Friday, December 05, 2014

The war resolution nobody has told you about

We've been so fixated on the war at home that we've neglected the war in Ukraine and the new cold war with Russia. It seems that Ukraine has been handing out citizenship to American neocons -- a strange policy that bodes ill. From the Wall Street Journal (go here if stuck behind a paywall):
Ukraine’s parliament appointed a new, pro-Western government that includes a U.S.-born finance minister to take on the job of staving off financial collapse, overhauling the shrinking economy and ending the armed conflict in the country’s east.

The new cabinet includes Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, the chief executive of a private-equity fund and a former U.S. diplomat, as well as two other nonnatives...
Valeriy Voshchevskiy, deputy prime minister for infrastructure and ecology, said he wanted to privatize state holdings such as the railway and road-building monopolies.
Ah, yes. Because that worked so well in Russia under Yeltsin. It's pretty obvious now that the coup in Ukraine has become, in large measure, an excuse for plundering the country.

Global Research thinks that the new cold war will soon get hot:
America is on a war footing. While, a World War Three Scenario has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than ten years, military action against Russia is now contemplated at an “operational level”. Similarly, both the Senate and the House have introduced enabling legislation which provides legitimacy to the conduct of a war against Russia.

We are not dealing with a “Cold War”. None of the safeguards of the Cold War era prevail.

There has been a breakdown in East-West diplomacy coupled with extensive war propaganda. In turn the United Nations has turned a blind eye to extensive war crimes committed by the Western military alliance.

The adoption of a major piece of legislation by the US House of Representatives on December 4th (H. Res. 758) would provide (pending a vote in the Senate) a de facto green light to the US president and commander in chief to initiate –without congressional approval– a process of military confrontation with Russia.
If World War III breaks out, how will Obama break the news? Maybe he will announce: "We nuked some folks..."

Dennis Kucinich has voiced his concerns over that same resolution...
U.S.-Russia relations have deteriorated severely in the past decade and they are about to get worse, if the House passes H. Res. 758.

NATO encirclement, the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine, an attempt to use an agreement with the European Union to bring NATO into Ukraine at the Russian border, a U.S. nuclear first-strike policy, are all policies which attempt to substitute force for diplomacy.

Russia’s response to the terror unleashed by western-backed neo-nazis in Crimea and Odessa came after the local population appealed to Russia to protect them from the violence.

Russia then agreed to Crimea joining the Russian Federation, a reaffirmation of an historic relationship.

The Western press begins its narrative on the Crimea situation with the annexation, but completely ignores the provocations by the West and other causal factors which resulted in the annexation.

This distortion of reality is artificially creating an hysteria about Russian aggressiveness, another distortion which could pose an exceptionally dangerous situation for the world, if acted upon by other nations.

The U.S. Congress is responding to the distortions, not to the reality.

Similar distortions are developing now in the coverage of events in the eastern part of Ukraine, in Donetsk and Luhansk.

Tensions between Russia and the U.S. are being fueled every day by players who would benefit financially from a resumption of the Cold War which, from 1948 to 1991 cost U.S. taxpayers $20 TRILLION dollars (in 2014 dollars), an amount exceeding our $18 trillion National Debt.

With wars re-igniting in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Syria being a staging ground for an ongoing proxy war between the great powers, the U.S. treasury is being drained for military adventures, our national debt is piling up, and we are demonstrably less safe.

Tomorrow the U.S. House will debate and vote on H. Res. 758 which is tantamount to a ‘Declaration of Cold War’ against Russia, reciting a host of grievances, old and new, against Russia which represent complaints that Russia could well make against the U.S., given our nation’s most recent military actions: Violating territorial integrity, violations of international law, violations of nuclear arms agreements.

Congress’ solution? Restart the Cold War!

The resolution demands Russia to be isolated and for “the President, in consultation with Congress, to conduct a review of the force posture, readiness and responsibilities of United States Armed Forces and the forces of other members of NATO to determine if the contributions and actions of each are sufficient to meet the obligations of collective self-defense [my emphasis] under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to specify the measures needed to remedy any deficiencies…” In other words, ‘let’s get ready for war with Russia.’

This is exactly the type of sabre rattling which led to the initiation and escalation of the Cold War. It is time we demanded that the U.S. employ diplomacy, not more military expenditures, in the quest for international order.

It is time the U.S. stepped out of this expensive dialectic of conflict and seek to rebuild diplomatic relations with Russia and set aside the risky adventurism in the name of NATO.
Comments:
The argument is that Natalie Jaresko has lived in Ukraine for twenty years and has some family background there. But she went to Kiev in 1992 to head up the economics post at the newly opened US embassy. Prior to that she had been a State Dept employee. Whatever justifications are advanced her background is as a US government agent. To pretend that she can be relied upon to act against that political background is ridiculous.

And in 40 million people they can't find 3 native Ukrainians to do the job?
 
(Oops - I forgot to sign my handle. Please delete the first instance of this post! Thanks!)

I think it may get hot too. Remember what happened when two Georgian cabinet ministers were Israelis.

Did you see Putin's message to exiled oligarchs in his annual speech?

"I propose a full amnesty for capital returning to Russia. I stress, full amnesty."

...those repatriating their money into Russian banks would not face secret service and police questioning over how they accrued their wealt...

"If a person legalises his holdings and property in Russia, he will receive firm legal guarantees that he will not be summoned to various agencies, including law enforcement.

Wow! Can you imagine Fidel Castro or Xi Jinping saying that? I mean, Castro making an overture to the Cuban mob in Miami or Xi to the pro-Taipei triads in Chinatowns around the world?

(How much weight the Chinese secret service has in Triad circles abroad I don’t know – but I’d be interested to find out, because the question has major geopolitical importance.)

It could be that Putin is preparing for a major war, perhaps even as late as 2018-19 as Rory Stewart, chair of the Defence Select Committee, told the House of Commons.

A lot of the Russian mafia abroad is KGB and has been for a long time (although in those circles, the Russians are often subordinate to the ‘Russians’), but what Putin is proposing would still be an amazing bit of consolidation.

Remember Khodorkovsky is out of jail.

Other oligarchs from Russia who have been out of favour with Putin include the Zionists Nevzlin and Gusinsky.

But of course the exiled oligarchs can't just move all their assets back to Russia. Where would they invest them? Who would they push out? Putin doesn't want mafia war on the streets. US strategists do, but probably won't get it. The KGB won't let them. Putin has actually publicly addressed this issue, talking about a foreign desire to create rifts in what he charmingly calls "the elite".

(In another message in the same speech, he said the Crimea was as significant to Russia as Temple Mount is to Israel.)

The appointment of those ministers in the Ukraine really does say "fuck you" to the EU and Germany.

Looks as though it may be a tough winter in the Ukraine.
 
The way the term "Cold War" is used today! Some pundits even believe that the Fischer-Spassy match in 1972 happened at the "height of the Cold War".

So for the benefit of younger readers...

After the period of US-Soviet military alliance in the early 1940s, the Cold War ran for a short period of time between the US and its allies on one side and the USSR and its allies on the other. It started around 1947-1948. (Things to look up: British announcements regarding Greece, Turkey, India and Palestine; the Truman doctrine; Berlin; NATO; Warsaw Treaty Organisation). Its main feature was a nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR, and in particular the massive stockpiling of intercontinental ballistic missiles by those two powers in the late 1950s. It more or less ended after the peaceful resolution of the Cuban crisis in 1962. There followed weapons treaties, the rise of China, a short war between the USSR and China, Kissinger, the US pullout from Vietnam, and so on. Note that the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 didn't stop the US-Soviet strategic arms negotiations. There also followed joint activity in space (Apollo-Soyuz), under the heading of 'détente'. You can't have détente and cold war at the same time. Then there was a kind of move towards asecond cold war after SALT2 was ruined by the Jewish lobby in the US, post-Yom Kippur war. (Things to look up: Jackson-Vanick amendment.) under Reagan in the first half of the 1980s. The 'cold war' doesn't mean 'the Soviet Union'.

Got to rush out now. The above could have been better written, but gives the gist!
 
In "A Wicked War" Amy Greenberg says, on page 299, that Winfield Scott was offered the presidency of Mexico and there was talk of annexing the entire country. Maybe they would have better off. Perhaps we should annex Ukraine.
 
What do you mean, that it has become an excuse for plundering the country? Your man Yats was quite open that he had seized power because he wanted to do things no-one would vote for, namely destroy the industry that sustains the Eastern part of the country.

Odd that right-wingers are often called nationalists when they represent the interests of the trans-national and frequently consort with enemies of the nation, like those Ukrainian ministers or the EDL's fondness for Israel.
 
House Resolution 758 did pass with only ten votes against. The lunatics at the steering wheel of control are pushing the pedal to the metal for war with Russia. There is no longer diplomacy. Under Donald Rumsfeld the US cast aside its "no first strike" policy. The nuclear deterrent of MAD has long been abandoned. This has been a long time coming and Russia saw the writing on the wall. Russia has updated their nuclear ballistic and anti-ballistic missile technologies while the USA sat complacent in it's superiority. If the delusional Neocons in power push it too far then Russia will be forced to act while it still has the edge. This will not end well.
 
I've been having a difficult time recently, having a civil conversation with card carrying members of the Democratic Party. They become almost hysterical when I criticize any element of Obama's war mongering policies. Putin is like Hitler, Assad is a butcher ... yada yada: Why do I defend dictators and butchers? It takes me all the way back to 1968, when I became involved in antiwar politics as a Freshman, at a small college in the midwest. At that point Vietnam was LBJ's war and if you were opposed to it you were a dirty rotten Commie. Liberal Democrats smeared my name all over campus and town. A year later Nixon was the President and suddenly the bastards were inserting themselves into leadership of antiwar demonstrations I helped organize.

I know exactly why the turnout in the recent elections was only 36%, but the local Democrats think it's because people are stupid and brainwashed. Sometimes it makes a man just want to get stoned. I may just go full circle on this 60's thing.
 
thanks joseph for this and the many other stories you share. really appreciate your work - james
 
b, you have an astonishing grasp of history. In 1972 there wasn't a cold war, there was a hot one. It was called Viet Nam, the Jewish controlled Russians supported the Jewish controlled North while the Jewish controlled Americans supported the Jewish controlled South. The war goes back to the Jewish controlled French fighting the Jewish controlled Vietnamese. Anyway, in 1972, the rabidly anti-Semitic Bobby Fisher, someone truly simpatico to you, hated the Russians whom he accused of cheating and the Jews who controlled them. Jump to 1979 when the Jewish controlled Carter signed SALT 2 with the Jewish controlled Breznev and sent it to the Jewish controlled Senate. However, Carter withdrew the treaty in response to the Jewish controlled Russian invasion of the Jewish controlled Afghanistan. The parties nevertheless operated within the provisions of the treaty until 1986 when the Jewish controlled Reagan withdrew from the treaty accusing the Jewish controlled Russians of violating it. Jump now to the current date and we see the Jewish controlled Western Ukraine backed by Jewish controlled Western Europe and Jewish controlled America fighting with Jewish controlled Eastern Ukraine backed by Jewish controlled Russia. You have a truly dizzying intellect. Have you pickup your most recent version of the Protocols yet?
 
That "Protocols" crack was out of line, small j. (And yes, a lot what b said was out of line too, but I allow both of you a fair amount of leeway here.) But it brings up a point that I wanted to talk to you about.

Forgive me, but a rant is coming on.

As you know, I've long taken an interest in the question of who forged the Protocols. A week or so ago, I photographed a library copy of the most recent "authoritative" book on the topic, The Lie That Wouldn't Die, by an Israeli judge named Hadassa Ben-Itto, Apparently, this book is meant to replace Norman Cohn's superb "Warrant for Genocide."

No way! Cohn writes to a high academic standard. Ben-Itto does not.

No footnotes in the Ben-Itto book! Do you have any idea how IRRITATING that is to a guy like me? NO FUCKING FOOTNOTES!

Anyways, I bring up that book on this occasion because Ben-Itto goes on and on about how prevalent the Protocols is. She really seems to have the impression that many non-Jews grow up reading the thing.

I'm sorry, but that idea is just self-deluded bullshit.

I first became interested in the spot-the-forger game back in the 1970s. Naturally, my first task was to find a copy of the Protocols. It was easy to find books and articles that talked ABOUT the work, but not so easy to find an actual copy.

And by "not so easy," I mean IMPOSSIBLE. There were no copies to be found. Not in bookstores. Not in libraries. Not even in the huge main library in downtown L.A. And not even in the massive UCLA library system.

Now, UCLA DID have several books which explained why the Protocols was a hoax, but that wasn't what I sought. I wanted the actual text.

(UCLA also has copies of a related work called "The International Jew." UCLA has this memorably bizarre work both in hardbound book form -- a green cover, as I recall -- and I even saw the thing serialized in original copies of the Dearborn Independent. Now THAT was a trip.)

(Oh, and don't get me started on the way Ben-Itto treats "The International Jew." Ben-Itto calls it Henry Ford's "version" of the Protocols, which is isn't: It is an independent work which defends the reality of the Protocols, and which also talks about other things. It's all very obnoxious, but it's not a "version" of the Protocols. Ben-Itto also calls it a "brochure," which it isn't: It's a pretty sizable book. Over the course of several pages, Ben-Itto discusses this work without once mentioning the author, a remarkable rascal named Boris Brasol. Instead, she ascribes authorship to Henry Ford! As if that guy ever wrote ANYTHING!)

(You see? This is the kind of sloppy crap that passes for scholarship these days!)

PART 2 is below...
 
PART 2:

Where was I? Oh yeah. The Protocols, and its supposed wide availability.

Well, I finally found an unexpurgated copy of the Protocols in the CSUN library. Actually, the holdings of that library do not include a copy of the Protocols per se, but an unexpurgated version of the text is included in Henry Bernstein's excellent-but-rare 1935 volume "The Truth About the Protocols," which also prints (in full) the works from which the forger pilfered, including Joly's "Dialogues."

I never saw a copy of the Protocols for sale until it appeared in Milton William Cooper's crackpot classic "Behold a Pale Horse," which some people call "Behold a Pail of Horseshit." I think Cooper wanted his audience to believe that the Protocols were written by aliens or the Illuminati or Illuminated aliens. Some crap like that.

Now the thing is, even Cooper couldn't find a "freestanding" copy of the Protocols. You know how I know? Because the version published in his book was photocopied from BERNSTEIN's book, replete with Bernstein's critical footnotes!

At any rate, to this day, I have NEVER SEEN THE PROTOCOLS available for sale anywhere (with the exception of Cooper's exercise in wackiness). And as you know, I've spent a huge part of my life rummaging through used book stores. I mean, I've really looked.

In books ABOUT the hoax (such as Ben-Itto's), you can see photographs of various editions of the Protocols. That kind of photo parade can lead you to believe that the damned thing is everywhere. But it isn't.

Of course, the work finally became widely available with the advent of the internet. That's the internet for you.

So why did I write all of this? To ask a simple question: Do Jews really think that all gentiles grow up with their own personal copies of The Protocols of freakin' Zion? Because they don't. And anyone who thinks that they do is just plain NUTS. Until the internet came along, the Protocols was a non-book. It was almost a RUMOR.
 
There is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_imprints_of_The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion so you could learn Arabic. Another interesting take is this http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=159611 and the last comment "
Actually Japanese officials and intellectuals not only missed the hoax of this work, but missed the negative implications towards Jewery, becoming big fans of these financial geniuses and their well-devised schemes for global domination. The Japanese were early supporters of Zionism and even brought over some 17,000 Polish refugees (mostly peasants) in hopes of gleaning their banking expertise during WWII. Check out The Fugu Plan. The book is less than rigorous as history, but you'll get the idea." I had heard that before, but can't remember where. Anyway, the important question is not the Protocols, but the idea behind them. Thus two questions, why anti-semitism (or anti-Catholicism, anti-Islam, or anti-any religion) and why do people believe the ideas behind the Protocols?
 
small-j, you totally missed my point, as I suspected you would.

You're certainly intelligent enough to grasp what I was saying. In the final paragraph, I put my question so clearly that a child could have understood me.

But, as always happens when one discusses a "hot button" topic, reading comprehension suffers.

Well, to make my question even clearer, let's address YOUR final question: "Why do people believe the idea behind the Protocols"?

They don't. That was my point.

Nowadays, only a vanishingly tiny number of people have read the thing. And only the screwiest of the screwballs take it seriously. Don't think in terms of "millions of readers," and don't think "thousands." More like "hundreds."

In the pre-internet age (let's say, before 1995), English-speaking people did not read the Protocols because -- as I demonstrated in EXHAUSTIVE detail -- the work simply was not available.

And it surely WOULD have been available had there been a hunger for it.

Irony of ironies, had it not been for Henry Bernstein (a fine scholar who, in 1935, published all of his texts in full), the text of the Protocols might have disappeared from popular culture. When Cooper went searching for the Protocols, the only copy he could find was in Bernstein's book. He published the Bernstein pages, including Bernstein's footnotes (labeled "HB") and page numbers.

Near as I can tell, the people who placed the Protocols on the internet used Cooper as their source. And Cooper's source was Bernstein. Poor Bernstein! I don't think he realized that he was preserving the thing for use by later whackadoodles.

The only place you're likely to find the "Britons" translation of the Nilus version is in the Library of Congress. (There seems to be a copy at Johns Hopkins, although I've not seen it.)

Now, you know damned well that I am WAY beyond Wikipedia in my studies of this thing. The point I'm trying to make is this: Jewish writers have (properly) written many books and articles exposing the Protocols as a fraud. Unfortunately, these exposes convey the impression that copies of the Protocols are freakin' EVERYWHERE. They're inescapable, like ants at a picnic.

And that's simply not true.

If you're a booklover, as I am, let me ask you: Have you EVER seen a copy of the Protocols in any used book store? (I mean a "freestanding" copy, not the one included in Bill Cooper's compendium of weirdness.) I never have held in my hands a physical copy of a book version of the Protocols. Never. Not once. I've never even SEEN such a thing -- and I speak as one who has loved to visit used book stores and large libraries since 1970.

Yet, judging from Ben-Itto's work, and from your own comments, Jews seem to be under the impression that all non-Jews imbibed the Protocols with their mother's milk. You seem to think that we all grew up reading that book alongside the Brothers Grimm and Dr. Suess. "And THAT'S why they oppose what Israel is doing to the Palestinians! It's because all gentiles grew up with the Protocols! What other explanation could there be?"

People are NOT influenced by that book, small-J. You seem to WANT to think that its influence has been massive. But if you think that way, you are just being paranoid.

Yes, the Protocols had a big impact in the 1920s. But -- since then? At least in the English speaking world, it has had no purchase. Even most anti-Semites have stopped talking about it.

Neither you nor I are in a position to speak expertly about the text's influence outside the English-speaking world. You mentioned Japan. I presume that Asian cultures have their own fringes, and their own Cooper-esque nutjobs. Does the matter go any further than that?
 
I didn't miss your point. Would you agree that while their has been massive progress since 1960 in the area of race relations, nevertheless we still have a long way to go? There has been a great deal of progress in the area of religious tolerance, nevertheless we still have a way to go. Many black Americans believe that whites view them as intellectually inferior which,since there are books on the subject which are taken seriously in some quarters in true. I can't speak for all Jews, but it is apparent to ME that there is still a degree of anti-semitism in the world. In America there are those who believe that Jews control the media, the banks, and have inordinate control over the political process. There are books on the topic which are taken seriously in some quarters. That many people view Jews with distrust in business matters is beyond dispute and that we are viewed as "others" in many communities is beyond question. Thus the views underlying the Protocols, that Jews are powerful and conspiratorial is clearly a common meme. That anti-semitism is rampant in the Arab world and in Europe cannot seriously be doubted. The question, which you didn't answer, is why?
 
By the way, the Japanese comment was that the Protocols were viewed as complimentary, not derogatory, about Jews. And also, by the way, the Seeds of Doubt article is online. I was stunned to find it.
 
I DO doubt it. I don't think that anti-Semitism is a very serious problem in the modern world.

Racism, yes, THAT is a problem -- but the most common form of racism in today's world is anti-Arab. Even neo-Nazis seem to have decided to hate Muslims instead of Jews. (of course, they may change their tune yet again if they manage to stay in power in Ukraine.)

The so-called popularity of the Protocols is a myth that Jewish people tell themselves in order to "explain" the civilized world's revulsion toward Israel's racist, genocidal behavior.
 
small-j joseph - so you didn't look up the Jackson-Vanick amendment? The Jewish lobby in the US wrecked détente. Don't shoot the messenger. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 wasn't the reason for the end of SALT2; by then, it was already dead to all serious intents and purposes. I found your post hard to read, but you seem to be arguing that the war in Vietnam was still going on in 1972, therefore there was no US-Soviet detente worthy of the name. Well there was.

Vietnam wasn't ever as hairy, from a US-and-USSR-start-firing-off-intercontinental-nukes point of view, as the ICBM race of the late 1950s and early 1960s and Cuba.

It's quite important to understand such stuff to get a handle on the period we're now in, where the arms race and balance of power between the US and Russia in this Youtube 'n' Wikileaks era is understood by far fewer people - and I mean FAR fewer - than the arms race of 50-60 years ago.

The facts remain that since around 1990

a) the meaning of the term "cold war" has been changed in the west without any announcement of the change, and

b) the assumption conveyed is that from the late 1940s at the latest (or from 'always', probably, for the no doubt large proportion of people in the US who don't know what side the Soviets were on in WW2) the US were at loggerheads with the USSR - right up until the end of the Soviet regime, with a touchpaper-sensitive possibility of an outbreak of world war between the two powers all throughout that time.

b) is utter bullshit.

And if someone can't recognise the reality of a), and what it says about control over opinion, they can't be much interested in understanding what's going on in the world. Talk about 'revisionism'!

PS Next on the menu, after the Protocols, do we get General Tlass's work?
 
You are not a critic of Israel, you are a hater of Israel. Critics are willing to examine evidence and adjust their opinions. Haters, being controlled by emotion, refuse to change their opinions. Genocide is the murder, or attempted murder, of an ethnic group. To suggest Israel has attempted genocide is laughable.
 
Anti-semitism is repulsive, and in the past it played a role in the commission of appalling inhuman crimes on a very large scale. Everybody other than barking mad nutcases knows that.

But in the scale of things at the moment, Jewish racism and the difficulty in discussing it are much bigger problems in the world - as Israel Shahak and Gilad Atzmon have rightly argued.

I find it hard to take anyone who rants on about anti-Semitism without even recognising Jewish racism, let alone discussing it, seriously.

BTW small-j, have you ever wondered what proportion of people who were murdered in Nazi concentration camps were Jewish and what proportion were non-Jewish?

(Count all prisoners who died of starvation or any other reason, along with those who were gassed or otherwise 'industrially' slaughtered, as being murdered. Hardly anybody died of 'natural causes' in the Nazi camps.)

(The non-Jews weren't limited to the relatively small groups of gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. who might if they're lucky get mentioned in Hollywood. Far bigger groups were the Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and Germans.)

Have you ever wondered what proportion from Jewish backgrounds had assimilated or were otherwise trying to leave their families' religious backgrounds behind them, but found themselves unable to do so after they were captured, because of the conditions their captors imposed on them?

Shitting on how these victims and their experience deserve to be remembered, the Zionists of course don't want this question to be asked. Interesting that the Nazi criterion for 'Jewish' was very similar to the Israeli one for qualifying under the propagandistically bullshit-named 'Law of Return'.

All racism is vile...


 
And on the availability of books...you would have thought there'd be a market for an English translation of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together, published in Russian in 2002.
 
small j, of COURSE I am a hater of Israel, for the same reason I hate the memory of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Remember, I am of Italian ancestry, so there is no racism here. To be a mere "critic" of a fascist state is immoral. Hatred is the only moral response.

Fascism is a cultural virus which renders entire societies impervious to reason. Hatred of fascism is the only antidote to fascism. People who contract this virus are forever convinced of their own rectitude even as they slaughter and steal territory and enact racist laws.

And you are kidding yourself if you think that Jews are incapable of contracting this virus.
 
and b -- I like some of what you have written here, but it's a losing game to argue over which group lost how many during the Holocaust. I don't think we'll ever know exact numbers when it comes to the Slavs. It suffices to say that the Nazis had made provisional plans to murder one-third of the Russians outright, enslave another third, and "Aryanize" the remaining third.

And small-j: Just for you, MORE MAX BLUMENTHAL!
 
This is my last comment, as dialogue with an irrational ideologue is impossible. Dialogue, as Buber desired, is always he goal, but when reliance on Shahak and Blumenthal, a pair not taken seriously by any rational scholar is the basis of any opinion clearly a sermon to the choir is all that is desired. Kramer, Shavit and Morris have vastly different views of Lydda, but they are all scholars and able to engage in dialogue. You can't, at least on this subject.
 
Blumenthal is one of the most rational commentators on the scene today, and anyone who does NOT take him seriously is blinded by inchoate genocidal rage directed toward the rightful Palestinian owners of that land. What's more, in your heart, small-j, you know that I am right. You cannot bring yourself to admit what most people know -- what you yourself know: Jews stole land. Jews are committing genocide. Jews are doing an evil exactly similar to what the white settlers did to the natives of America.

You KNOW it's true.

But any Jew who dares to say that OBVIOUS truth is shrugged off as not to be taken "seriously." And as for any gentile who tells this forbidden truth -- well, obviously, he must have grown up with the Protocols. Because everyone knows that there are MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of copies of the thing out there, and every gentile believes every word of it.

Keep on telling yourself whatever asinine story helps you sleep at night.
 
I've just read House Resolution 758.

It says (p.2) that Russia has carried out armed aggression against "United States allies and partner countries, including Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia"

Really? Which countries are they, then? Since when did Ukraine and Georgia become "allies" of the US? What are the treaties called and where can I read them?

We've also got another one of those irregular verbs: 'we impose sanctions', whereas 'they use trade barriers to apply pressure.'

Article 5 of the NAT requires that NATO members treat an attack on one as an attack on all.

The simple fact is that Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova do not belong to NATO.

I suspect that the fascists in Kiev would love the US military to enter Ukraine and engage Russian forces...and this may well soon happen...but this particular House Resolution seems neither here nor there.
 
->
I wonder what everybody in this epocal pseudo-discussion will make
out of the FACT that the CAMEL
was only domesticated at about the year 700 before the christian era.
Which point in time coincides with
the "finding" of the text that constitutes the start of all that mess.
Questions?
 
Jewish people were almost certainly in a minority among the people who were murdered in Nazi camps.

I think the fact that that's little known in the general population in the west says a lot.

It's also worth remembering that a lot of Germans (unlabelled as Gipsies, gays, Jewish, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) were murdered in the camps.

Had I been German, I probably would have been one of them.

The first country to be conquered by the Nazis was...Germany.

As for slavery, I think that's exactly what the non-extermination camps involved. Prisoners were mainly viewed as livestock, just as slaves were in the US South.

Which raises very interesting questions regarding the concrete use in the concentration camps of ideas associated with Rudolf Steiner.

There is still loads that should be researched and written on the Nazi camps...

Odd, really, that the word "concentration" is used, coming from Spanish use in Cuba ("reconcentration") down through British use in South Africa... Talk about using the language of the enemy. "Slave camps" and "slaughter camps" would be more appropriate terms IMO.


 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?






























FeedWind












FeedWind