of course, it will all be Putin and Russia's fault.

UK. Despicable. How long it has taken for folks to realize Theresa May always has been a stalking horse. Highly Likely the UK will stew in its own piss. Put that in their White Hall dossiers, and stamp it "Kremlin Plot".

Al-Pol , Jul 9, 2018 1:19:11 PM | 15
Britain won't be staying in the EU and nor will the EU be accepting May's fantasy ideas for a future relationship giving the UK free trade on everything it needs. There's a remote possibility that a new UK government could begin working on re-joining the EU (Article 49), but there are plenty in Europe who would not let the UK re-join, at least not in the near future.

Friday the 13th is coming soon, scary stuff ?

The "Don't take No for an answer" is rather misleading. Made to vote again ..only after changes to the Treaty. France's vote against the EU Constitution was accepted and when the Dutch also rejected it, it didn't happen.

Charles Michael , Jul 9, 2018 1:41:25 PM | 16
EU is bound to collapse but Britain might be tempted to wait it out, and maybe it is the game in London: not to be the first. The most dynamic destructive work in progress is the Euro that benefit to none of its 18 members (the euro-zones) but Geramny and Nederland. Italy has understood it but is using the refugees crisis to enlarge the contestation to non-euro zone countries (Visegrad group and more).

Now we have this Nato meeting coming and the abomination of Donald meeting Vlad that scares the whole neo-lberals, borgists, russian haters, warmongers.

As Nato is the real and only cement in this enlarged un-united Europe, in an epoch of accelerating change (collapse maybe) the famous Wait and see of the Brits has just muted in a slow fox-trot.

Daniel Good , Jul 9, 2018 1:45:23 PM | 18
Brits, especially the Leave voters, have no real idea what the consequences of leaving the EU are, nor do they care that much. What is uppermost in their minds is they do not want is to be in a union with "losers". Every single country on the Continent is a loser and thus the object of contempt. The only country in Europe that is not a loser (meaning they have never lost a war) is the United Kingdom of Roast Beef and God Save The Queen.

This British loser-phobia also explains the island nation's guttural hatred of Russia, which has bailed out Europe, and so by definition the Brits as well, twice, thereby taking away some of the British luster. (OK the last time around they got a bit of help from their old colonies, the Yanks, but its all the same. Yanks and Brits are the same stock.) As far as EU goes the Brits can leave, no problem. Except that what the Continent would then be faced with was an American armed camp a few miles off shore, not an appealing prospect to say the least. But the puffed up Brits do not even see this danger and would blithely fall into the arms of the mafiosi from across the pond.

b , Jul 9, 2018 2:08:45 PM | 19
Boris Johnson's resignation letter. Well written. Makes the same argument over the Checkers paper that I made above. If Johnson gets 48 back benchers on his side he could launch a vote on no-confidence against May and possibly become PM. The Conservatives in Parliament seem quite upset over all of this.
Peter AU 1 , Jul 9, 2018 2:10:07 PM | 20
@18

Brexit is rebellion against the US imposed world order. London money has gone along and profited from the US imposed order, but the ordinary Brits may not have. They may not know where they are going, but they do know where they do not want to be.

dh , Jul 9, 2018 2:44:44 PM | 22
@20 Not sure who qualifies as an 'ordinary Brit' these days. They come in all shapes and colours. I think the ones who moved to Spain are fairly happy with the EU status quo.
psychohistorian , Jul 9, 2018 2:48:42 PM | 23
Thanks for the posting b

I liked the "We are headed for the status of a colony" comment in the Johnson resignation letter

Getting the puppets to talk about the machinations of empire is a good thing for us but probably not good long term for empire.

No one ever said that evolving to a multi-polar world would be easy. All the ugly that kept the unipolar world together must be exposed as it dies.

ninel , Jul 9, 2018 3:11:03 PM | 29
Allow me to enlighten.

Dominic Raab is the new UK Brexit point-man. The previous guy, Davies, just resigned. But Raab's appointment, I think, points to what Brexit has been about all along -- namely, labour market reform beyond the rest of Europe, and to do this the UK must be free of the European Human Rights council and other protections it provides for workers in the member states.

Here is Raab's 2011 paper on employment standards and Brexit. https://leftfootforward.org/2011/11/dominic-raab-attack-on-workers-rights-based-on-no-evidence/ Have a look.

james , Jul 9, 2018 3:12:22 PM | 30
@23 psychohistorian... ditto... status of colony... isn't that what the globalists, corporations, neo liberals and etc want? get rid of any national identity as it gets in the way of corporations having the freedom to rape and pillage as needed..

it was interesting reading near the end of bjs comments "Over the last few months they have shown how many friends this country has around the world, as 28 governments expelled Russian spies in an unprecedented protest at the attempted assassination of the Skripals." Guilty first - we will prove it later... maybe he really ought to consider rule from Brussels or where ever, if he can't fathom the concept of innocent until proven guilty...

NotBob , Jul 9, 2018 3:42:22 PM | 35
Al-Pol @ 15

The French populace rejected the EU Constitution in 2005 during the Chirac years, and you are correct that after some changes it was accepted under the Sarkozy government.But that happened because it was the Assembly (the parliament, i.e., the political class) that voted on it, not the people. Can't have those deplorable citizens deciding important matters like that, now can we?

Pft , Jul 9, 2018 5:48:32 PM | 51
According to this the EU was a US/CIA creation. Lol? https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-03/european-union-was-american-idea
james , Jul 9, 2018 5:59:35 PM | 52
@51 pft... in so far as the cia work for the financial complex - yeah, probably.. how to create a currency - the eu - that no one has any real control over, to compete with the us$ and yen... makes sense on that level..
Piotr Berman , Jul 9, 2018 6:37:17 PM | 53
@Babyl-on | Jul 9, 2018 12:24:52 PM | 5

Western civilization is based on the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment and all its ideas ...

When we discuss ALL ideas of the Enlightenment, we must remember this:

Wikipedia: "Enlightened absolutism is the theme of an essay by Frederick the Great, who ruled Prussia from 1740 to 1786, defending this system of government.[1]

When the prominent French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire fell out of favor in France, he eagerly accepted Frederick's invitation to live at his palace. He believed that an enlightened monarchy was the only real way for society to advance.

Frederick the Great was an enthusiast of French ideas. Frederick explained: "My principal occupation is to combat ignorance and prejudice ..."

In relatively short time, the List of enlightened despots included almost all absolute monarchs in Europe.

Piotr Berman , Jul 9, 2018 6:37:17 PM | 53 somebody , Jul 9, 2018 6:38:22 PM | 54
51 Much better summary on the CIA and the EU here .

From 2016

The awful truth for the Leave campaign is that the governing establishment of the entire Western world views Brexit as strategic vandalism. Whether fair or not, Brexiteers must answer this reproach. A few such as Lord Owen grasp the scale of the problem. Most seemed blithely unaware until Mr Obama blew into town last week.

And then came Trump - pro Brexit

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has come out in support of Brexit, saying the UK would be "better off" outside of the European Union and lamenting the consequences of migration in the continent.

The billionaire, who secured the backing of Republican voters on a staunchly anti-immigration platform, said that his support for the UK leaving the EU was a personal belief and not a "recommendation".

"I think the migration has been a horrible thing for Europe," Trump told Fox News late on Thursday. "A lot of that was pushed by the EU. I would say that they're better off without it, personally, but I'm not making that as a recommendation. Just my feeling."

And very anti-Merkel

Donald Trump accuses Angela Merkel of making 'catastrophic mistake' on refugees. President-elect tells The Times and Bild that EU has become 'a vehicle for Germany'.

US President-elect Donald Trump said in a newspaper interview published on Sunday that German Chancellor Angela Merkel had made a "catastrophic mistake" with a policy that let a wave of more than one million migrants into her country.

In a joint interview with The Times and the German newspaper Bild, Trump also said the European Union had become "a vehicle for Germany" and predicted that more EU member states would vote to leave the bloc as Britain did last June.

"I think she made one very catastrophic mistake, and that was taking all of these illegals," Trump said of Merkel, who in August 2015 decided to keep Germany's borders open for refugees, mostly Muslims, fleeing war zones in the Middle East.

Trump has reversed some 70 years of US strategy to gain nothing. It is quite remarkable. Strategic vandalism is a good description.

Ninel , Jul 9, 2018 6:47:54 PM | 55
Even when the 'light' (read truth about Brexit) is revealed, many here choose to ignore it out of sheer ignorance. For a good description of the MOA comment section, one should consult Plato's Allegory of the Cave. And the 'left' blames external elements for its inaptitude and demise when many it has only itself to blame.
Pft , Jul 9, 2018 7:27:36 PM | 56
Somebody@54

Good link, thanks

The thing about UK and the EU is the UK is basically the US 51st state and the US is a defacto commonwealth nation. The colonization of Europe by the US was never meant to encompass the UK and the City. As they are basically one and the same. Its presence in the EU was never really a problem though and was useful in terms of providing a guiding hand, so long as it remained free of the Eurozone. So I am not really sure its a change in strategy. Just another fork in the road.

It remains to be seen how it all works out. Perhaps the UK Brexit is meant to send a message to the other EU states as to the consequences of leaving. One benefit to the US neoliberals might be that UK scraps or at least scales back its NHS due to the economic consequences of a hard Brexit. The 0.1% will be fine at the end of the day and they are the only group that matters . The rest are just pawns on the board.

As for Germany. Immigration in the EU was all about divide and rule and leaving fewer Euros for social programs. All part of the neoliberal blueprint. Divide and rule is an age old tactic perfected by the British to rule the colonies. The EU and Germany being controlled by the Anglo-American ruling elite , and basically occipied by US controlled NATO opened the doors. Reversing this immigration can provide a plausible reason for more terrorism in Europe to empower the EU to become more of a security-police state like US and UK.

On a side note its interesting the head of the ECB and BOE are both former Goldman Sachs employees.

Another related link suggesting the EU also serves a purpose of isolating Russia economically.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-the-european-union-part-of-americas-imperial-project/5536396

uncle tungsten , Jul 9, 2018 7:48:18 PM | 57
@Pft 51

EU could not possibly have been a US/CIA idea as it actually works. Yes it is undemocratic, usurps national aspirations, perverts local economies, coddles oligarchs, and all that. But that does not mean it is a US idea.

Zero Hedge is polishing turds now it seems.

Single union political aspirations have been around for centuries and in many countries. Dare I suggest that it is actually based on the Soviet Union of peoples and most likely a Leninist or Trotskyist plot!! :))))

Peter AU 1 , Jul 9, 2018 7:57:17 PM | 59
The Marshal Plan Copy and past from the linked page.

"The Marshall Plan also established the creation of the Organization for European economic cooperation. It did this in a number of ways:

  • promote co-operation between participating countries and their national production programmes for the reconstruction of Europe,
  • develop intra-European trade by reducing tariffs and other barriers to the expansion of trade,
  • study the feasibility of creating a customs union or free trade area,
  • study multi-lateralisation of payments, and
  • Achieve conditions for better utilisation of labour.

It was arguably through this persistent interlinking of many European countries economic affairs that to not cooperate would simply be too risky.

This provided the basis for European cooperation and this was favoured by many people because cooperation was seen as a fundamental building block in the establishment of long term European Peace."

bevin , Jul 9, 2018 9:25:30 PM | 61

@Piotr Berman@53

"In relatively short time, the List of enlightened despots included almost all absolute monarchs in Europe."

You are right, and that included Catherine the Great for whom Samuel Bentham worked for some years. His brother Jeremy spent some time with him there and was a great admirer of Catherine and Potemkin. He was a key figure in the development of liberal ideology and political economy.

'The Enlightenment' is an historical concept which obscures more than it explains. To suggest that representative democracy's origins lie in this nebulous thing is completely misleading -- the truth is that democracy is as old as community. If anything 'The Enlightenment' movements are the beginning of the current system whereby the trappings of popular government are hung on the reality of a kleptocrats' oligarchy.

Daniel , Jul 9, 2018 9:33:58 PM | 62
Re. Australia: Have you read JOHN PILGER ON A HIDDEN HISTORY OF WOMEN WHO ROSE UP "?" I love that guy even more now.
Daniel , Jul 9, 2018 9:37:25 PM | 63
Just in time for Emperor Trump's arrival in Britain! I do not understand Great Britain's "democracy," (the very concept of an aristocratic House of Lords Peerage makes my head explode... and what's this about the Monarch having the authority to appoint a Prime Minister if he/she doesn't like the one selected?). But doesn't the party with the majority get to anoint the Prime Minister? Wouldn't that be Labour right now if Missy May is shown the door?
Bevin Kacon , Jul 9, 2018 9:45:25 PM | 64
Furthermore, the assertion that the UK will stay in the EU is entirely plausible. I heard, early in the days after the vote, that the govt had not expected it to go the way it did. Plans were made for a show of Brexit but that 'the idea is that everything stays the same' , i.e., no change. Sadly for the UK, the EU will not allow that to happen. In all probability, another vote will indeed be called. Otherwise, it's going to be a disaster for an already divided UK for many, many years to come!

The main problem with Brexit is that it is so complex that neither the officials who were set the task of drafting it knew little more than the Ministers themselves! NOBODY knew what the fuck to do! And they still don't!

There is every chance a Vote of No Confidence is going to be called on May's government and she will finally fall, as she must as she is the most inept PM there has probably ever been!

Bevin Kacon , Jul 9, 2018 9:48:27 PM | 65
@63 Daniel

No, the Tories will still stay in power. A General Election would have to be called and I cannot see May's successor being that brave. Or stupid!

Daniel , Jul 9, 2018 9:54:28 PM | 66
What do the City of London, the Vatican and Washington DC have in common? Actually, Jerusalem shares many of the same traits. Bonus points for the most creative euphemism for "usurious bank."

Are terms such as "The Five Eyes" and "The AZ Empire" 'trumped' by all this nationalistic furor?

From my perspective, Nation-States have not been the loci of power for some time (if they ever really were). The US, with its awesome military might and (former) industrial capabilities has served as the enforcement arm of that usurious supra-national cabal throughout "the American Century."

But really, does anyone here really believe that a New York City conman or the latest British "mophead" is more powerful than the dynastic power of the Rothschilds, Warburgs or Morgans... or even the nouveau riche like the Rockefellers or Carnegies?

These are dynasties so wealthy and powerful that they don't even appear on Forbes lists of "The Richest" and no one dare mention their names when plotting the next global conflagration.

Daniel , Jul 9, 2018 10:20:56 PM | 67
Since David Cameron used Jimmy Cliff's " You Can Get It If You Really Want " for his campaign, Afshin Rattansi's interview with that truly revolutionary artist is not so off topic. And it's well worth 12 minutes to enter a worldview we Westerners rarely live.

I and I say "Ja Mon!"

OK. I can't post Jimmy without " The Harder They Come, " especially as that seems to be the root of most of the comments here.

imo , Jul 9, 2018 10:28:10 PM | 68
@33 -- "...and Western Australia were separate British colonies that all began as penal settlement."

Not entirely correct. Western Australia started as a capitalist investment venture (c. 1828) but suffered chronic labor shortages as slavery was closed down (c. 1833). The colony then resorted to convict imports for a time. Much of the myth about 'criminal' can be re-framed as political prisoners such as the Welsh Chartists (see Chartism in Wales).

Kalen , Jul 9, 2018 11:49:40 PM | 69
One can only be confused if one ignores public and secret reasons while Cameron threatened Brexit vote already in 2015 and went through it in 2016. Officially it was about antiterrorism, security and hence controlling immigration flagship of Tory political campaign that brought them overwhelming electoral win as well as some noises that EU rules and laws stifle economic development and the British lose more in EU payments than they gain.

Obtainimg strong mandate Cameron went to Brussels to supposedly negotiate better deal with EU ESPECIALLY for security while in fact he went there trying to bully the shape future EU integration especially in political realm and even more in realm of banking Union and integration and coordination of banking rules, laws and unified controlling authorities, via threatening Brexit which would be a deadly blow to EU propaganda glue that holds together this melting pot of divided as never before nations and never since medieval times united national elites integrated in EU ruling bureaucracy.

What Cameron was scared of as far as direction of future of EU?

First it was devastating impact of further EU integration on UK banking as London has become legal under U.K. law illegal in EU, money laundering capital of the world and criminal income is huge part of the revenue of the City , US is second.

And second point is future of British monarchy which further integration of EU into superstate would require to be abandoned in UK as elsewhere as states were to loose all even symbolic sovereignty and turn into regions and provinces as in Roman Empire . Needles to say that UK still powerful landed aristocracy want nothing of that sort.

Hence Cameron went to Brussels make special deal for UK and was essentially, with some meaningless cosmetic changes, rebuked into binary decision in EU or out of it no special deal and hence he escalated with calling Brexit vote as a negotiating tool only to increase political pressure to rig elections toward remain if deal reached . In fact as latest scandal revealed results of exit polls were released to stock market betting hedge funds just minutes before polls were closed concluding guess what, that remain campaign won while electoral data in hours showed Brexiters wining simply because to the last moment before closing polls they expected EU to cave in, they did not so they continued pressure by closing openly pro Brexit win.

The pressure continues now while Cameron had to pay political price as he openly advocated staying in EU under phony deal even Tory did not buy, and hence this seeming chaos now fooling people that there is other way but hard Brexit to keep monarchy sovereignty and profits from global money laundering or surrender and humiliation degradation U.K. into EU colony as BJ just said.

Of course which way it goes ordinary Brits will pay but also big crack will widen in EU as national movements will have impact of shattering dreams of quit ascending to EU superstate.

Penelope , Jul 10, 2018 12:35:31 AM | 70
At the passage of Brexit I believed the purpose to be to allow the City of London (the bankers) unlimited financial freedom, perhaps especially in their entering into agreements with the Chinese. This could not be the case under the original EU rules. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

The Chinese, as they are intended to be the regional governor of Asia under the evolving global governance are key to the entire tyrannical plan. The AGW hoax, paid for by Western oligarchs, is the public relations for the UN's Agenda 21, currently being enforced at the local level in many parts of the US.

The Chinese oligarchs are so delighted with its tyrannical land-use provisions that they are actually calling their projects "China's Agenda 21". You may search for it.

http://osnetdaily.com/2014/03/agenda-21-rockefeller-builds-human-settlement-zones-in-connecticut/ Exc introductory summary.

Corbett Report interview of Rosa Koire https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7T7ulzNG7o

ben , Jul 10, 2018 1:02:19 AM | 71
@ 62: Thanks for the Pilger article, a good read. There are many today, who would return us all to those days.
Herman J Kweeblefezer , Jul 10, 2018 1:05:09 AM | 72
The reality of the brexit which the Tory government is determined to raiload through has been designed by elites to better oppress the hoi polloi and to sell it to the masses it has been marketed as a means of restoring 'white power'. Bevin & co can whine on about the injustices of the eu for as long as their theoretical view of the world sustains them, but the brexit which will be delivered is based on 'pragmatic realism' developed by a really nasty gang of avaricious lying c**tfaces and will create a society far more unjust, divided and impoverished than the one that currently exists.

That is really saying something because the current version of the UK is one of the sickest, greed is good and devil take the hindmost societies I have ever experienced -- up there with contemporary israel and the US, 1980's South Africa and by the sound of it (didn't experience it firsthand like the other examples, all down to not existing at the time) 1940's Germany.

Jezza was great in the house last night but he didn't call for an immediate general election which would be pretty much SOP for any opposition facing as tattered a government (Seven cabinet 'resignations') as bereft of ideas as the Maybot machine.

The reason he didn't - couldn't in fact, is that the UK left is as divided and dug into their positions as that tory bunch of bastards. Far too many opposition politicians insist that a 'deal' on brexit comes first ahead of sorting out poverty and homelessness, woeful education outcomes (unless you believe wildly juked stats) and the horror show that has been created by three decades of relentless attacks on the health service.

We see it here from the brexiters so convinced of the rightness of their cause they ignore the institutionalised racism that will certainly follow a tory brexit. Or the remoaners who also ignore the unsavory aspects of eu policy to try and render the labour left impotent. Those latter types simply don't give a damn about anything which flows from this debate and division other than killing momentum, they consider even losing the next 5 elections to tories an agreeable sacrifice for ridding the party of Corbyn and co.

Corbyn has recognized the destructive divisiveness of Brexit and tries to ignore it because he holds with fixing the mess so many people are in as being much more important than theoretical arguments which will change nothing for the better regardless of impassioned exhortations by ninnies on both sides of the argument.

The thing which really pisses me off about the lefty brexiters, is that they behave as if it is a now or never situation, when it is anything but. There is nothing to prevent a more united Labour Party who have got their mandate by actually delivering a better life for people rather than irrelevant concepts, returning to sorting out the UK's position in the EU at a later date, ideally at a time when the EU's intransigent support for corporate welfare has run bang smack into a leftist UK Labour government's determination to restore public ownership of natural monopolies (rail, water, power, mail delivery etc).

The lefty brexiters claim the lefty remainers won't allow it, while the lefty remainers claim it is the lefty brexiters clogging the works. In fact it is both gangs of selfish egotistical assholes.

Al-Pol , Jul 10, 2018 1:54:09 AM | 73
NotBob @ 35.
The EU Constitution never happened. The Lisbon Treaty came along a couple of years later and this time round the Irish people voted against it. It got amended and the Irish people accepted it. The French and Dutch (and every other EU) country chose not to "ask the people" and left the decision to the peoples' chosen represtentatives.

The Irish Constitution has a bit in it making it necessary to ask the people before any changes can be made to that Constitution, so every time the EU adds some bits to the EU Treaty that require the Irish to change their own Constitution there's trouble, as those 3 million or so Irish people have the power to scupper anything and everything for the other 500 million EU citizens. Holding a national referendum to make decisions affecting the entire Union doesn't seem to be either fair or democratic. A single EU-wide referendum could be held when there's a major change to the Treaties.

Peter AU 1 , Jul 10, 2018 3:31:38 AM | 75
imo 68

Political correctness is a social disease very similar to syphilis - it fucks with the brain. You really should take precautions if socializing in those circles. Precautionary measures are available at all chemists and most public toilets.

Peter AU 1 , Jul 10, 2018 4:24:50 AM | 76
Correction to my post @75
Should have read - Political/ideological correctness is....
Peter AU 1 , Jul 10, 2018 4:50:46 AM | 77
I click on MoA now and see a pic of Boris the clown hanging from a rope. If the Brits were smart, they would connect that rope to a weather balloon and allow Boris to ascend to the stratosphere and cruise the jet stream.
paul , Jul 10, 2018 4:55:55 AM | 79
The EU is first and foremost a massive attack on democracy. At the same time it attempts to establish technocracy as the mode of government of the future. But right only racists and overly idealistic assholes oppose the EU...
somebody , Jul 10, 2018 5:24:13 AM | 80
Posted by: paul | Jul 10, 2018 4:55:55 AM | 79

"Democracy" only being possible locally? Numbers I posted on another thread:

Members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - population of 3 Billion+

You think EU countries have got a competitive chance if on their own? Or - democracy in Switzerland enables them to decide on their relations with the outside world? Like not being part of the "single market" - they are -including free movement of people - yes you can live and work in Switzerland if you are a EU citizen.

But right only racists and overly idealistic assholes oppose the EU

Maybe because it is a stupid idea?

Mark2 , Jul 10, 2018 5:32:30 AM | 81
Brexit is nether the problem or the solution, it was just another distraction to keep the mass occupied, whilst they assist stripped the uk and a large part of the world! The people we are scared to mention are the true people killing and oppressing us. I thank Daniel@66 for naming them ! Rothchild family ect ect I would add the Rothermere family and Murdoch ! Politics are debated, but history is made on the streets. We need to regain our sense of moral outrage (where did that go ?) there are 70 million displaced people in the world ! It could be. You or I next !
ADKC , Jul 10, 2018 5:33:44 AM | 82
Peter AU 1 @75

I don't read imo@68 as politically/ideologically correct but as a statement of fact. As far as I can see, imo didn't deserve your response.

Peter AU 1 , Jul 10, 2018 5:37:18 AM | 83
ADKC
Well that's tough shit isn't it.
ADKC , Jul 10, 2018 5:46:23 AM | 84
Peter AU 1 @83

Ignoring imo's 'feelings' what is wrong/objectionable about his posting @68?

Jen , Jul 10, 2018 5:56:25 AM | 85
Peter AU 1 @ 83: I agree with ADKC and IMO. There were convicts transported to the Australian colonies whose crimes can be considered political crimes. The Tolpuddle Martyrs who came to the Sydney colony in the 1830s are one example: they were transported for the crime of demanding an extension of voting rights to all men, among other demands. Such convicts were a small minority though.
Alan , Jul 10, 2018 6:37:23 AM | 88
@b

Boris Johnson is no clown. You should look beyond the (carefully crafted) popular image and see the dangerous fascist lurking in plain sight.

somebody , Jul 10, 2018 6:41:49 AM | 89
Posted by: Pft | Jul 9, 2018 7:27:36 PM | 56

As for Germany. Immigration in the EU was all about divide and rule and leaving fewer Euros for social programs.

"The demonization of Muslim immigration to the EU ...." - fixed it for you.

The stuff about leaving fewer euros for social programmes is propaganda. Social programmes are designed to force people to work - they are pegged below the minimum wage.

In the case of Germany costs for refugees were accounted to the 0.7 percent of GDP Germany is supposed to spend for development aid by the UN, thereby effectively developing Germany instead.

Mark2 , Jul 10, 2018 7:23:05 AM | 90
Alan @ 88
I am in total agreement with you on your comment regarding Boris Johnson ! His childish buffoonery, is a commen system / tactic of a psychopath . It hides a callous disregard for human life , wins gullible friends which the psychopath manipulates to exploit there power and influence! They are very good at scheming there own self interested plan. But (and here's the crunch ) are totally useless at for seeing the consequences of there actions . And no regard for the victim of there actions!!! Do we want that in charge of the nuclear button ?
Mark2 , Jul 10, 2018 7:49:20 AM | 92
Google ---Boris Johnson grenfail tower
ADKC , Jul 10, 2018 8:19:01 AM | 97
Somebody @65

There is nothing wrong/inconsistent with the idea of an interconnected world of sovereign (independent) states. The idea that a treaty or a trade agreement means that a state is no-longer independent is ridiculous. As ridiculous as believing that an individual who purchases a pack of polo mints is no longer free because of the need of a local shop and a manufacturer.

You are basically pushing the idea that there should be no nation states, no borders and all trade free and therefore no need for treaties. From this comes no regulation, a poisoned environment, uncontrolled and rapacious capitalism, no rights for people, no benefits, no protection, just work til' you die and polished off sharpish if you are no longer productive.

I don't object to an EU as a grouping of independent states acting collectively. I do object to an EU that erodes and undermines the nation state, that seeks to remove state leaders and interfere in state elections/policies. The EU that we have is the latter and there is no practical way to reform it to the former.

Stubbs , Jul 10, 2018 8:22:30 AM | 98
@ B. You have too high an opinion of the competence of the main political figures in the UK Governing Party.

Boris Johnson has never been a serious contender for PM. He's good at giving a rousing speech to the Party faithful but that's it. The blue rinses enjoy the titillation of his infidelities but they don't want someone so amoral coming anywhere near their daughters, or representing their principles.

You knew Theresa May had no judgment the first day of her premiership, when she made BoJo her Foreign Secretary. A selection that could kindly be described as risible. He indicated no suitability for the role before his appointment nor has since. Quite the opposite. It was at that decision you knew all was hopeless. Brexit was going to be hopeless. Everything she was going to be involved in was hopeless.

And so it has proved.

The vox pop that I encounter ..... the Remainers are reconciled to Brexit and just want to get on with it. The Brexiteers are sick to death with hearing about it but not seeing anything done. Everyone had made their minds up before the election in 2015. The Referendum campaign was a few weeks of premium entertainment watching the most reviled political figures in the land trying to tear each others' throats out.

Every brexiteer I've asked why they voted for out, begins by saying "For once they had to listen to us" and that's usually followed by "there's too many people here" or "it's the E.Europeans". (My response to the europhiles is that you knew the EU was finished a dozen years ago, when all the Big Issue sellers turned into Romanian women.) UK cities are thick with destitute E.Europeans.

There's a huge disconnect between Parliament (+ media) and the people. A further example of this is the official narrative on the Salisbury poisonings. Ask people in the street and they say "yeah, it was Vlad with the doorknob" and then they crease up laughing. The Govt has no credibility with its "only plausible explanation".

My prediction, since the day BoJo was appointed minister for the exterior, is that the situation is so catastrophic the EU will have to lead us by the hand through the process of brexit. The EU's priority will be the stability of the Euro. They won't want us beggared on their doorstep and as they export 15% of their stuff to us they'll want to keep on doing that. We'll have to have what we're given and be grateful.

The political situation in the UK is so far beyond surreal that a man dragging a piano with a dead horse on it would appear mundane.

Willy2 , Jul 10, 2018 8:28:30 AM | 99
- It doesn't matter who the prime minister is. The UK has already adopted A LOT OF EU regulations/laws and that will make it nearly impossible to perform a "Hard Brexit". The UK still exports A LOT OF stuff to the Eurozone and then it simply has to follow EU regulations, no matter what the opinion of the government is. In that regard, the current EU regulation simply provides a good framework, even for the UK. No matter what one Mrs. May or Mr. Johnson.

- As time goes by the UK can change parts of the EU regulations to what the UK thinks those regulations should be.

- And do I think that Mrs. May and her ministers have drawn that same conclusion.

[Jul 09, 2018] We Are Headed For The Status Of A Colony Boris Johnson's Full Resignation Letter Zero Hedge

Jul 09, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

"We Are Headed For The Status Of A Colony": Boris Johnson's Full Resignation Letter

by Tyler Durden Mon, 07/09/2018 - 17:01 89 SHARES

The much anticipated resignation letter penned by the former UK Foreign Minister Boris Johnson has been released, and in as expected, he does not mince his words in unleashing a brutal attack on Thersa May, warning that "we have postponed crucial decisions -- including the preparations for no deal, as I argued in my letter to you of last November -- with the result that we appear to be heading for a semi-Brexit, with large parts of the economy still locked in the EU system, but with no UK control over that system ."

He then adds that while "Brexit should be about opportunity and hope" and "a chance to do things differently, to be more nimble and dynamic, and to maximise the particular advantages of the UK as an open, outward-looking global economy", he warns that the " dream is dying, suffocated by needless self-doubt. "

He then compares May's proposal to a submission even before it has been received by the EU, noting that "what is even more disturbing is that this is our opening bid. This is already how we see the end state for the UK -- before the other side has made its counter-offer . It is as though we are sending our vanguard into battle with the white flags fluttering above them."

And his punchline: the UK is headed for the status of a colony:

In that respect we are truly headed for the status of colony -- and many will struggle to see the economic or political advantages of that particular arrangement

Explaining his decision to resing, he then says that "we must have collective responsibility. Since I cannot in all conscience champion these proposals, I have sadly concluded that I must go."

It remains to be seen if his passionate defense of Brexit will stir enough MPs to indicate they are willing to back a vote of no confidence, and overthrow Theresa May in what would be effectively a coup, resulting in new elections and chaos for the Brexit process going forward.

Meanwhile, as Bloomberg adds, the fact that Boris Johnson, or those around him, made sure his resignation statement came out in time for the evening news - before it was formally issued in the traditional way by May's office, hints at his continued interest in leading the Conservative Party.

His full letter is below (highlights ours):

Dear Theresa,

It is more than two years since the British people voted to leave the European Union on an unambiguous and categorical promise that if they did so they would be taking back control of their democracy.

They were told that they would be able to manage their own immigration policy, repatriate the sums of UK cash currently spent by the EU, and, above all, that they would be able to pass laws independently and in the interests of the people of this country.

Brexit should be about opportunity and hope. It should be a chance to do things differently, to be more nimble and dynamic, and to maximise the particular advantages of the UK as an open, outward-looking global economy.

That dream is dying, suffocated by needless self-doubt.

We have postponed crucial decisions -- including the preparations for no deal, as I argued in my letter to you of last November -- with the result that we appear to be heading for a semi-Brexit, with large parts of the economy still locked in the EU system, but with no UK control over that system.

It now seems that the opening bid of our negotiations involves accepting that we are not actually going to be able to make our own laws. Indeed we seem to have gone backwards since the last Chequers meeting in February, when I described my frustrations, as Mayor of London, in trying to protect cyclists from juggernauts. We had wanted to lower the cabin windows to improve visibility; and even though such designs were already on the market, and even though there had been a horrific spate of deaths, mainly of female cyclists, we were told that we had to wait for the EU to legislate on the matter.

So at the previous Chequers session we thrashed out an elaborate procedure for divergence from EU rules. But even that now seems to have been taken off the table, and there is in fact no easy UK right of initiative. Yet if Brexit is to mean anything, it must surely give Ministers and Parliament the chance to do things differently to protect the public. If a country cannot pass a law to save the lives of female cyclists -- when that proposal is supported at every level of UK Government -- then I don't see how that country can truly be called independent.

Conversely, the British Government has spent decades arguing against this or that EU directive, on the grounds that it was too burdensome or ill-thought out. We are now in the ludicrous position of asserting that we must accept huge amounts of precisely such EU law, without changing an iota, because it is essential for our economic health -- and when we no longer have any ability to influence these laws as they are made.

In that respect we are truly headed for the status of colony -- and many will struggle to see the economic or political advantages of that particular arrangement.

It is also clear that by surrendering control over our rulebook for goods and agrifoods (and much else besides) we will make it much more difficult to do free trade deals. And then there is the further impediment of having to argue for an impractical and undeliverable customs arrangement unlike any other in existence.

What is even more disturbing is that this is our opening bid. This is already how we see the end state for the UK -- before the other side has made its counter-offer. It is as though we are sending our vanguard into battle with the white flags fluttering above them. Indeed, I was concerned, looking at Friday's document, that there might be further concessions on immigration, or that we might end up effectively paying for access to the single market.

On Friday I acknowledged that my side of the argument were too few to prevail, and congratulated you on at least reaching a Cabinet decision on the way forward. As I said then, the Government now has a song to sing. The trouble is that I have practised the words over the weekend and find that they stick in the throat.

We must have collective responsibility. Since I cannot in all conscience champion these proposals, I have sadly concluded that I must go.

I am proud to have served as Foreign Secretary in your Government. As I step down, I would like first to thank the patient officers of the Metropolitan Police who have looked after me and my family, at times in demanding circumstances.
I am proud too of the extraordinary men and women of our diplomatic service. Over the last few months they have shown how many friends this country has around the world, as 28 governments expelled Russian spies in an unprecedented protest at the attempted assassination of the Skripals. They have organised a highly successful Commonwealth summit and secured record international support for this Government's campaign for 12 years of quality education for every girl, and much more besides. As I leave office, the FCO now has the largest and by far the most effective diplomatic network of any country in Europe -- a continent which we will never leave.

[Jul 09, 2018] Israeli T-Shirts Joke About Killing Arabs - CBS News

Notable quotes:
"... Israeli soldiers wore T-shirts with a pregnant woman in cross-hairs and the slogan "1 Shot 2 Kills," adding to a growing furor in the country over allegations of misconduct by troops during the Gaza war. ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.cbsnews.com

In this photo taken March 16, 2009, an Israeli model poses with a T-shirt with Hebrew that reads "Sniper platoon" in Tel Aviv. Israel's military on Monday, March 23, 2009, condemned T-shirts worn by soldiers that depict scenes of violence against Palestinians as the army faces increasing domestic criticism over its conduct during the recent Gaza war. (AP Photo/ Yanai Yechiel) AP Photo/ Yanai Yechiel
Israeli soldiers wore T-shirts with a pregnant woman in cross-hairs and the slogan "1 Shot 2 Kills," adding to a growing furor in the country over allegations of misconduct by troops during the Gaza war.

"The smaller they are, the harder it is," says another shirt showing a child in a rifle sight. Soldiers wore the shirts to mark the end of basic training and other military courses and they were first reported by the Haaretz daily .

The military condemned the soldiers involved, but it was not immediately clear how many wore the shirts. They were not manufactured or sanctioned by the military and appear not to have been widely distributed.

The shirts "are not in accordance with IDF values and are simply tasteless," the military said in a statement. "This type of humor is unbecoming and should be condemned." The army said it would not tolerate such behavior and would take disciplinary action against the soldiers involved.

Haaretz showed pictures of five shirts and said they were made at the unit level - indicating that they were made for small numbers of troops, perhaps several dozen, at a time. It said they were worn by an unknown number of enlisted men in different units. The Tel Aviv factory that made many of the shirts, Adiv, refused to comment.

Some of the shirts had blatant sexual messages. One battalion had a shirt made of a soldier standing next to a young woman with bruises, with the slogan, "Bet you got raped!" according to Haaretz.

Others featured the phrase "Confirming the kill," a reference to the shooting an enemy in the head from close range to ensure he is dead, a practice that the IDF denies.

Israel's military has come under increasing scrutiny after unidentified soldiers alleged that some troops opened fire hastily and killed Palestinian civilians during the Gaza war several months ago, including children, possibly because they believed they would not be held accountable under relaxed open-fire regulations. The military has ordered a criminal inquiry into soldiers accounts published in a military institute's newsletter.

On Monday, the military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, defended his troops.

"I tell you that this is a moral and ideological army. I have no doubt that exceptional events will be dealt with," Ashkenazi told new recruits. Gaza "is a complex atmosphere that includes civilians, and we took every measure possible to reduce harm to the innocent."

Palestinians too have glorified attacks on Israelis in the past. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas-controlled media consistently send messages that Jews cannot be trusted and that Israel is a bloodthirsty, militaristic state eager to seize Palestinian land and slaughter Palestinian children.

The three-week Gaza offensive, launched to end years of rocket fire at Israeli towns, ended on Jan. 18. According to Palestinian officials, around 1,400 Palestinians were killed, most of them civilians. Thirteen Israelis died, three of them civilians.

  1. Tyrion 2 says: • Website July 4, 2018 at 7:59 am GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz As a matter of interest do you know the history -- provenance of those photographs? It couldn't be easier to fake both and there are possibly more people wishing to do harm to Israel's image than there are abysmally crude savages like those portrayed. One of the girls looks more likely to be East or South East Asian than any of the usual strains of Israeli but, in reality, there is no reason to suppose they knew that what they were holding up said what you say it says. Can you read it yourself or do you take the translation on trust as they may have? Reverse image search tells me that both photographs are legitimate.

    The first is passed off as purposefully gross military graduation humour. The whole idea was to make them as offensive as possible. My English school graduation book was somehow much worse than those t-shirts and it even caused a similar scandal. It was, however, indicative of nothing as regards the underlying culture of the school, which was great.

    The second is an airhead reaction to the killing of 3 Israeli boys. It is only non-typical of intercommunal violence in that the girls are pretty.

    Obviously, were I in charge, I'd throw the book at both for adding fuel to the fire. Nonetheless, these behaviours are seen as comments to every single article on Unz.com. They almost always target Jews whether the article is about Jews or not. Yet that doesn't damn the whole of America merely because most commenters are from tbere. Not to me, at least. Nor anyone sensible.

[Jul 09, 2018] The myth of Jewish "superintellegnce" as a part of Zionism set of myths

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

bj , July 4, 2018 at 10:34 pm GMT

@j2

"As this is the reason, there are twice as many Jews above some range, like 151, than non-Jewish whites, which is what Terman found. "

Jew IQ is largely a myth established by marketing and media control, starting with the Einstein brand. The myth is necessary to justify and conceal Jewish tribal nepotism as the main factor establishing dominance of a hostile elite in host nations. The question has been examined in numerous locations easily found with a search engine.

https://archive.org/stream/TheManufactureAndSaleOfSaintEinstein-ThePropagandaOfSupremacy/TheManufactureAndSaleOfSaintEinstein_djvu.txt

"If Jews are 2% of US population, that is 7 million Jews. 117,000 of them have IQs above 140.

If there are 190 million non-Hispanic Whites in America, 730,000 of them have IQs above 140."

https://greyenlightenment.com/vox-day-v-jordan-peterson-on-jewish-iq/

There are approximately six times as many white Americans with IQ above 140, as there are Jews with IQ above 140. No, Jewish intelligence does not account for their dominance in academia, media, and government. It must be Jew priviledge, not Jew IQ that justifies their right to rule the goyim.

[Jul 09, 2018] The Porkchop Express

Jul 09, 2018 | disqus.com

Michael Stojanovic 4 hours ago Maybe a few leaders (I think Pompeo may be a part of that crew, but I only faintly remember reading somewhere about his dispensationalist beliefs). But Evangelical Protestants represent anywhere from 20-30% of the US population, depending on the source. By and large, they march in lock step with Zionist Judaism on all Israeli related matters--based largely on religious affinity and "scripture."

That much of American Evangelical support for Israel is based on the premise that a unified Israel is necessary for Jesus' eventual return to Earth and the conversion of all Jews to Christianity (or eternal damnation) matters not to both the Israelis and the Borg.

What they do care about immensely is translating that religious support into political support for a whole host of ridiculous pet projects across the ME. I haven't seen any concrete numbers, but I'm sure that much of Trump's base draws significant support from the Evangelical population.

[Jul 09, 2018] Gilad Atzmon: The Cognitive Elite of Jewish History

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

RobinG , September 13, 2015 at 1:28 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz

(Sigh.) Sorry you don't notice that I'm not engaging.

Gilad Atzmon: The Cognitive Elite of Jewish History

[Jul 09, 2018] Jerusalem as a capital of Israel

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , July 4, 2018 at 7:23 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

You could help yourself by learning the real history ..I suggest the foremost historian on the subject Thomas Thompson and his ' History of Arabia'. Jerusalem was not founded by Jews, i.e. adherents of the Jewish religion. It was founded between 3000 BCE and 2600 BCE by a West Semitic people or possibly the Canaanites, the common ancestors of Palestinians, Lebanese, many Syrians and Jordanians, and many Jews. But when it was founded Jews did not exist.

Jerusalem was founded in honor of the ancient god Shalem. It does not mean City of Peace but rather 'built-up place of Shalem." The "Jewish people" were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. First of all, it is not clear when exactly Judaism as a religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE. There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 10 plagues & etc. Jews and Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside Palestine. Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent "Jewish people" in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history. Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the t