Thursday, November 4, 2010

Judaism is not the Problem

A Position Paper

That's the principal raison d'etre of this post. Ideally, it will serve as a handy reference for future online discussion and debate, so that a simple link to this page will obviate forever the hassle of having to repeat my position on this issue. It's been adapted from a comment posted at about a month ago and later made into a post by the consistently reasonable, never-afraid-to-tussle-with-idiocy site owner. The link might even be useful to you in the same way and for the same reasons, depending on your own position.

My position on the problems we face -- from the standpoint of Palestinian solidarity, anti-Zionism and as an anti-war realist who understands how central Israel and Zionism is to the post-9/11 war agenda -- and how those problems should be addressed, i.e. how the fight should be fought and what constitutes effective activism, is different to that of the ever-emergent fringe element of the anti-Zionist community, and everything I do and write is premised on that position. I consider my position to be uncontroversial given the facts. I don't accept that a focus on Zionism is 'anti-Semitic', and I would loosely describe it as the mainstream position of the informed anti-war majority: that is, those who identify as anti-Zionists as readily as they do anti-war, anti-corporate and anti-everything else.

On the fringe is another element, borne of illogic. The twisted sibling of its sane counterpart, it's a munted child of the Internet age and the limitless flow of information it has afforded us. Cast in a crucible of fear, outrage and vitriol is a minority who, faced with a sudden and even traumatic dose of the truth, represent living evidence that being well-informed doesn't necessarily leave a person better equipped. In this category are the likes of Mike Delaney aka Prothink, Adam "final solution" Austin, Brendon O'Connell et al, who come across as borderline if not outright racists. It's doubtful that they 'hate' anyone anymore than the next person, but their reckless bullshit makes them liabilities to the movement and leverage for the enemy regardless of their real potential to do harm, just as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "inflammatory" rhetoric has been a cornerstone of the pro-war narrative, misrepresented by the lying Western media and used to convince the masses that preemptive war is not only justified but the only sane and reasonable response.

This element is a fringe minority for a reason: under the scrutiny of discerning minds its warped views can't gain any traction, so there is no-one with mainstream credibility or prominence in its ranks, only a slew of low-profile players. The inbuilt limitations of movements like this serve as a kind of glass ceiling that can't be broken even by its most convincing and charismatic proponents, a kind of natural law that prevents toxic ideology from contaminating mainstream dissentience. Dr David Duke is an example, even if today he's a source of accurate information, and less a fringe nutter than an honest broker who refuses to be burdened by political correctness. Either way and regardless of his future accomplishments, he'll never win another local election or be taken seriously as an author, and while his tidbits and factoids may be useful to some, sadly he'll always discredit the individuals and groups that he associates himself with (just ask professors Walt and Mearsheimer). The reality and corrosiveness of this guilt-by-association effect is what makes the fringe element of anti-Zionism the major obstacle to the mainstreaming of the movement at large, which has never been more ripe for it.

O’Connell says:

“zionism” is not the problem - “judaism” is.

Judaism wasn’t behind the 9/11 attacks; Zionism was. Almost all the visible perps (and accessories after the fact) were secular Zionists. Very few were religious Jews. Silverstein, Lowy, the Israeli players and the majority of the neocon cabal were secular Jews. Some were religious Christian Zionist gentiles, some were religious Jewish Zionists, and others like Cheney and Rumsfeld were just Zionists. The Zionist media was and is for the most part secular; it’s predominantly Jewish, but it can’t rightly be characterized as being religiously Judaic. The broader Israel lobby (or the Jewish lobby, or the Zionist Power Configuration as James Petras calls it) is not about religion; it’s about politics. The common thread here, the one thing the 9/11 perps, the neocon hawks, the Jewish media, the Israeli elite, AIPAC, PNAC, WINEP, AEI, JINSA, Hudson et al all have in common is a passionate attachment to the state of Israel; that’s Zionism.

Most 9/11 researchers would agree that the 9/11 attacks (and the subsequent bombings in Bali and Britain) were carried out to make Israel’s business a global enterprise. Islamic terrorism, a practically exclusive Israeli preoccupation, would now be an American problem and a European problem -- the world's problem. A manufactured fear of radical Islam would sweep the globe and the only winner would be Israel. The global “war on terror”, brainchild of Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, would go on to be Israel’s most profitable export and the U.S. would fight two disastrous wars in the Middle East for Israel with a third (Iran) on the agenda. It was a simple con — problem, reaction, solution — with Israeli regional hegemony the ultimate goal. That’s Zionism.

A stronger and greater Israel would become an immediate to mid-term certainty with the right people in the White House and a pliable U.S. Congress. A solid platform on which to foster global sympathy for, and solidarity with, Israel's Islamic problem would last well into the long term, propped up by ongoing false flag terror in Bali, Iraq, London, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere to water the seed and consolidate the terror meme kicked off by the trauma and outrage of 9/11. All of this has served and facilitated one thing almost exclusively: the legitimization and fulfillment of political Zionism.

Judaism may have benefited indirectly from 9/11, insofar as a sympathetic light had been lit over Israel and the Jews in stark contrast to the darkness cast over Islam, and in the new media-cultivated climate of fear and sense of ever-impending terrorism, the specter of the Holocaust - invaluable propaganda fodder and political leverage for Israel - had become that much easier to invoke. But these two latter factors have been used more in the service of Zionism than Judaism, as we see play out over and over in the post-9/11 media pantomime.

Fighting Judaism: A Fool's Errand

It doesn’t make sense to wage war on Judaism. The statement "I am an anti-Judaic activist", if ever uttered with a straight face, will certainly come from the lips of a fool. The anti-Judaic Brendon O’Connell is a rabid Christian nutjob who proposes that we embark on a religious war that is doomed to fail. As a relative neophyte to the Palestine issue and not being much of a reader, he had his mind blown by a book about Judaism by Michael Hoffman sometime in 2009. In the context of his devout faith and identification with Christianity, he proceeded to build an entire worldview from the narrow standpoint of the education he'd received from the book, regarding the problems that threaten humanity, how they came about and a viable way to craft himself an us-and-them outlook that made sense. At least, that's how it seems to have unfolded to those of us who have watched his development from early 2007 to the present. 2010 saw O'Connell stumble into a series of colossal fuck-ups with serious real-life implications which, with the help of a few sensational but baseless claims and some outright lies, earned him the staunch support and admiration of a small following of White Nationalist types and other assorted fringe-dwellers impressed by his getting-arrested skills. Thus, an anti-Judaic Christian warrior was born.

The reasons why a war on Judaism is doomed to fail are obvious to me personally and, I would think, to anyone of a driver's-license-and-above intelligence level. The shame here is in knowing from the outset that I'm not writing for an intelligent readership but for the stupid people, and on purpose, and that now smart people will know that I argue with stupid people. Let this sentence be a disclaimer for the smart people, that it's not meant for you and to go no further, but in the interests of spelling it out for the O'Connells of the world, here are some of those reasons.

Firstly, there is simply no popular support for a war on Judaism - or even peaceful anti-Judaic activism - and that is as it should be. Judaic fundamentalism is the product of a nasty, supremacist doctrine and people are starting to see that it plays a major role in Israel’s bad behaviour, but at the end of the day what we face is economic and political power, on a global scale -- religion has almost nothing to do with that. Railing against Judaism simply doesn't address any of the actual problems we face. And importantly, the racist, supremacist elements of Judaism legitimised by the holy books of the religion are embraced only by a minority, albeit by some very powerful and influential Israeli political figures. Corrosive Judaic values do make their way into Israeli policy and manifest directly as action, but it would be accurate enough to say that this is an almost exclusively Israeli phenomenon. Religious American Jews painted with the same brush as their Israeli counterparts would suffer unjustifiably under the punishment that would be meted out to them by angry anti-Judaics, being that their values and identities are defined by totally different philosophical stuff. The average American Jew harbours no sense of superiority over the goyim and the few that are aware of the Talmud's evil side view it as irrelevant, archaic and even laughable. Simply put, Jewish supremacism is almost entirely absent in the diasporas of developed countries like Australia, Britain, Canada and the U.S.

Christians should be readily able to understand the significance of subtle differences in religious interpretation and how dramatically it affects one's thinking and behaviour. Most of them are modern religious realists who carry around more complex worldviews than those prescribed to them by biblical fairy tales like the story of Adam and Eve, a real life parting of the sea, and literal interpretations of parables that should obviously not supplant real history, i.e. people walking on water and turning it into wine. Christian realists can expect us to infer for ourselves the discernment and pragmatism that flavors their religious beliefs, and in the absence of aberrant behaviour there's no reason why Western diaspora Jews shouldn't be afforded the same courtesy. To summarise, outside Israel the contemporary Jew is in most cases perfectly normal and reasonable (leaving aside their natural proclivity toward abhorrent political ideologies like Zionism, which, to be fair, is just as prevalent in Christians as it is in Jews, and just as common among the non-religious). They're no threat to our way of life. Outside Palestine, Jews are not the problem.

To demonstrate the truth of this by way of a simple thought experiment, consider a scenario in which all the world’s Jews - both religious and secular - were rounded up, put into camps and taken out of the picture, as Brendon O’Connell and others have publicly advocated. Elite gentiles would rush in to fill the power vacuum in every sector of society without there even being a bad day on the stock market. You wouldn’t even hear a sucking sound. Global capitalism wouldn’t skip a beat; the Fed, the IMF and the rest of the global banking system would remain in place; Monsanto would still be patenting genes; Big Pharma would still be profiting from our heart disease and cancer, fueled by an incentive to keep us that way (literally making a killing); powerful weapons manufacturers with more money than most third world economies would still have a vested interest in war (and the banking cartel which owns them would be, as they've always been, more than happy to loan our governments, particularly the U.S. government which spends as much on weapons as the rest of the world combined, debt-created money at interest in order to get it straight back from the U.S. defense budget when the government blows it all on the high tech weaponry peddled by the cartel's military arm - genius, really). There would be no systemic changes whatsoever in the advent of a wholesale Jewish roundup, and this is true regardless of what one believes about the origins of the system itself. I, for one, have been satisfied by ample evidence that modern banking started as a largely Jewish enterprise, but I see no reason why saying so should be controversial. I see no reason why Jews shouldn't be proud of their historic role in it, just as they celebrate the history of Jewish ownership and control of Hollywood and other industries. But regardless of the extent to which Jews created and founded the modern institutions adopted by the West, the fact remains, plainly and self-evidently, that it's our system now and it would quite effortlessly survive the total and sudden disappearance of the world's Jews, down to the very last one.

Secondly, you can’t outlaw ideas, much less eradicate them (they're bulletproof, remember) but you can phase out or even outlaw certain behaviour, systems and practices on moral and ethical grounds, without seriously compromising individual freedom and liberty. (Actually, I believe forcible and prohibitive action undertaken by outside authority is only justifiable when it benefits freedom and liberty and the greater good, because law and prohibition is by definition an infringement on personal freedom, but that's going in another direction.) South African apartheid is an example of this: an unjust and un-sane system, vast, established and held together with the glue of entrenched power transformed for the greater good by a massive imposition of will from within and without.

History has shown that efforts to suppress religious freedom go hand in hand with tyranny and always fail. Those of us who know a bit about Judaic extremism -- and any other truth worth knowing -- can and should use every opportunity to show the others its true colours, especially in light of the Zionist media campaign to vilify Islam, but making war on it and it alone will go nowhere. It's about as viable (and desirable) and every bit as ludicrous and futile as trying to eradicate Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam -- all of which have their own nutty fringe groups which hold extremist views just (or nearly) as repugnant as those we've seen come from leading rabbis of the Jewish faith.

In any case, it's beyond debate that putting people in detention camps against their will is not how an enlightened society would deal with its problems, and given that the idea is to do better than is being done to us, it's aeons away from a viable solution. It's both laughable and despicable. We were all born into economic and political slavery; enslaving others physically should be the last thing on our minds.

Thirdly and most importantly, the people focusing exclusively on Judaism are sabotaging the burgeoning anti-Zionist movement by making us all out to be racist nutters. Sometimes, it's because they actually are racist nutters, representing for Palestine and fucking up our game. Most of the no-such-thing-as-an-innocent-Jew crowd use the word 'Judaism' as a euphemism for all Jews, religious and secular, which is evidenced by their suspicion and contempt for non-religious Jews. After all, even if a Jew isn't Judaic, surely they are infused with Jewish values. Paranoia is rife because, even if there were a way to distinguish the religious from the secular it couldn't be seen from behind a computer. Even in person, you can never be sure; perhaps the parents are Jewish, it's better to be safe than sorry. This is the problem faced by the 'anti-Judaic activist', the slippery slope of idiocy combined with paranoia and the inevitable outcome of fighting religion, which can only exist as ideas inside people. Astute observers of the anti-Judaic activist will always spot this dilemma and see racism, bigotry, hate and 'anti-Semitism'.

What's for certain is this: the only way to make this approach succeed -- that is, this war against Judaism -- is to mainstream it, which has fuck all chance of happening because it is innately nonsensical, invasive, futile, authoritarian, illogical and fascist. Normal people (that is to say, the average human being, mentally and socially conditioned with Western values) intuits a lack of logic and an ugliness in the idea (if I may be so presumptuous as to speak on behalf of that group for the duration of the rest of this sentence). 9/11 truth is an example of a fringe group that has consolidated itself into a global movement with real credibility, and despite the spirit of truth, justice, compassion, honour, transparency, righteousness, non-partisanship, tolerance, blindness to colour and general energy of goodness that it engenders it has moved at a snail's pace and is far from the breakout threshold of real political clout. With that in mind, consider the likelihood of a movement borne of twisted logic, dense minds, paranoia and a negative energy establishing itself to the same degree.

More likely, the nascent and ill-conceived push for a war against Judaism and/or Jews will remain what it is: nothing more than dead weight dragging at the heels of the compassion-based, common sense-oriented pro-Palestine, anti-Israel, anti-Zionist movement. And as long as this movement which does make sense and which is compatible with the antiwar, anti-corporate, environmental and 9/11 movements can be written off as "hate", racism and "anti-Semitism" through its association with that aberrent part of itself, it will always be easily marginalised by Zionism and its footsoldiers for being the cancer and nothing but, and nothing more than the aberration that characterizes the minority fringe. The armies behind the pro-Israel agenda being pushed by the media and our governments are already containing our movement this way pretty effectively with imagined "hate" and in the absence of any real "anti-Semitism", although people are clearly growing tired of the old anti-Semitism canard and wising up to its arbitrary use by apologists for Israeli crimes. The rise of the fuckwit brigade, this cancerous aberration, will only hand to the propagandists what they've been having to make up all this time.

So besides the fact that targeting Judaism and Jews in general (and rounding them up for internment in "rehabilitation" camps) is a violent, fascist fantasy that couldn't possibly be taken seriously by anyone other than a crazed lynch mob, it makes no sense, simply won’t work, and not only that, it’s doing far more harm than good. The let’s-genocide-the-Jews crowd are working for the other side, whether they know it or not.


Focusing on Zionism does make sense. Anti-Zionism is a natural corollary to the anti-war movement. That most of the peace movement, spearheaded by liberal Zionist gatekeepers, has been slow to catch on to that obvious fact doesn't make it any less true. It simply doesn’t make sense to be anti-war and pro-Zionist, especially given the key roles of American Zionists and the broader Israel lobby in pushing, planning, and overseeing both post-9/11 wars in the Middle East. And there is no such thing as non-racist Zionism. Zionism is by definition a racist enterprise which can only express itself through land theft, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and the displacement of indigenous Palestinians to make way for Jewish-only settlements. Neither is there any such thing as legal Zionism, since almost all that it entails contravenes international law.

For all these reasons, anti-Zionism is an idea whose time has come. The only things between it and the mainstream are fragile lies and an ongoing media propaganda campaign pushing hard in the other direction. Hippies, leftists, activists and bleeding hearts who march and write and agitate for peace, equality and minority rights but support the Israeli state are left with the impossible task of reconciling the staggering hypocrisy of their views, so conscientious anti-war, anti-corporate, and/or human rights advocates are obligated to renounce Zionism in order to conform to the values that define them as people -- either that or be forced to bask naked in their own hypocrisy. Campaigners for peace who support occupation, land theft, displacement and apartheid - and the inevitable cost of that - are about as useful as tits on a bull and have nothing to stand behind but sleight of hand and subterfuge.

Anti-Zionism is a legitimate, honourable and viable movement. It's growing rapidly and progressing nicely, thanks to Israel’s own manifestly evil policies in Palestine and abroad: the 2006 Lebanon war, the 2008-9 Gaza massacre, the Dubai hit and Mossad passport fraud, the Gaza Freedom Flotilla incident, and the emerging truth about the USS Liberty, Israeli spying and 9/11. Along the way, people are learning about the history of Palestine and the illegitimate state of Israel, the early Jewish terrorism upon which it was founded and Israeli false-flags like the Lavon Affair. They’re waking up to the Jewish supremacism behind Israeli policy and starting to take a closer look at Judaism, which informs Zionism today but for the most part precluded any idea of the legitimacy of a Jewish state until it became convenient in the 1940s.

The dominant ideology that has shaped the U.S. war agenda for at least the last 20 years is Zionism, and with the focus shifting to Iran, that is becoming harder and harder for the anti-war movement to ignore. Fortunately, Zionism is destined to fail; Israel is well on its way to disappearing from the map altogether, and once that happens the game changes forever. The global capitalist system (the aforementioned banking system, Monsanto, Raytheon etc) will still be in place, but that’s why our work should have a broader focus. I myself have a particular disdain for Israel, Zionism and Jewish power so I choose to focus most of my attention on that, but I also meet with the local chapter of the Zeitgeist Movement because as far as I’m aware, the Resource Based Economy (RBE) model is the only viable alternative to the profit-oriented, debt-based monetary system (i.e. global capitalism). The Rothschildian corporate banking / fractional reserve / money-as-debt scam is the biggest con in history, but it’s the monetary system itself that has inverted our values and put profit above sanity (example I; example II). Monetary reform and public control of the banking system isn’t going to cut it in the end, although it would certainly be a good start. It would clear the way for the implementation of an RBE or something similar, by dismantling the most entrenched criminal power structure on the planet.

The stakes are too high for us to allow sanity and reason to be pushed to the fringes, and to make the mistake of throwing good negativity at bad negativity. This is a serious game for those of us who believe that a better life on Earth is worth fighting for, and perhaps the only thing worth a fight. Even if you suspect as I do that ultimately this thing is just a ride, an illusion, that nothing real can ever be damaged or killed and that consciousness will emerge unscathed no matter what, we're still on the ride and so are our children. Suffering is still hell. Experience will always arise out of thought and become real by our actions and choices, and the power of that creative process has become such that it will also determine the quality of the ride for all of our poor, hapless cohabitants. Their fate is in our clumsy hands. We've dreamed up devices and methods capable of destroying all life on Earth, and we can't even be trusted not to do it. We're so stupid that it could happen by accident, and nearly has. It's happening by accident right now. As individuals we're slaves to entrenched power and yet it feels as if no-one is in control. If we don't think and act out of love and let it characterise everything we do, the future will be a living nightmare. As trite and corny as it might sound, love is the key -- that much is certain.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Israel: World Tired of Us

The Daily Zionist | Tel Aviv | July 2, 2010

Israeli Minister of Trade, Industry and Labor, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, says the world is tired of Israel and that Israel, rather than the Gaza Strip, is actually the terrorist state.

"We're the ones maintaining a blockade. And we too are blockaded, utterly isolated. This business just isn't working anymore. We're in a situation where the world is tired of us," the Jewish Daily quoted Ben-Eliezer as saying in an interview in the Yediot Ahronot Friday supplement.

"They're tired of hearing our excuses, of feigning sympathy for us under pressure from our lobbies, when all we do is kill and oppress. (The world is) Tired of trying to understand us. No one believes our bullshit anymore. After 43 years, nobody wants to hear any more excuses about why this occupation is continuing and how we have nobody to talk to," Eliezer continued.

Born in 1936 in Basra in southern Iraq, Binyamin “Fuad” Ben-Eliezer is the senior leader of the Labor Party’s hawkish wing, a tough-as-nails ex-general and a seasoned war criminal.

Mossad Chief Meir Dagan expressed similar concerns. "It's true that the international community is fed up with our incessant lies, which spew forth like the political equivalent of the BP oil rig blowout", he said. "Of course we're the terrorists. We invented modern terrorism, we were founded on terrorism and we continue to thrive on it. We grew up on terror and racism and we're addicted to it. And as I mentioned not long ago, we're a burden on the United States and have no strategic relevance to them at all." Dagan is celebrated in Israel for his no-nonsense approach to being a war criminal and his history of cutting off Palestinians' heads with Japanese knives.

The comments have encouraged other Israeli officials to come clean about the Jewish state's true nature. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's bizarre response to the surprising outpouring of honesty from across the Israeli political spectrum came from his office in the form of a press release, which simply read: "Holocaust! 6 million, holocaust, holocaust, victims, holocaust holocaust."

In an unusual demonstration of unanimity, an Israeli cross-party motion is urging the parliament to pass legislation that will mandate an official Israeli confession to the people of Occupied Palestine and the international community that the Zionist regime has been full of shit all along on a wide range of issues, including the 2008-09 Gaza offensive, the recent flotilla massacre, the USS Liberty incident of 1967 and even the origins of the state itself and its ostensible legitimacy.

"The motion will be adopted. There's no doubt," Tal Nachum, spokesman for the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party, told Reuters late Thursday. "At this point, I think if we could sever economic, diplomatic and military ties with ourselves, we would. We're so fucking full of shit that even we can't bear us anymore."

The Obama White House has thus far remained conspicuously silent on the recent developments in Jerusalem, amid escalating tension in Washington. Josh Block, spokesman for the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), told the Daily Zionist that Israel has become one of at least eight "existential threats" to itself and must be stopped. AIPAC has scheduled urgent meetings with members of Congress in order to tell them what to do, think and say in response to the issue. According to sources close to AIPAC, Jewish lobbyists are busy drafting legislation for lawmakers calling on the U.S. government to deliver a $6 billion emergency security assistance package to Israel, including four state-of-the-art F22 fighter jets.

Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), reflexively issued a statement condemning American and Israeli leaders for their "recidivistic anti-Semitism" and blasting the Jewish state as a nation of "self-hating Jews".

Inspired by two real PressTV articles: World tired of us: Israeli minister, July 1, and German motion urges end to Gaza siege, July 2.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Open Letter to Adam Holland

When I first commented on Adam Holland's blog post about Alan Hart's interview with Kevin Barrett, I didn't expect him to publish it (he moderates comments for approval). He did and a brief discussion ensued, but it didn't take long before Adam the Zionist decided to start rejecting my perfectly reasonable submissions. So about five minutes after I sent him my last comment, I sent another to inform him that if he declined again to publish them, I'd publish them myself as 'An Open Letter to Adam Holland' on my own blog and at, where he'd be free to respond without fear of censorship. This then is that post, titled as promised, even though I won't always be addressing Holland directly. I might've titled it 'Ok Holland, Let's Take This Outside' (outside your blog where we can have a civilised, open discussion) but I'd be going back on my word.

I'd planned to get around to this sooner but I've been busy with other things, like following and protesting Israel's murderous, illegal, premeditated attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, which Holland has all but ignored on his website. This post would seem to imply that he believes Israel is being unfairly criticised by the anti-Semitic international community, but the entire blog entry consists of one copy-pasted paragraph from an article by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Holland offers no original commentary that might further enlighten us as to his own position. [Actually, since I started writing this a few days ago, I've noticed that Holland has now made his views quite clear - he's sticking up for Israel, surprise surprise.] Thomas Friedman says in his opinion piece that "[t]here is no question that this flotilla was a setup" and that the humanitarians and activists on board "wanted" a "very violent confrontation". Yeah right Thom, I'm sure the one year old baby on board was ready to rumble, alongside Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan, hundreds of dedicated peace activists and 35 or so politicians. All indications are that Adam Holland agrees with Friedman on the true intentions of these anti-Semitic terrorists.

Anyway, as you can see from the comment thread it didn't take long before Holland pulled the 'anti-Semitism' card on me, which is his forte. This is the comment he declined to publish on May 29 2010, unedited and republished here as it was submitted on the day. Read the comment thread starting here if you want some context.

Adam, your shameless sophistry is what will be clear to readers of this thread, not my 'anti-Semitism'. I should've expected it, since you've already been identified as "anti-Semitism-obsessed".

Twice now I've asked you to address the information I've made available to you, and both times you've failed to do so. You just harp on about the websites I link to, which, as I've already explained and as is clear to anyone who cares to look, are simply reproducing articles and information from mainstream sources like Haaretz, Salon, Fox News, and what have you. You haven't provided any solid criticism of the information, you've simply dismissed it all wholesale on the strength of that one flimsy subterfuge.

I politely asked you to provide a reference to back up your assertion that the Active Thermitic Materials paper has been disproved, and you've failed to do so. When you asked me about the USS Liberty I responded directly, but you refuse to answer my questions. You're determined to avoid having a normal discussion. Instead, you've attempted to smear me as a conspiracy theorist and an "anti-Semite", which is what you do best, and present me with a list of loaded questions about whether or not I agree with Hart on this and Sabrosky on that so that you can build a basis for your claim that I'm "anti-Semitic", in a desperate attempt to avoid having to address my arguments.

No, I don't agree with Hart on "remote control cell phones" - somehow I don't see these five young buffoons being given that kind of responsibility - but it's a matter of fact that they were caught celebrating the attacks, that they were there to "document the event" as they put it, and that they had set up their cameras prior to the attacks as reported by The New York Times and Fox News (see last paragraph). The FBI concluded that at least two of them were Mossad agents, and that the moving company they worked for was a Mossad front operation. See here for information, all of which comes from mainstream news sources. There are also the 140 or so Israeli "art students" arrested for spying in and on the U.S. before and immediately after 9/11/01 (also see the Fox News report I linked to earlier). Am I "anti-Semitic" for being concerned about all this, Adam?

Regarding Hart's speculation about Israel's plans to nuke an American city, it's simply that - speculation. But I understand Hart's concern given Israel's history of attacking the United States (that's the link I offered in my previous comment, Adam, which you chose not to publish). Regarding Sabrosky and a "vast conspiracy within the U.S. military .. concealing their knowledge that Israel carried out 9/11", I believe you're misrepresenting his position. As for your claim that Sabrosky believes that a "vast majority" of American Jews are "traitors", I haven't heard him say that, and it's not my position.

Now, I've answered your questions; let's see if you can address mine. They're still here, all you need to do is scroll up. Where is the scientific rebuttal to the Active Thermitic Materials paper? Why is there so much evidence of Israeli complicity and foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and no credible evidence that Muslim fanatics were involved? Why is Osama bin Laden not wanted by the FBI for the attacks? And how do you respond to the information I've made available to you regarding Israel's relationship to the 9/11 attacks, outside of outrageously, arbitrarily and falsely accusing me of 'anti-Semitism'? If you can't respond politely, directly and reasonably, without trying to muddy up my position by asking me silly questions about Hart and Sabrosky, you'll only be confirming Richard Silverstein's assertion that your modus operandi is indeed "the McCarthyite guilt by association rhetorical style of demagogue-goons like Holland".

I'm not sure why Holland didn't post my comment, and a smaller one before it. It is, of course, his right to choose what gets published on his website. But Holland's interest areas are conspiracy theories and anti-Semitism (along with the "far right"), so you'd think he'd be interested in looking into and debunking my preposterously anti-Semitic ideas about Israel and 9/11, especially since that was basically what his Alan Hart blog was about. He claims that he enjoys 'researching' conspiracy theories, even if he does hate Jeff Rense's hair do.

I noticed since I started writing this little post (I keep getting distracted) that Holland hasn't always been so rude when it comes to nixing comments on his blog. In this amusing post he claims that Ognir of TiU is a "far right" racist, which was rightly ridiculed by his supporters in the comment thread below. I know enough about Ognir to know that he's far past identifying with the "far right" or the far left or any other point along the linear scale of that silly, illusory paradigm. But at least on that blog Holland allowed dissenting comments to be published, so I'm even more offended after having seen it. I feel like I'm being singled out and victimised by that bigoted far-left bastard Adam Holland, so I feel well within my far rights to condemn him as a rabid anti-anti-Semite.

So Adam, now that we've taken this outside let's have it out like free men. I'm not asking you to come on any radio show - I know you're not into that - just that you answer my questions in writing, either here or at WUFYS. All voices will be heard, none will be censored, and there will be truth, freedom and justice for all. Either that or just publish my comments on your blog, you dirty filthy anti-Commentite.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Michael Scheuer: Civilian Casualties Don't Matter

Most people know Michael Scheuer from his appearance on the Bill Maher show, where he bravely advocated a refreshing America-first, Israel-last policy as he was interviewed by the rattled Zionist Bill Maher. He raised the spectre of the Osama Bin Laden boogeyman by describing him as 'more dangerous than a terrorist', but his stance against Israel and his non-interventionist attitude was admirable. Non-interventionism is pretty much what Michael Scheuer is about (he named his website


He's written some good stuff, despite his adamance that America's true enemies are the "Islamists". Here are a couple of examples.

  • On the American Israel lobby: Does Israel Conduct Covert Action in America? You Bet it Does
  • On the neocons and other Zionists skewing U.S. foreign policy in Israel's favour: Turning The Tables on the Israel Firsters
  • When recently he spoke out against Israel and the Lobby on C-Span, he was widely condemned by Zionists like Jeffrey Goldberg at the who described him as a "Jew-hating crank", (IsraelNN) and Adam Holland, which wasn't half predictable.


    I posted the IsraelNN article here at WUFYS, implicitly endorsing Scheuer and his views, some of which I was already aware were highly questionable. Nothing quite as questionable as this, though - check this out:

    We can't win anyway

    By Michael F. Scheuer

    Adjunct Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

    The military option should be taken off the table in all instances -- save an immediate response to foreign attack -- until we elect a president and congress that will abide by the constitutional requirements and machinery for declaring war that were put in place by the Founders.

    In addition, and more practically, the option should be taken off the table vis-à-vis Iran because we have a military that cannot win a war. The common wisdom is that the politicians are to blame for preventing the generals from doing their job; that is, killing the enemy and, as needed, its civilian supporters until each is convinced it is irrefutably defeated. I begin to think, however, that the common wisdom is only partially correct. Our bipartisan political leadership surely is pathetic when it comes to war-making, but the U.S. general officer corps -- save for a few Marine generals -- is today chockfull of bureaucrats, nation-builders, and wanna-be social scientists.

    Take that might warrior General McChrystal, for example. In the midst of a supposedly “major offensive” in Helmand Province, the general has spent most of his time apologizing for the deaths of civilian supporters of the Taleban and al-Qaeda, and withdrawing from the battlefield a weapon system that presumably was there because it contributed to victory and helped protect our soldiers and Marines. Sparing civilian casualties might make sense if those civilians were pro-U.S. or even pro-Karzai, but they are not.

    The Taleban’s steadily upward trend line across Afghanistan -- not just in the southern provinces -- since 2006 can only be explained by growing popular support from Afghans who are pro-Taleban (some) and/or opposed to the U.S.-NATO occupation (most). To think you are going to win the hearts and minds of these Afghans by limiting civilian casualties is a figment of the social-science minds of counter-insurgency theorists. It is not for nothing that the acerbic but thoroughly brilliant Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld wrote that counter-insurgency doctrine is always written by losers.

    Martin van Creveld is the Israeli academic who threatened that 'we could destroy all European capitals' and that "we have the capability to take the rest of the world down with us [with nukes]. And I can assure you that that will happen, if Israel goes under."

    For the life of me, and as the father of a newly draft-age son, I cannot imagine why American parents still trust their soldier-children to politicians -- in both parties -- and generals who are unwilling to do anything so old-fashion, anachronistic, and politically incorrect as relentlessly killing the enemy and his supporters until they are defeated. One hopes that American parents will soon wise up and begin to discourage their kids from joining a military whose generals increasingly see U.S. casualties as the necessary cost, not of winning, but of nation-building, fawning over their addled political masters, and pleasing international opinion and the pacifist purveyors of international law.

    [Yeah, who cares about international law? Pfft.]

    The wars we are fighting today are the products of the lethal-for-America fantasy that war has changed and no longer requires much killing or an outright victory. This, of course, is nonsense and only our elites and those of Europe believe it; our Islamist enemies know better. America once knew that you never go to war without aiming for victory, and led by men like William Sherman, U.S. Grant, Nathan Bedford Forrest, George Patton, and, until recently, most Marine generals, our military leaders knew that, in Forrest’s words, war means fighting, and fighting means killing. Armed with this fact, and with Sherman’s dictum that the only mercy in war is fast and complete victory, the U.S. military once put fear and sober second thoughts into those who meant America harm. Today, the same military causes some circumspection among our enemies, but it mostly causes mirth in their minds over the specter of a hapless pack of coddled general officers who seek to win un-winnable hearts and minds at the cost of many hundreds of billions dollars and numerous wasted young lives.

    Tom Feeley of (ICH) posted this on his site, but not to point out Scheuer's callous disregard for human life. It was posted under the title What Should Obama Do Next On Iran? Act For The Republic and Independence, apparently to endorse a list of actions that Obama should take on the Iran issue, which was apparently written by Scheuer. But if you click on the source link at the ICH post, the list is not there. The link will take you straight to Scheuer's rant about all the fuss over killing innocents, which to him is just an impediment to "victory".

    Scheuer is a regular contributor to He might claim to be a non-interventionist but he doesn't sound very anti-war, does he?

    Is Scheuer a Shill?

    Scheuer could still be on the CIA's payroll, but shillery is usually the least likely explanation for suspect behaviour. It stands to reason that most people accused of being disinformationalists are just plain wrong.

    The problem with the online movement is that shillery is often the first conclusion people jump to, especially in the anti-Zionist scene. For example, if a journalist, writer or radio host doesn't blame Israel and Zionism for 9/11, we'll conclude that they're government agents or disinformation artists - a part of the conspiracy - when it's much more likely that they simply believe what they're saying (that cave-dwelling Muslims orchestrated 9/11 or that the Bush family did, or whatever else the case may be). Some will go even further and claim, arbitrarily, that they must be 'Jews'. It's pathological with some people. Rationalisation goes out the window and all they seem to have left is conspiracy theory. Kind of ironic, really.

    Scheuer is not your typical case study, though. The 9/11 operation had to fool the bulk of the global intelligence community as well as the civilian population to be viable and effective, but Scheuer is an expert on al Qaeda and Bin Laden, and was head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit from 1996-99, and then Special Advisor to that unit until 2004. He's written entire books about the al Qaeda 'threat' in which he criticises American policy, the first of which he started writing in 1999, well before September 11, 2001. As a senior CIA analyst, how can he not be aware that Bin Laden and al Qaeda was a creation of, and an asset to, that agency? And if he is aware, why hasn't he written about it? He published his books anonymously and was, perhaps conveniently, 'outed' as the author just in time to come out as a non-interventionist pundit for the anti-war scene. But despite Scheuer's contribution to sites like and his criticism of the Israel lobby and neocon policy, he is still an ardent promoter of the "war on terror" and ergo the Zionist war against Islam. His position is essentially the same as Ron Paul's: that America's real enemy is radical Islam but American interventionism is to blame for that radicalism.

    Another interesting factoid is that Scheuer's work has been promoted by Bin Laden himself - from the grave. In a tape released in 2007, well after his death, "Bin Laden" sporting a nice, black, freshly "dyed" beard says:

    "If you want to understand what's going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer."

    The Age Old "Six Million" Canard

    Click to enlarge

    "If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel."

    David Ben-Gurion (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth's Ben-Gurion in a slightly different translation).

    Andie has posted a blog which links to a compilation of newspaper items showing that the mythical figure of six million and talk about a Jewish "holocaust" predates World War II by a long shot, and has been oddly recurrent throughout modern history. The six million figure shows up repeatedly in old newspaper articles, almost as if international Jewry were willing their own "holocaust" into existence.

    This source, among others, offers an explanation as to why:

    In the Hebrew-text of Torah-prophesies it states: "You shall return." In that text the letter "V" or "VAU" is missing (which also stands for "6"). The researcher Ben Weintraub was informed by Rabbis that the missing "V" (= the missing 6) was the foreshadowing of the "6 million". Therefore, the prophesy: "You shall return", is interpreted as: "You shall return minus 6 million." [2]This self-imposed prophesy led to the "6 million-prophecy-crash" in 1919. Based on the Balfour-Declaration of 1917 the state of Israel was guaranteed, and the Diaspora-Jews would return to the "Promised Land". The leading Jews at that time expected 1920 a migration of their brethren into "their Land". But, before the return could take place, "6 million" of them had to disappear, according to prophesies.

    Here are a few interesting quotes.

    "These numbers do matter," Hilberg [one of the most prominent Jewish holocaust historians] said. "They also matter for a very simple reason -- call it religious, if you like."[Guttenplan in The Atlantic Monthly, Boston, USA, February, 2000]

    "What are you writing?" the Rebbe asked. "Stories," I said. He wanted to know what kind of stories: true stories. "About people you knew?" Yes, about things that happened or could have happened. "But they did not?" No, not all of them did. In fact, some were invented from almost the beginning to almost the end. The Rebbe leaned forward as if to measure me up and said with more sorrow than anger: "That means you are writing lies!" I did not answer immediately. The scolded child within me had nothing to say in his defence. Yet, I had to justify myself: "Things are not that simple, Rebbe. Some events do take place but are not true; others are - although they never occurred." [Elie Wiesel, Legends of Our Time, Schocken Books, New York 1982, S. VIII]

    No-one less important than the late Director of the German government sponsored Institute for Contemporary History, Dr. Martin Broszat, stated under oath in front of a German court, that the "6 million holocaust-Jews" were a "symbolical figure", not a factual one [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Aug. 23, 1994, page 7].


    There's much more to add to the aforementioned list of news items. This is where the Google news archive comes in handy. Use the advanced search option to refine your search and specify a particular time period (say, 1890 - 1930).

    Here are just a few items of interest.

    Herald-Journal - April 2, 1919: Six Million Jews Starving To Death

    The destitution of Jewish war sufferers during the coming months will probably surpass anything ever known in the history of human suffering; their suffering is worse than death - it is the lingering torture of starvation, the piteous tragedy of emaciation, the horrible waiting, in agony of hunger, for the grim reaper to end their misery.

    The Toronto World - Feb 6 1920: Six Million Jews are Facing Death

    Feilding Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 95, 15 November 1905, Page 2: Great Britain's Indignation At Jewish Massacres

    The above article published in 1905 mentions Arthur Balfour and Lord Rothschild of the British Zionist Federation, and the latter's desire for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine 12 years before the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

    The meeting recorded its earnest conviction that the Jews were not immune from a recurrence of the massacres until they obtained a publicly recognised home in Palestine.

    New York Times - July 20, 1921: Massacre Threatens All Jews as Soviet Power Wanes

    Russia's 6,000,000 Jews are facing extermination by massacre. As the famine is spreading, the counter-revolutionary movement is gaining and the Soviet's control is waning.

    And this corker, which proves that Jews were asking for billions (in 1918 dollars!) in interest-free loans well before today's post-1967 U.S. policy of billions in aid to Israel.

    New York Times - Oct 18, 1918: $1,000,000,000 Fund To Rebuild Jewry - LOANS WITHOUT INTEREST

    The American people, Jews and nonJews alike, will soon be asked to lend or contribute the larger part of a fund of approximately $1,000,000,000 to carry out plans for the reconstruction of the Jewry of the entire world.

    (List to be updated as time permits.)

    The Google news archive is also helpful in digging up old newspaper articles about early Jewish terrorism in Palestine, before the creation of the Zionist regime. Here are a few examples:

    The Age - Nov 2, 1945: Outrages in Palestine: Jewish Terrorism

    The Sydney Morning Herald - Jan 4, 1947: New Palestine Attacks: Jewish Terrorism Resumed

    Time - Nov 13, 1944: Stern Gangsters

    Get stuck into it and do your own digging. It's a goldmine. Also check the news archive on Churchill's statement about Jewish terrorism in the wake of the assassination of Lord Moyne by the Stern Gang in 1944.

    Originally posted at, Jan 26, 2010