Thursday, 31 December 2009

Al Giordano's censorship "GOOD" - Iranian censorship "BAA-AA-D"

Al Giordano has come out very strongly in support of the Green counter-revolution in Iran. Giordano has taken a very strong line against leftwing equivocation over issues surrounding support of this Iranian rebellion, mainly due to the fact that any such support converges with the interests of American Imperium, as reflected in Western Media and its support for this supposedly "popular uprising" in Iran.

The concerns over support for the Iranian rebellion are evident across the left - it has been a real issue. Many on the left balk at finding themselves (once again) on the same "side" as the Washington Consensus, Western corporate mass media, and the various arms of the US state operating through NED, USAID, Freedom House, IRI, etc.

[In Al Giordano's case, this is a very relevant issue, as Al Giordano's NarcoNews receives financial support from one institution which has very close ties to the "coloured revolution" support mechanisms - Peter Ackerman's International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. Peter Ackerman was director and chair of Freedom House for 10 years, and Freedom House is currently active in Iran. Freedom House was named by Eva Gollinger as being part of the network of NGOs operating to effect American state policy through destabilisation of Venezuela, for example. See the discussion here - which Al Giordano responds to, in his usual aggressive, ad-hominem way.]

For many on the left, there's a deep unease to find one's self sharing a position with the mainstream media, the US State Department, Soros' NGOs, etc. Such concerns, and the resons for it are obvious. In Iran's case, we know it is currently the exemplary existing target for American aggression and imperialism.

Here's Edward Herman, writing shortly after the disputed Iranian elections in July 09:
There are many problems with the Campaign for Peace and Democracy's "Question & Answer on the Iran Crisis," issued by the CPD on July 7, and widely circulated since then.1

The CPD adopted this format, it tells us, because "some on the left, and others as well, have questioned the legitimacy of and the need for solidarity with the anti-Ahmadinejad movement," and the CPD believes "those questions need to be squarely addressed."

We believe, on the contrary, that the CPD's 13 questions-and-answers do little to clarify issues related to Iran's June 12 presidential election and its tumultuous aftermath, and even less to help leftists and "American progressives" decide how they should respond to them.

As we try to show below, when stripped of its didactic format, this Q&A amounts to little more than an emotional plea to its target audience to surrender what remains of their leftist instincts (long under siege in the States, and shrinking rapidly), and join its authors for a ride on the "green wave" of yet another color-coded campaign that fits well with one of their government's longest-running programs of destabilization and regime change. We believe that any "confusion" felt by the left and "American progressives" towards these events is a confusion that has been sown by our would-be instructors.

The emphasis in Herman's statement above has been added as it points to the general direction of my concerns which I attempted to put to Al Giordano at his NarcoNews website. The exchange follows. [Note - I don't have a strong position on the Iranian uprising, the supposed election fraud, whether the uprising is "progressive" or not.......I simply do not know. I haven't reached any position on it - nor do I find it especially important that I should. What does it have to do with me? I can only offer hope that something progressive and leftwing might come out of it - or even a simple improvement in Iranian living standards, "freedom", whatever. Platitudes. I personally wouldn't dare to be so presumptuous as to claim to be able to identify the most progressive elements in Iran, let alone demand that people - especially leftwingers - must adopt hardline support and activism in support for their "revolution". Especially as it would mean adopting the same platform as US State Dept, US policy, Western Media, NED, IRI, USAID etc. I have concerns - no dogmatic answers. Al Giordano is a little different, see below.]

I posted 3 comments under a current article on Iran authored by NarcoNews' Al Giordano. My first post was posted, and Al Giordano responded in his usual aggressive and insulting style.

My follow-ups have not been published.

My published comment:
So what's the difference between..........
Submitted December 29, 2009 - 2:40 am by Gwenllian of the Valley (not verified)

So what's the difference between..........Al Giordano's support for "peaceful revolution" in Iran, and the support of, say, George W Bush's CIA?

Al raises the meme about Western Media always being wrong, yet Al's take on Iran is the same. Sure, Al mentions the corporate media's perspective of "looking up", but what is the difference, really, Al? Can you be clear about the difference, if any, please?

Al also seems to be admitting the tactical benefits of censorship - he admits the Iranian protests might benefit from an absence of Western Media exposure.

Absent such exposure, how are people expected to gain any inkling of what is going on? How does Al Giordano find out, for example?

And whilst Western Media's lack of interest might be of benefit to the Iranian protestors, Al Giordano is reporting the protests. And Al Giordano's position seems very similar to Western Media perspective - support for the protests - a pespective seemingly consistent with the wishes and aims of the American State Department.

So.......whilst there's an air of criticism here of "Western Media", I can't see how Al Giordano's position is different. Both Al and the "Western Media" support the protests, both take the perspective the protests are "good"/"progressive", both hold the elections were unsound/fraudulent, both have continued reporting such.

Likewise I can't see a difference between Al G's position and that of the US State Dept, under Obama or Bush.

It might be interesting if Al Giordano would explain a little.

Also of interest would be some description of what the movement Al Giordano seems to be supporting in Iran is all about. What makes it so progressive? What interests does it serve? A frustrated bourgeois capitalist class? Or what?

Also of interest would be how Al Giordano knows this information? Bit of an Iranian expert, is he?
Al Giordano's reply follows:
@ Whackjob of the Valley
Submitted December 29, 2009 - 8:57 am by Al Giordano

Dear Paranoid Nutcase,

First of all, you have some homework to do, Missy (or Buster, or whatever the moniker is to show the proper lack of respect). This isn’t the first essay I’ve written on the situation in Iran, and some have addressed crackpot logic like yours directly already:
How do I know – and why should you know – that the Iranian working class opposes, organizes against and receives the blows of the illegitimate regime?

Because they write us and tell us, Sherlock!
Your faux-leftist poseur stance in fact abandons and betrays the struggles of the authentic Iranian working class.

While I don't claim to be any kind of expert on that part of the world, I'm neither a blogger-come-lately to events there. I began paying attention to Iranian politics and history in the 1970s. My first sources were Iranian students of socialist, communist and other leftist and pro-worker tendencies who were fighting then against the US-backed Shah of Iran, a brutal dictator of the secular right wing. When those attending university in the US would hold protests, thousands of them would have to wear these cardboard orange masks to shield their identities from the SAVAK, the Shah’s secret police force, who would kill their family members back home if one of the protesters was recognized through a photograph or video.

In 1979 I watched good people like those young friends bring down the Shah dictatorship only, soon after, to become persecuted by the new theological regime. After the 1979 revolution, the Islamic liberation theologians – great leaders like the late Ayatollah Montazeri whose massive funeral last week, attacked by the regime’s basij police, sparked this latest round of resistance - that my friends had joined in coalition with to topple the Shah had lost an internal struggle to what might be called the Iranian equivalent of the religious right in the US.

Your logic (lacking any, really) is that whatever the policy of the United States is said to be places you on the other side. Oh, really? When, in the 1980s, the US Congress changed US policy to then oppose the Apartheid regime in South Africa, did you suddenly change sides and throw in against the African National Congress with the racist segregationists of the right?

The world is a lot more complicated than your copout position - of choosing your side based on what Washington does or says - allows. There are morons who support US policy blindly, I'm sure you think you are oppositional to them, and there are those, like you, that offer knee jerk opposition to it. Both are equally manipulated and dupes of the whirling Wurlitzer of media spin.

But I take an especially dim view of you and yours, because while claiming to be oppositional, you are in fact giving Washington absolute power over your opinions and letting its policies (or whatever you think they are) determine your political stances, even if in the negative. That’s simply pathetic and earns nothing but ridicule and scorn from me. You can safely expect to be upset by my future writings, too. And I can expect to be provided with years of happiness causing tantrums by you and yours, the slow class of the academic left.

My subsequent comments were not published (not yet at least). Here's my first reply [still unpublished/censored at NarcoNews]:
What's with the stroppiness?

What's with the stroppiness? I asked you some questions.......that's all.
Al Girodano: Your logic (lacking any, really) is that whatever the policy of the United States is said to be places you on the other side.
No. I was asking you to clarify your position, which on the face of it *is* the same policy as that of the United States and the corporate mainstream press.

I wanted to see something that differentiates your position from that of USA policy and the perspective of the Western Media, which you appear to criticise, yet which you also reflect.

I wanted to know what it is in Iran you are supporting - and why. You don't seem to say much. You posted the Union press release........but that only says "the International Workers’ Day 2009 in Iran, as is customary every year, was violently attacked by the police, and hundreds were beaten, verbally abused and detained."

Do you mean to suggest the Iranian rebellion is led by and represents the interests of "International Workers"? How influential and representative are the International Workers' groups which this press release represents? Not very, I suspect. So I wonder why you use it to illustrate what the Iranian unrest is about.

Obviously the International Workers' Groups are not the only constituency in Iran. Nor are they especially influential or representative, I suspect.

Who and what are the prevailing forces in the rebellion? What do they stand for (besides platitudes about opposing tyranny)?

One might just as well ask what the US State Department interests are in Iran, and who and what they are supporting in Iran, and why.

Why do you think there is this convergence between your support for Iranian revolution and the American state's support for it?

Why do you think there is a convergence between the mainstream western media's support for the revolution and your own?

Contrary to your assumptions, just because the Iranian islamic oligarchy is despicable, I don't see why support for opposition to it should be automatic. There needs to be sound reasons for support - beyond platitudes of "standing for freedom". Again - why is the US state so supportive of the rebellion, and why is the Western media so supportive too? What is it that they are supporting, and what is it that you are supporting? I don't think one Union press release does the question justice.
Al Giordano: "your copout position - of choosing your side based on what Washington does or says"
No. Silly.

But if one finds one's self in agreement with both the Washington consensus and that of the Western Media, one should really wonder why. And one needs best be clear about why. I don't think you have been. I don't see that you have explained your position or that of the forces which you lend your support to in Iran (and which you ask the rest of us to support.) There needs to be reasons to give support and not a simple binary and reflex opposition, which is what you accuse me of.

There are very obvious reasons why the US state dept and the Western Media support the Iranian rebellion. I don't think you have distinguished your position from theirs.
Al Giordano: I take an especially dim view of you and yours, because while claiming to be oppositional, you are in fact giving Washington absolute power over your opinions and letting its policies (or whatever you think they are) determine your political stances, even if in the negative. That’s simply pathetic and earns nothing but ridicule and scorn from me.
You don't know my views. Why be so presumptuous?

You are the one taking a definite and strongly held position - I thought you might at least be able to properly justify it. My questions gave you a platform to explain what the rebellion is about, and why it deserves support. I don't think you have done that : apparently you'd rather spend the time insulting me instead.

I'll read the articles you linked, thanks.
After reading some of Al Giordano's comments in relation to Hugo Chavez's denunciation of the Iranian Green Revolution as American Imperial adventure, I posted another comment - again it remains unpublished at NarcoNews.
Does Al Giordano speak like this about Chavez?

Does Al Giordano speak like this about Chavez?

I merely asked questions - and look at the vitriolic response from Giordano!

Yet Chavez unequivocally supported Ahmadinejad and "Iranian Revolution" following elections etc - and CLEARLY suggested the Iranian opposition was functioning as an aspect of American imperial foreign policy.

I didn't go so far - I merely asked a few pertinent questions, hoping Al might elucidate how he fell upon this certainty he holds over Iranian situation and the required stance to be taken on it. (And how his position is distinguished from that of the US State Department, the Western Media, Freedom House, NED, etc - all of whom, including Al, are singing from the same hymnsheet.)

So I asked questions - whereas Chavez was adamant his view was the view Giordano imagines I hold, a view which his reply made effort to ridicule.

Chavez's view. Whereas I merely asked questions.


Does Giordano call Chavez part of "the slow class of the academic left"?

Does Giordano take "an especially dim view" of Chavez because of such a view?

Does Giordano say "The world is a lot more complicated than [Chavez's] copout position..."?

Does Giordano say Chavez's "logic (lacking any, really) is that whatever the policy of the United States is said to be places you on the other side."

Does Giordano say Chavez's position is a "faux-leftist poseur stance" which "in fact abandons and betrays the struggles of the authentic Iranian working class."?


Giordano only says that to me, based on his assumption I hold the same views as Chavez.

I guess this will be swept into the moderator's "unacceptable" bin too, like my last post........

Nothing like a bit of discussion, eh, AL?



Here are some excerpts from Herman's statement on the CPD's Q+A about Iranian uprising:

For progressive Americans ..... isn't the net effect of the CPD's activism to increase the likelihood that the next president of Iran, some time in 2013 (if not sooner), will be a U.S.-supported candidate?
In short, the protests are certainly not entirely "homegrown" and have a pretty clear link both to direct destabilization campaigns and to the massive destabilizations imposed upon this region of the world by the United States and its allies just this decade alone. It is also interesting to note that Peter Ackerman, the founding chair of the U.S.-based International Center on Nonviolent Conflict and a former chair of the right-wing Freedom House, along with the ICNC's founding director and president Jack DuVall, once cynically cautioned that for a destabilization campaign such as this to be maximally effective against Iran, it "should not come from the CIA or Defense Department, but rather from pro-democracy programs throughout the West."
Pure coincidence that Al Giordano receives funding from the very same Peter Ackerman and his ICNC.........
Given that Hosni Mubarak's Egypt is on the U.S. payroll and a part of the "global spider's web" of secret prisons run by Washington, shouldn't we have been more concerned with Egypt's last presidential election in September 2005, which Mubarak, effectively Egypt's president-for-life, won with 89% of the vote? Shouldn't we pay more attention to the complete absence of elections in U.S. client Saudi Arabia? Or to client-state Mexico, where presidential elections have a long history of vote-rigging, the last one, in July 2006, stolen in favor of the pro-business, U.S.-favored candidate Felipe Calderon, and inspiring a massive tent-city protest in the center of Mexico City to demonstrate people's support for the leftist runner-up, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador?

In each of these theaters and the many others that fall within the U.S. sphere of influence and responsibility, the potential benefits of a sustained left-critique and consciousness-raising about U.S. policy and its devastating impact on the lives of people are far greater than anything to be gained by urging "solidarity" with dissenters in a distant land where the U.S. influence for constructive purposes is minimal, but its hostile and destructive interventionism has been and remains great.
By portraying the Islamic Republic as even more of an outlaw regime than it had been portrayed prior to June 12, doesn't this intensive focus on discrediting the Iranian election feed nicely into the U.S.-Israeli destabilization and regime-change campaign? No matter how much the CPD protests otherwise, doesn't its call for "solidarity with the anti-Ahmadinejad movement" and its advocacy for "a different form of government in Iran" encourage leftists to pull down their natural defenses against U.S. imperialism?

Much intelligent analysis has pointed to similarities between a strategy employed by the Mousavi camp in June 2009, and the strategy used in earlier campaigns of destabilization against U.S. targets for regime change that date back to the elections in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, and the Ukraine in 2004, to name three where it succeeded.8 As was the case in these three other countries, the challenger Mousavi and his aides started by declaring Mousavi the "definite winner" by very wide margins on the day of the election (Friday, June 12), long before the polls had closed and the votes were counted; one Mousavi aide even told Agence France Presse that "Mousavi has got 65% of the votes cast," a "landslide victory," AFP called it.9 This was followed by Mousavi's claim on the next day (Saturday, June 13) that his rightful victory and therefore the will of the Iranian people had been stolen by the incumbent President Ahmadinejad's supporters in the Ministry of the Interior, with the official result delegitimized; from here went the calls to Iranians and all democracy-loving peoples the world over to reject it.

Tuesday, 29 December 2009

Al Giordano's NarcoNews Promoting Mike Ruppert 911 Conspiracy Film

Al Giordano's NarcoNews is promoting the film "Collapse", based upon a book by 911 arch-conspiracist Mike Ruppert (presumably "Crossing the Rubicon" - a highly tedious, and factually questionable "account" of a Govt conspiracy in 9/11)


Ruppert got mixed up with Delmart Vreeland, before claiming his offices were ransacked by "the powers that be", and fleeing to Venezuela, where his sanity and health were in question. He's been rehabilitated to Canada, apparently, his former blog now defunct.

Except it's not. It now claims to be a site about Peak Oil. And the film "Collapse" appears to be about Peak Oil - the collapse being the result of it, presumably.

I'm sympathetic to peak oil idea - indeed, I spent New Year's Eve 1999/2000 obsessed with the subject, about which, I then knew nothing. (We won't ever "run-out"......the issue is about insufficient supply, and the catastrophic decline in field output as they approach depletion.)

So Ruppert's recast as a Peak-Oil-er, now? And NarcoNews is (back?) supporting him?

Saturday, 26 December 2009

Rivero - Les Visible / Smoking Mirrors

Rivero regularly links to Les Visible's noxious anti-semitic blog.

Here's the latest horror Rivero linked to: Les Visible on the return of the stolen Auschwitz sign:
Well, they got their Auschwitz sign back, in 3 pieces and I know the whole world just feels like it has gotten an early Christmas present. Oops, I don’t think you can say the word Christmas any more can you? That sign needs to be replaced anyway, with one that says, “Lies make you filthy rich”. Reading this tawdry, unctuous sop to a people who manufactured several holocausts much larger than the one they claimed they experienced, saves me the trouble of pushing my fingers down my throat to offset an intense state of internal nausea because it’s just that sick making that I don’t have to do anything at all.

Nice? It's quite outrageous, and soaked with barely suppressed hatred.

Big Dan's Big Blog links to Lies Visible's SmokingMirrorsBlogspot. - they even have it listed under the category "exposing fascism"!

Brad Friedman's friends hang out at Big Dan's Big Blog. BradBlog's moderator Agent99 frequents BigDan'sBigBlog. Doubtless Brad Friedman's friends hang out at BigDan's for such gems as the anti-semitism and hate of "SmokingMirrors" and Lies Visible.

Lies Visible is "exposing fascism" is he? Hmmm. And Christopher Bollyn? Whilst American Free Press is "NEWS".......

Notably Big Dan's Big Blog also lists Plunger's anti-semitic rants under "exposing fascism" too: alongside the other supposed "exposers of fascism" - SmokingMirrors, Chris Bollyn, Awake From Your Slumber........ (Plunger is frequenter of Big Dan's Blog and BradBlog and gets special posting rights at BradBlog, apparently.)

Thursday, 24 December 2009

Rivero - "the cultural failing of jews"

WRH/MR: If there is one cultural failing of the Jewish people it is that they do not know when to quit. They get 90% of the way to controlling the world, then they cannot resist the temptation to show off, whereupon there is a public backlash. It has happened hundreds of times over the last few thousand years.

Hard to know where one should begin in describing how much bullshit that is. Wow. Rivero the historian, the social scientist........ Who knew history was so easy?

"If there is one cultural failing of the Jewish people....."

Can there reasonably be a single culture of "the Jewish people"? It's a religious [i]and[/i] ethnic distinction - there are atheist Jews, for instance. Rivero shows a ready inclination to make vapid generalisations about diverse groups (esp if they're Joooos)

"[the Jewish people] get 90% of the way to controlling the world......."

Don't you love the matter-of-factness? Of course "the Jewish people" are perenially out to "control the world"......and of course they always get to exactly 90% control before they

....cannot resist the temptation to show off.....

Well, who doesn't know that? Of course "the Jewish people" love to show off? Especially about how "they control the world"! We all know this? It's a priori? Of course, of course.

....whereupon there is a public backlash.

Rivero's explanation for "anti-semitism", I suppose? Anti-semitism is actually just the non-Jewish people throwing off their perenial persecutors, "the Jewish people"! Wow - didn't you know?

It has happened hundreds of times over the last few thousand years.

Really? There's only 20 lots of "hundreds" in the last 2000 years.

Does anyone believe this narrative has happened "hundreds of times in the last few thousand years"? Can anyone believe "the Jewish people" have gained "90% control of the world" hundreds of times? And then ruined their evil plans (hundreds of times) by inadvertently fomenting a backlash against their own hubris (hundreds of times)?


Rivero's comment, which appears in his "letters archive", is an admission that Rivero subscribes to the Hitlerite fantasy of "World Jewish Conspiracy", the primary motivating myth of Nazism.

Rivero's Grand Conspiracy......disappeared.

WRH: The governments were expecting a global carbon tax out of Copenhagen. They didn't get it. So they are raising taxes everywhere else. [Dec 22 09]

For years Rivero was whining that the "global carbon tax" was coming as part of global government, forced through by globalist fascist diktat, blah blah blah.

And when no agreement is concluded at Copenhagen...........Rivero has no explanation, but he just carries on regardless. Rivero now says 'the globalist plan' is now to just gain taxes by other means (because of the lack of agreement at Copenhagen.)

But -- why wasn't there an agreement at Copenhagen if there's a huge global conspiracy that "rules the world"?

How come this monolithic grand conspiracy failed to agree amongst itself? How come the super-powerful conspiracy failed with its super-plan to impose global government through carbon taxes etc?

Some conspiracy if they can't even organise a few signatures to endorse their evil masterplan?

December 17th 09, Rivero was still insisting that

WRH: Without the carbon tax, many governments, including the US, are in serious trouble. They are putting every card and every chip they have into play.

Rivero - begging for funds

From Mike Rivero's WhatReallyHappened.con

As you know, I am not very good at asking for money, mostly because I know that my readers, like myself, are just barely getting by. I do not do the big quarterly fundraisers raising tens of thousands of dollars. I try to make WRH pay for itself, but ad revenues have dropped and we are having to let one of our advertisers go because they persist in running ads for known scams on our site. We have been running WRH for 16 years on pennies. Right now Al Gore and his buddies have hundreds of millions of dollars looted from the Sub-Prime and Credit-Default-Swap bubbles to spend trying to enslave you all to a global carbon tax, and all of the bloggers trying to prevent that have precious few resources to prevent that from happening. Contrary to Al Gore's PR shills, we do not in fact receive paychecks from the oil companies. We rely on ad revenues and your support. I hate having to ask, but right now we really need any help you can give us to keep running.


Thanks (and thanks again to those that already did help us out this morning)

WRH's Christmas Cheer - AKA - Anti-semitism

Christmas Eve, and two quite astonishing pieces published at Mike Rivero's What Really Happened.

Classic anti-semitism.......
How Much Blood Can a Bloodsucker Suck?
By: Saladin


How much blood can a bloodsucker suck? Several trillion pints, er dollars, obviously.

Using the greatest scam in history, Holocaust™ Reparations which will continue to be sucked from Germany and others till the Sun burns out. The 2nd and 3rd generation Holocaust™ grifters are already making a move, putting out PR releases stating that they are needing professional 'help' to deal with the trauma...

Then there will always be money needed to keep Holocaust™ Land theme parks up and running and all those other sites deemed holy by the greatest bunch of frauds and con artists ever to walk the Earth.
Bloodsuckers. Holocaust as scam. Til the sun burns out.......

Then this astonishing line about Chomsky
If you’re thinking Chomsky would ever say that Israel is the boss of America, or that jews run America, you don’t know Chomsky.
No shit!? Who on earth would even raise that about Chomsky? What a thing to say........

The whole nonesense is here, for posterity. Sheesh.
Chomsky’s Latest Gasser: Israel is US military base

Renowned American sociopolitical analyst Noam Chomsky says Israel functions as Washington’s main weapons storage base in the Middle East.

“Israel is essentially a US military base, the US positions weapons there, that’s a very close military and intelligence tie,” the Jewish academic told Press TV on Wednesday while explaining the complexity of relations between Washington and Tel Aviv.

Commenting on the weapons that Israel received from the US before launching its 2007-2008 offensive in the Gaza Strip, Chomsky said that the exchange of weapons between the two sides was not surprising.

“[Israel] is receiving weapons constantly. In fact, weapons were sent during the invasion of Gaza. They tried to send them, they were supposed to send them from Greece, and Greece refused to ship them,” he said.

“When pentagon was asked about this, they responded (I think correctly) that the weapons were not being sent for the Gaza invasion which was underway with the US weapons of course; rather, the US was positioning weapons in Israel,” he added.

Source article is here.

P.S. This is quite a gasser. It’s right up there with “it doesn’t matter who did 9/11.” If you’re thinking Chomsky would ever say that Israel is the boss of America, or that jews run America, you don’t know Chomsky.

Look for Chomsky disciple Finkelstein to add “Israel Is a US Military Base” to his repertoire of hits on his traveling zionist peace show which includes such well worn out hits like “It’s Ludicrous to ask for the dismantling great countries like Israel and the USA, just have them live up to their founding principles.” The lyrics of this last hit include a litany of US crimes…not done on Israel’s behalf of course.

Oh, and at his traveling zionist peace shows, Finkelstein doesn’t like mentioning or talking about zionism. But for a real laugh, ask him about it anyway.

Finkelstein’s traveling zionist peace show can be seen at university campuses across the country. Suggested attire is rose colored glasses.

Source - ww3zionism

Difficult to avid the obvious deep animosity towards jews running through all that. What sort of an idiot can miss it? Impossible to believe people whom publish this stuff, like Rivero, can fail to understand what they're in fact supporting.

The stuff of Rivero's Christmas Cheer. How inspiring........

Monday, 30 November 2009

Rivero on Iran / "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

I intended writing this a while back, but couldn't be bothered. Now I feel bothered enough to mention it.
As befitting Rivero's worldview, he is indulgent of Iran, seemingly based on the principle of support for one's enemies' enemy. Iran is Israel's enemy, thus Iran gets Rivero's support.

In early October '09 Rivero pushed a very positive view of Iran's position in negotiations over proposals Iran allow foreign rather than domestic uranium enrichment. Before the negotiations had concluded, Rivero was asserting Iran was going to agree to the proposals, and that such agreement would cast Israeli and American policy into disarray, as Iran's agreement was the last thing Israel and USA policy actually demanded, intent on war at any cost as they are, or so Rivero believes.

However, now we are further down the road, late November, and Iran still has refused to agree to the proposals. So, not only was Rivero wrong in fact - Iran did not (and still has not) signup to the proposals - but also the Rivero's entire scheme of Israel and USA being "hellbent on war no matter what" is undermined. But does Rivero even notice? No.

Surprisingly Rivero hasn't deleted some of his earlier comments, so we get a good chance to see how his position on Iran and the proposals has shifted, as the facts have changed. As the facts have changed, we can see Rivero yet holds to the same basic premise - but that premise - of (Jewish) aggression Iran is now justified by the new facts (even though the new facts contradict the old facts, which back in October Rivero had used to justify the same premise.) So, two seemingly contrary sets of facts - what Rivero thought would happen but didn't (Iran accepting the propsals) and what Rivero thought wouldn't happen but did (Iran refusing to accept the proposals) - are both rationalised by Rivero as justifying his wider premise of Jews conspiring in aggression against Iran.

Here's Rivero back October 24th:
As I predicted yesterday, Israel is trying to find some way to scuttle the Iran deal and proceed with the war.


Israel is cornered here. For that matter so is the United States. When this Iran deal goes through on Friday, the primary excuse for war with Iran evaporates.

....the Iran enrichment deal ends the possibility of a new war with which to distract from the old war.
And here's Rivero, more recently, writing after it became clear Iran still hadn't signed up to the proposals: Rivero, October 30th:
It isn't a deal until ALL sides agree to it.

The big lie here is the attempt to claim that Iran did agree to the original deal, which they did not, then to portray Iran as having broken the agreement which was never agreed to.
Ahem. On October 21st Rivero had written:
"Iran agrees 'in principle' to compromise on nuclear programme

Crisis over.

War is called off!

Now on to Israel's war crimes trials!!!!
Rivero seemed certain Iran would sign, he said Israel and USA warmongering was "cornered" by the prospect of Iran signing the proposals. But late November, and Iran still hasn't signed, and there's been a subsequent UN motion censuring Iran.

If "the Iran enrichment deal ends the possibility of a new war" as Rivero claimed, why didn't Iran go for it? If the deal had "ended the possibility of a new war", why did Iran refuse to sign, and doesn't that mean anything? The interpretation is just changed, so that the new facts can renew the attack on Jews.....err....Israel. Whoops.

WRH asks "James Von Brunn: Crazed killer or American hero?" (!)

The link Rivero provides leads to John Kaminski's homepage, not the story itself.

Unsurprisingly the essay promotes Von Brunn as an "American Hero" for his homicidal attack on the Washington Holocaust Museum. The essence of the argument is a reiteration of Von Brunn's own claims which are a miasma of anti-semitism and far-right conspiracy theories targeting the Federal Reserve, international Marxism and (of course) world Jewry as the principal causes of America's "woe".

The usual Rivero rubbish then........

But even for Rivero, promoting Von Brunn as "an American hero" is just a bit strong, isn't it? And whilst Rivero claims he isn't anti-semitic, he's 'just a critic of Israel' apparently, the fact remains he promotes the most extreme anti-semitism in the work of others - to the point of calling Von Brunn "an American hero".

Here's some of what the article Rivero is promoting actually says:
.....if you are acting on principle alone with no friends at your back, you often wind up being declared a “lone nut” by those who don’t have the courage to comprehend your ideas about justice, honesty, and who is doing what to whom, and you wind up alone and bleeding, your sharp tongue finally silenced, never to feel the warm hand of a friend again in this life.

In this world, such is the frequent consequence of acting on principle.

James Von Brunn had attacked.....the two central influences responsible for the rapid destruction of the American republic: the Federal Reserve and the Holocaust Museum.

....more knowledgeable [people] are more likely to include [Von Brunn] in a category that includes the famous patriot Patrick Henry, who said “Give me liberty, or give me death!”, or Eugene Debs, a presidential candidate who was put in jail during World War I for saying that war was bad.

James Von Brunn spent his entire life searching for the truth as he saw it, and as he learned it. Very early on he spotted the Jewish financial hammerlock that appeared, to him, to be turning the world into a pornographic quagmire. He spent much of the rest of his life trying to convince anyone who would listen of the dangers we all were not seeing, and how our lives were being degraded and destroyed by this network of financial vampires.

.....Here was a great opportunity for the lockstep Jewish media to really go off about a white supremacist Jew hater shooting up a Holocaust Museum. I mean, is the movie version already in production, or what?

Only one answer fits. Von Brunn was too hot to handle. He was so on point that there was no debating him. He had the goods, and Jewish media didn’t want people to hear that. That’s why they’ve made all these laws prohibiting hate speech, so no one may question the Jewish lies that are imposed on us as their utterly deleterious fabricated rendition of reality.

[Von Brunn wrote:]....Through manipulation, bribery, slander, assassination, and control of the mass media, JEWS contrived to pit nation against nation, race against race, financing all sides in the resultant wars; then at exorbitant interest rates financing reconstruction of the devastated countries. Rothschild's modus operandi has kept Western Civilization in a continuous state of war and eternally in debt.

“In 1981 America's future seemed dismal indeed. It seemed to me that IF the FED could be brought to center stage and exposed, the entire Illuminati structure would collapse. Enraged citizens would hang the International Bankers. America would resume its role as a bastion of Western Culture.”

....JEWRY was politically invisible to the West, and its war against the West was always subterranean, cunning and deceptive. JEWISH strategy was to infiltrate the institutions of Western Culture and destroy them. JEWRY'S primary weapon was money manipulation and USURY.”

“JEWS have no religious scruples regarding money where goyim are concerned. They now have the means to carry out their war of annihilation of the West. They would not surface as a fighting unit and openly attack their hated enemy. They remained invisible. Their strategy was to organize the entire JEWISH People into a Fifth Column whose purpose is to penetrate the West and destroy everything.

No doubt a conspiracy exists to create One World Marxist Government at the sacrifice of America's sovereignty. Just as certain, One World ideologists of all stripes are financed by the International Banking Cabal, in which the Federal Reserve System (FED) plays a major role.
So, there we have it: Rivero is touting an acknowledged "white supremacist jew hater" as "an American hero".

Rivero is clearly engaged in the same sort of subterfuge and LIES that BigDan'sBigBlog and many others exhibit - to claim they themselves are not anti-semitic even as they promote authors and works which really are, obviously, anti-semitic. Rivero and the others are facing both ways. How can one sustain denials of anti-semitism whilst promoting Von Brunn as an American hero? Especially when the reasons claimed for Von brunn's heroism are his preparedness to act homicidally against "the world jewish conspiracy"! Von brunn isn't a supposed hero because of violence against Israel or Zionism - but against "the world jewish conspiracy". 'Jew' is the disinction used - nothing else.

Here's Rivero claiming he doesn't hate jews:
I am not "anti-Jewish"....... The truth is that I don't hate the Jewish people.
Rivero doesn't "hate jews" yet promotes claims that "a white supremacist jew-hater" is "an American hero" for attempting homicide justified on the grounds he was acting against "the world jewish conspiracy".

In this bizarro world of Rivero and Kaminski, what exactly would constitute anti-semitism if Von Brunn's views and actions don't?

And how come Von Brunn found his political home amongst the white supremacist far-right.......and is touted as a hero by Rivero and Kaminski for his homicidal attack on the Holocaust Museum.......yet Rivero can still himself avoid the labels of being anti-semitic, far-right and an ultra/white nationalist? How come Von Brunn was familiar and known to Eustace Mullins, Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby, Stromfront, VNN, etc etc - all far-right people and places which Rivero also promotes and whose anti-semitic conspiracy theories Rivero shares - and yet Rivero can still claim Von Brunn is an "american hero" whilst claiming he himself isn't any of the things Von Brunn stood for? How come?

I mean, what exactly is it that makes Von Brunn "an American hero" for Rivero and Kaminski if not the homicidal attack on what they believe is "the jewish world conspiracy"? And what is the notion of "a jewish/marxist world conspiracy" if not anti-semitic, racist, Hitlerite hogwash? How can Rivero etc call Von Brunn a hero and share his worldview yet still expect to somehow escape the charge of anti-semitism? He must think his readers are idiots........(they are?)

Laughably Rivero claims: will not find anything inside my site that talks about Jewish anything.


Saturday, 14 November 2009

Some info for Rivero - Dresden's Nazism

"Every year on February 13th and 14th, Germans commemorate the bombing of Dresden by the allied forces in 1945.

Usually there is an official memorial at the ‘Heidefriedhof’, a cemetery in the outskirts of Dresden. This year on February 13th , Dresden’s mayor Helga Orosz and Saxony’s prime minister Stanislaw Tillich spoke to the 200 mourners and laid a wreath in commemoration of the dead. Like in the years before, this event was also attended by several neo-Nazis, for example by members of the NPD, the main far right party, and of the neo-Nazi organisation HDJ.

In the evening of Friday February 13th, around 2500 people gathered around the ‘Frauenkirche’ (‘church of our lady’) – which was burned out during the bombing and collapsed – to remember the people who died during the bombing. Around the same time, around 1100 neo-Nazis marched through the city with torches.

Usually there is a major neo-Nazi demonstration to commemorate the bombing. This year on February 14th , about 6000 neo-Nazis – the highest number so far – from all over Europe came to march in Dresden. They listened to Wagner, symbolically laid down a wreath and carried placards saying: “allied bombing holocaust” and “historical truth brings intellectual freedom”. In their speeches they pointed out how the Allies “demolished an innocent city” and killed “hundreds of thousands of civilians”. In 2004 a commission of historians made clear that about 25000 people died during the bombings – far fewer than the number claimed by Nazi propaganda at the time and today’s neo-Nazis. It seemed necessary to highlight yet again how the city and its people were not that ‘innocent’: many of Dresden’s residents worked in war industries and the city was a communication and transportation hub.

A broad alliance of democratic institutions and individuals – among them the confederation of German trade unions and members of the Social Democratic, Green and Left Party- called ‘Geh Denken’ (‘Go think’) that engages against right-wing extremism in Dresden organised a counter-demonstration, which was attended by 7500 people. ‘Geh Denken’ opposes the ‘exploitation’ of the remembrance event by neo-Nazis, the “distortion of history” and wants to send a “democratic signal” against right-wing extremism."


But Rivero suggests nazi / anti-semitic graffiti at a synagogue in Dresden on the anniversary of Kristallnacht is "a hoax".

Monday, 9 November 2009

"HOAX!" says Rivero (about swaztikas daubed at Dresden synagogue on eve of Kristallnacht anniversary)

An article in the Jerusalem Post reports:
Police in the eastern German city of Dresden said a synagogue in the city has been defaced with swastikas and other far-right symbols.

Dresden police said the symbols were painted on an outer wall of the downtown Neue Synagoge.

There were no immediate suspects but state police are investigating.

The vandalism comes just ahead of the 71st anniversary Monday of the 1938 Nazi Kristallnacht - Night of Broken Glass - pogrom.
Rivero's response? It's a hoax!
Mike Rivero: How do we know this is another hoax? Aside from the prior long history of hoaxes...

On that logic, for Rivero, it's a hoax. Amazing. What a schmuck.

It's a hoax because.....there's been "a long history of other hoaxes"? Has there? More importantly, Kristallnacht was no hoax.....nor is the long history of anti-semitism, in Nazi Germany or elsewhere - though Kristallnacht holds a special place in the history of pogroms. There's no reason whatsoever to expect it to be "a hoax". (One perpetrated by joooos? Seriously?)

Rivero continues, somewhat obliquely and childishly, claiming
When you were a kid, playing Cowboys and Indians, or Cops and Robbers, did you WANT to be the Indian or the Robber? No, normal human instinct is to play at being the winners.

Well, big news flash here, the Nazis LOST and destroyed their country in the process. Nobody wants to be them. The so-called "American Nazis" are no more genuine than the "American Al Qaeda".

The Nazis are long gone, a relic of the last century. The recent survey taken of British school children shows that Hitler and the Nazis are not high in the public's awareness. Nobody but Israeli propagandists even think of them any more. Nobody wastes time with Swastikas any more but Israel's propagandists.
Is Rivero a first-class prick, or what? Does Rivero know Dresden very well? Does he know the situation vis a vis neo-nazism there?

And nobody wants to be Nazis? What about your friends, Herr Rivero?? They seem pretty keen. They do, after all, "waste their time" - and ours - with their Swaztika. As do you, Mr Rivero. Like when you sent your audience to a Swedish Neo-Nazi website, under the pretence that it was a Swedish rally for freespeech. It was in fact a Neo_nazi march in support of the holocaust denial of fascist-associated Ernst Zundel. "Swedes" hardly works to describe "SWEDISH NEO-NAZIS".

One of the comments left for Rivero's entry says:
If you planned to paint the synagogue anyway, what's a little primer in the shape of a nazi cross going to hurt?
Hilarious, no?

UPDATE: Rivero reported on the desecration of a grave (in Iran) of an Iranian protestor, shot dead in anti-government rallies in June 2009. Rivero's present support of Iran leads him to claim:
"If you can't identify and name the perps, you have absolutely no idea of who desecrated this grave, period, end of discussion."
For Rivero, some desecrations are different to others, obviously.

Saturday, 7 November 2009

Rivero and Fort Hood

Rivero's coverage is interesting.

Most recently he's linked to an Associated Press article. The AP article does not say what Rivero quotes.....what he quotes is ttaken from the comments.....which reproduce his own conspiracy view of the Fort Hood shootings.
Yesterday fellow soldiers tried to surprize the two consciencious objectors but the privates were prepared and killed 12 soldiers who tried to force their way into the privates' barracks at Fort Hood.
The link is given as:

and once clicked it says - "(Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)"

But the quote Rivero gave is from the comments, and the quote is totally at odds with what the AP article actually says. So what's the point of it? Just manipulation to make it seem AP said what Rivero does about Fort Hood shootings? Or is it just a way to repeat his conspiracy.....try to create a sense that it's a "popular" and reasonable view? Hmm.

I've been following Rivero's pronouncements on this story. Rivero feels the story is "a setup". Here's his explanation:
here is what I think happened.

I think that a GROUP of soldiers rebelled against further deployment. This is why we had early reports of multiple shooters, numbering up to 5.

But 5 soldiers shooting their officers signals mutiny in the ranks. It recalls the "fragging" of Vietnam days. It looks really bad to the citizenry. It could even spread to other soldiers and other bases where the military are stretched to the breaking point.

So, the DC boys look around and say, "Oh, we have this dead Muslim guy; we'll just blame it on him!" And presto-chango, five shooters pissed off with the wars becomes one conveniently dead [Jordanian - crossed out] Palestinian Muslim with possible links to Al Qaeda.

Only turns out Major Hasan isn't dead. Which creates a whole new problem the instant he gets off that ventilator at the hospital.

November 5th Rivero claimed:
This is a staged incident.

Rivero links to a Prisonplanet article, headlined:
Everything About Nidal Malik Hasan Screams “Patsy”

Interestingly, Rivero links to an article which argues against allowing this incident to be viewed in "a racist" way.
Nov 06 09:05
Fort Hood Shootings: Don't Let Racism Hide Truth


Back in May, an Army Sgt. stationed in Iraq and suffering from PTSD shot and killed five of his fellow soldiers. That man's name - John Russell - was Anglo Saxon. Nobody speculated on the role of his religion in the killing.
URUKnet. Hmmmm. But hold on? Religion is not a "race" what "racism" is there in religion? And what about all of Rivero's references to jews, the jewish, zionism, zionists?

Here is Rivero publishing an article the object of which is to suggest avoiding racism in dealing with the shooter at Fort Hood. a muslim asian? american....

Funny, considering Rivero's stance on jews etc. Usually for Rivero it's apparently the jewish religion responsible for jews' (always dreadful) behaviour......just as their race is responsible...just as zionism is responsible....all of it, whatever the occasion demands of his implacable opposition (prejudice).

A stark example of a gross double-standard.

Rivero says something else odd, too:
Remember the Gleiwitz Deception? The German Government killed a polish prisoner and left the body to be found to point the finger of blame at Poland.

Given how often the US government copies the Nazi playbook, I wonder if this Major is the sacrificial lamb to point the finger of blame at Muslims.
The Germans did not kill "A" prisoner at Gleiwitz. One would hardly have been convincing, would it? Plus there were 21 other operations involved in the deception. One prisoner killed? Come on Rivero? Get it right?
WRH/Mike Rivero: I repeat this reeks of being a setup.
Everything is a staged incident, according to Rivero. And it's all the fault of jews, of course.

Thursday, 5 November 2009

Something Socrates Likes, But Doesn't Know Yet (?)

Nikki Sudden and the Jacobites

Big Store

Where The Rivers End

Son of a French Nobleman

Who refuses to like that? I think it's brilliant. I'm guessing you like it, Socrates.....but maybe I'm wrong : I've never even been to Idaho....or Massachewsits.

Feel free to recommend stuff btw.

Something Welsh

This band are pretty much the band I wanted to be. They spent nearly 10 years on alternative circuit, but then had a Nirvana-like breakthrough, ironically enough, after one of their core members disappeared/committed suicide. I much prefer what is considered their more commercial stuff - it's much better produced, and the songs are much better. Like this one. (Watch it fullscreen!)

They're a very political band, left-wing, and somehow very Welsh (Almost exact contemporaries of mine.) They took a lot of stick over their support for Cuba, a song about Baby Elian, a tour that started (finished?) in Havana, etc. A pile of great tunes, which, somehow, I feel really reflect me, and the Wales I grew/grow up in. Their music makes me feel we have a lot of shared experience. For a while here in the UK they were massive - somehow I feel very proud of them. It's definitely not to everyone's taste though......and, as ever, I like their more commercial, well-produced stuff.

"The world is full of refugees,
just like you and just like me......."

Uncommon sentiment, sadly. But they made it an anthem of sorts.

Documentary - Schopenhauer on Love

I'm getting into Schopenhauer. I've never read any before, but I'm finding it really speaks to me. Video is a documentary on him - makes it very accessible.

I'll add the others in the series, as I enjoyed the Schopenhauer one so much......this next one is "Socrates - On Self-Confidence" :)

Epicurus on Happiness

Seneca on Anger

Montaigne on Self-Esteem

Nietzsche on Hardship

Tuesday, 3 November 2009

The Specials

Too Much Too Young


(Written about Coventry, apparently - somewhere I had lived a few years prior to this record's release, and its rise to No1. The video was actually filmed in London not Coventry, though it does give a great sense of the mood in BRitain heading into the pits of Thatcherite early 80s.

"It could be your job next!" --- that was a local landmark. It was stark-white graffiti, written on the last surviving wall of a demolished local steel plant.

It's strange how the demolition people left that wall there, even though the rest of the factory and plant had long ago been reduced to rubble. The mainline local train used to run past the last wall, with its solemn gaffiti warning. Nobody could escape reading "Thatcher was here......It could be your job next......" But still they left it there.

That train ride in the early 80s - Thatcher's Wales - was a trip through a "rust belt". Everything falling to pieces......rusting.....silent.... Grass growing across a dozen rusting train tracks.......and always that wall, with it's white-paint warning "IT COULD BE YOUR JOB NEXT"

A Message to You Rudy

I forgot this one:

I walk along this same old lonely street
Still trying to find, find a reason
Policeman comes and smacks me in the teeth
I don't complain, it's not my function

Nothing ever change, oh no
Nothing ever change

They're just living in a life without meaning
I walk and walk, do nothing
They're just playing in a life without thinking
They talk and talk, say nothing
I'm just living in a life without feeling
I walk and walk, I'm dreaming
I'm just living in a life without feeling
I talk and talk, say nothing
I'm just living in a life without meaning
I walk and walk, do nothing

Uptown Top Ranking - what is that?

Monday, 2 November 2009


1 in 5 mammal species on 'red list'

Many other species also endangered, while up to 70% of plants could be wiped out, say conservationists

Cash squeeze threatens
free nursery places

there are now warnings that not only will the state-run nurseries lose out but state funding could end up subsidising the profits of some privately run nurseries.

Bank sell-off may cost further £40bn

Alistair Darling will need to pour up to £40bn of taxpayers' money into the banking system if he is to fulfil a pledge to carve out three new banking players on the high street in the next four years.


1 in 5 mammals at threat whilst we are arguing over our own nurseries. 75% of plant life under threat?

"Free" nursery places? There's no such thing. Just like there's no "free" defence industry.

And wasn't it the argument in favour of private banks, and markets and all that, that they generated wealth? And yet substantial fractions of the anuual GDP is being borrowed to bail out the supposed engine of finance-capitalism. Along with financing the unemployment that goes along with all this, public debt is skyrocketing. The issue, then, is, who is going to pay for all this? That's the choice - and it's a class issue.

In the UK the Tories have already targeted welfare claimants. The poorest are going to be made to pay. Again. Because they were the ones whom gained the most out of the last 20 years' bubbles, right? And they're the ones responsible for macro-economic policy, right? They're the ones the Bank of England considers when it sets interest rates, right? So, of course they should be the ones to pay. They already have so much to give, anyway, right?

"Tax them til the pips squeak" doesn't even get there. The whole thing doesn't make sense. Children starve to death across much of the world. Others are fat and wealthy beyond measure. There is no lack of work to do, yet people are "unemployed". Doesn't make sense. "Efficiency gains" are generally bad news.....a real indictment of capitalism. (Though capitalism's barbarism does doubtless force a certain efficiency - like slavery would.)

Stalin and Hitler's workcamps seem to prove that despotism is less successful than even the least enlightened sort of libreral capitalism. Starving, dehumanised people simply cannot work very hard.

If certain conditions prevail, one could perhaps imagine the outcome. That's a fundamental part of science?

blah blah woof woof

Friday, 30 October 2009

Friday Night

David Gray is Welsh?

Friday night I'm going nowhere
All the lights are changing green to red
Turning over TV stations
Situations running through my head
Well looking back through time
You know it's clear that I've been blind
I've been a fool
To ever open up my heart
To all that jealousy, that bitterness, that ridicule

Saturday I'm running wild
And all the lights are changing red to green
Moving through the crowd I'm pushing
Chemicals all rushing through my bloodstream
Only wish that you were here
You know I'm seeing it so clear

If you want it
Come and get it

Wikipedia says
David Gray (born 13 June 1968, Sale, Greater Manchester, England) is an English singer-songwriter.

Gray was born and raised in Altrincham, Manchester before moving with his family to Wales at the age of nine, where he grew up in the small coastal town of Solva in Pembrokeshire and went on to attend the Carmarthenshire College of Art. He later moved back to the north-west of England to attend the University of Liverpool.
Crikey. I must have been at the same college at the same time. I would have been in Liverpool at the same time too.

Atta boy, boyo! I love David Gray. I didn't realise we had so much common experience.

Thursday, 22 October 2009

The BNP at the BBC

Just a thought

Why does the American "patriot" movement tend to regard Israel as such a pariah, when it might reasonably be expected Israeli indominability would appeal to the American revolutionary spirit of independence?

Americans had to kill people to become "Americans". To throw off external domination, imperialism, subjugation.

I'd have thought Israel's position and actions would thus appeal to that particular pride of Americans, especially amongst the "patriot movement".

I guess it's the attendant American Nationalism that makes the difference.....the fear that Israel/Jews are compromising American independence, and yankee nationalism takes absolute precedence over other nationalisms, even if they reflect america's own.

Rivero - Idiot

Oct 05 13:20
Terrorists could seize nuclear weapons if we fail in Afghanistan, warns Army chief

Rivero comments:
Okay, how does letting the Taliban have Afghanistan back link to terrorists getting nuclear weapons, since there are none in Afghanistan?
Rivero's never heard of Pakistan? Well, yes he has, because earlier he published a report saying
A tribal Jirga of North Waziristan on Sunday threatened to support the Afghanistan-based anti-US groups, including the Taliban, if the US drone attacks were not stopped.
Rivero seems trapped by his nationalism - the notion that national borders delineate people. They don't - at least not always, and certainly not in tribal regions where borders are bureaucratic rather than rational and historic remnants of different nations.

Whatever one thinks of the policy of the Afghan war and its encroachment into Pakistan, there is a definite rationale behind it - the fear is Pakistan's nuclear capability, exacerbated by the potential collapse of Pakistan state: Taliban-isation. How realistic is the threat of Taliban-isation of Pakistan? I don't know. Who does? I don't think Rivero does.

And does Rivero actually seek nuclear proliferation? Like many in the conspiracist world, and even wider circles, Rivero can appear to delight in Iranian acquisition of nuclear capabilities. For Rivero, seemingly anything which threatens Israel is worth supporting.....even if it is an Iranian (and therefore radical islamic) nuclear program. I don't see why Iranian nuclear capability is something to be encouraged, even accepting the obvious hypocrisy of nuclear-armed USA/UK (and maybe Israel.)

Rivero suggests USA should not support Israel in any anticipated action against Iranian nuclear program. Rivero refers to close Russian relations with Iran thus:
a war between Israel and Russia over Iran; that would be something to see!
He seems positively delighted at the prospect. I don't understand why Rivero endorses Russian protection of its ally Iran but insists American alliance with Israel is so inexplicable, dangerous, and perverse.

But, hey - maybe the Iranians performed a bloodless coup and now a cabal of Iranians are running Russian foreign policy?

What other reason could there possibly be for a superpower supporting a minor and insignificant ally with military aid? Russia and Iran know it might lead to a major conflagration with an ally of a Russian behaviour can only be explained by a cabal of Iranians running Russian foreign policy? That's the argument Rivero uses for Israeli and America alliance - but strangely not for Iranian and Russian alliance.

Likewise there's a difference in how Rivero treats the states which are not members of the NNPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty). The non-signatories of the NNPT are India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. Isreal is the only one of the four without an acknowledged nuclear weapons capability - though it seems near-certain that she does possess such capability.

Presumably Israel has as much right to opt-out of the NNPT as India, NK and Pakistan? And presumably the nuclear capabilities of each and all of these countries are of concern? Obviously not, as whilst Rivero mocks the idea that "failure" in Afghanistan could lead to a greater threat from Pakistan's nuclear capability -- doubtless a huge concern for India -- it is Israel about whom he writes:
The real problem with the Middle Easy (sic) is that Israel refuses to abide by the same rules as all other nations.
All other nations? Like Pakistan, India and North Korea?

Where's the concern about these other nuclear-armed non-signatories of the NNPT? Where the concern about increasing Iranian nuclear capability? Rivero's concern is skin-deep and reveals he is more interested in condemning Israel than threats of nuclear proliferation.

Surely we can all understand why a nation would seek nuclear weapons capability - as self defence? It would be stupid to imagine Iran has absolutely no interest in such a capability. We understand the point perfectly readily over Pakistan and Indian acquisition of nukes, especially with regard to Kashmir.

The stand-off between nuclear-armed, NNPT non-signatories India and Pakistan over Kashmir is hardly something to be welcomed. Why shouldn't we be equally concerned over a potential similar stand-off developing between Iran and Israel? Too much of the discussion about Iranian nuclear development omits this. It is a reasonable cause for concern. Just as nuclear-Pakistan's fragile and combustible society falling prey to radical Islam - Talibanisation - is a reasonable concern.

Good Marketing - The Paranoid Style

Maybe it was this that "the hackers" didn't want anyone to read?
Mike Rivero: "...the US Government was hoping to ignite a new major war [with Iran], one which would distract Americans from the already failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the economy destroyed by failed US Government policy."
How ridiculous is that? War with Iran to distract from the war in Iraq, the economy, etc? Serious international crises explained by a desire to divert attention? Ridiculous.
Mike Rivero: "....the United States and Israel are in serious trouble. They had wanted war with Iran to distract the world from their various domestic problems, and now that is not likely to happen." distract the world from American and Israeli domestic problems! The USA and Israel want war with Iran to distract myself and others from American and Israeli domestic problems? Yeah - I can see them really caring about distracting me from their domestic issues. But that must be how the world works - Mike Rivero says so. Amazing. Who'd have known I had such an influence?

New Order - Elegia

Saturday, 10 October 2009

Prisonplanet Claims "friends on the left"! Attacks suggestions of anti-semitism.

Alex Jones has fans on both the left and right of the political spectrum
So claims Prisonplanet! Amazing. Even though Alex Jones insists the "left/right paradigm is false"!!!!!!!!!

Wow - I'm stunned to read Prisonplanet lay claim to having "friends on the left".

Do they mean Willis Carto? Eustace Mullins? Jerome Corsi? Ron Paul? Mike Rivero?

Alex Jones thinks "wealth distribution" is "communist trash". He believes the NWO is "socialist" - E.V.I.L.

Now he brags about having "friends on the left"! Listen up, Alex? "FUCK OFF YOU DO!!!"

Prisonplanet brags about its 'friends on the left' as it derides its target for being "ultra-elite" Bilderbergers.
In a hit piece that appears in The New Republic magazine, a publication owned by the ultra-rich Asper Bilderberg family, author Michelle Goldberg has trouble comprehending why Alex Jones has fans on both the left and right of the political spectrum, ascribing it not to the fact that Jones is interested in pursuing truth over partisanship, but to the claim that he is a “purveyor of paranoia”.
That'd be the same Bilderbergers popularised by Willis Carto's longtime friend and colleague, Big Jim Tucker, right? The same Jim Tucker of Carto's far-right talking box AFP that Alex Jones employs whenever he needs a rent-a-quote about "the Boilderbergs", RIGHT?
Michelle Goldberg wastes little time in attacking Alex Jones for taking on….you guessed it…..Bilderberg and Israel!
Like there's a connection between these things......Bilderbergs and Israelis? (I always thought it was Jews, not Israelis) And errr......has Alex Jones really "taken on the Israelis"? He's always tried to avoid being overtly anti-semitic........but now he's claiming he's "taken on the Israelis"? Does this mark a shift in Jones' and Prisonplanet's views? (They used to claim Poplawski the cop-killer opposed Alex's views -- because Poplawski thought Jones didn't "go after" Israelis/Joooos sufficiently.)

Prisonplanet criticise Michelle Goldberg's attack on Prisonplanet's anti-semitism because:
her paymasters are servants of Bilderberg and Israel
Ahhhhh. Of course!

[The most astonishing thing about criticising people for anti-semitism is that one is guaranteed to be "accused" of being either an Israeli, or a jew (or working for them) LOL The same as if you criticise racism - you get accused of being black, supporting the government of errr.....Congo..... Sure. Nobody says that.]
[Goldberg] actually implies that Jones hates Jews because he states that Obama is just the front man for an international cabal of global elitists.
Gee - how could Michelle Goldberg possibly think that! Of course AJ is misrepresenting what Goldberg thinks, no doubt (I haven't checked - but it's always the case with Jones). And funnily enough it seems Goldberg and I are in agreement - that Jones' attack of "NWO global elites" is a transparent effort to attack "joooos".

It is up to Jones to be specific enough to prove he isn't attacking "joooos". He never is. If his defence of his definitions is such that he claims "I'm not attacking jews - I could mean anyone"........then his definitions are so slack as to be useless.

And. criticially - his audience knows what he means. Look through the comments sections at Prisonplanet and the audience has a very clear anti-semitic core. Also look where Prisonplanet articles are posted........there is a deluge of anti-semitism.
Of course, by making everything about Jews and anti-Semitism, Goldberg is dutifully playing her role as the race pimp in an effort to try and invoke the age-old cliched stereotype of the right-wing extremist and portray Jones as a white supremacist hatemonger, when in reality we spend half our time trying to avoid race and are routinely chastised for doing so by white supremacists themselves.
That reads like a confession to me. They spend half their time trying to avoid race!? WTF does that mean? And see how they make the point that they are criticised by white supremacists? Who cares that white supremacists criticise them? Who would even be aware of it? WHO WOULD BE AWARE OF IT??

I've written earlier that Prisonplanet made a big deal of having "opposing views" to those of white-supremacist Poplawski, the cop killer. I suggested (and showed)that the real issue Poplawski had with Prisonplanet was that Poplawski was unsure as to the degree which Alex Jones saw "the jew" as the problem. Poplawski was unsure of Jones' anti-semitism.

Now we have Alex Jones' Prisonplanet defending itself by drawing attention to the fact that white supremacists criticise them......for their apparent ambivalence over anti-semitism. That's what Poplawski said.........and that's what Prisonplanet had claimed showed they held "opposing views" to Poplawski.

I had suggested that the entire reason Poplawski and white supremacists/fascists were ambivalent about Alex Jones was precisely because Jones was so careful to not appear anti-semitic. That's his whole not appear to be anti-semitic whilst indulging anti-semitic conspiracy theories through use of euphemisms about "NWO", "global elites", "media monopolies", NEOCON cabal, etc.

And now here's Jones and Prisonplanet defending themselves from accusations of anti-semitism by claiming they get criticism from the far-right/white-supremacism/fascism for not going "far enough", for not being "anti-semitic enough".

That's exactly what I suggested was Jones' ploy. Uncanny.
Prisonplanet: we spend half our time trying to avoid race

It was linked to from Rivero's WRH too. Nuff said?

Some of what Goldberg actually wrote:
Jones’s roots are very much on the far right. He represents an old strain of American conservatism--isolationist, anti-Wall Street, paranoid about elite conspiracies--that last flowered during the John Birch Society’s heyday. He began his radio broadcasting career in 1996, in his early twenties, with the Austin-based show "The Final Edition," which promulgated all sorts of black-helicopter theories about Bill Clinton. Steeped in the rhetoric of the militia movement, he’s long been a champion of Randy Weaver, the white supremacist whose wife and son were killed in 1992 by federal agents at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. (He’s asserted that the people behind Ruby Ridge and Waco were also behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombings--"Clinton’s Reichstag.")
Bloody hell! She's accurate!

She makes a very important point, imo:
it’s really only since Barack Obama’s election, when Jones turned the full force of his apocalyptic imagination toward the new president, that his ideas have found purchase in the conservative mainstream.
Right! And that's what Jones is about.
[The Obama Deception - Jones' film about Obama] is like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion stripped of any reference to Jews.

Goldberg mentions that FOX News has been promoting and echoing Jones. Surprised? Then this little blockbuster:
In late July, Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas appeared on Jones’s show to discuss the "nation-ending" potential of Obama’s policies and the country’s incipient march toward eugenics and fascism.

Anyway......what is there in the article to get Jones and Prisonplanet so annoyed? Where are the accusations of anti-semitism? Jones's ouevre IS the protocols stripped of references to jews - as Michelle Goldberg says.......that's what makes Jones such an ambivalent figure amongst white supremacists......they recognise his perspective is essentially the protocols stripped of jewish references.......they're just unsure WHY he has stripped them of the same way Poplawski was unsure.

So.....when Alex Jones' Prisonplanet claims white supremacists criticise them for "avoiding race"......we can see it really means criticism for dropping the jews from the Protocols.

So how (AND WHY!!) are Jones and Prisonplanet aware that white supremacists criticise them for "avoiding race" ie for omitting the jews from the protocols?

Friday, 9 October 2009

Funny - Troofers Never Mentioned This......

June 16, 2009

911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit

By John R Moffett

The 911 Truth Movement has been highly vocal about the publication of an article entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” that was published in “The Open Chemical Physics Journal”, which is part of the Bentham Open Science Publishers group of journals


The subgroup of 911 Truthers who are advocating this particular theory of the WTC collapse have declared victory over those advocating the controlled demolition theory, or the missiles disguised as planes theory, or the directed energy weapons theory, or even the secret nuclear reactors in the WTC basements theory, because they now have a “scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal” to buttress their claims.

It is not surprising that the public is not aware of the fact that the so-called Bentham Open Science publishing group is basically a vanity publication where anyone can publish a “peer reviewed scientific journal article” which is not actually peer reviewed.

This embarrassing fact became all too clear recently when another Bentham “peer reviewed” journal was caught publishing a fake paper submitted by Philip Davis, a PhD student in scientific communications at Cornell University.

Davis used a well known computer program that was designed specifically to generate nonsense science articles which would be spotted as such by any legitimate peer review process. The fake article entitled “Deconstructing Access Points” contained wonderfully nonsensical statements such as “Note that vacuum tubes have less jagged effective floppy disk throughput curves than do autogenerated robots”.

Despite making no sense whatsoever, the paper was accepted at the Bentham Publishing Groups journal “The Open Information Science Journal” as though it was peer reviewed, despite the fact that the author, Davis, never received any reviewer comments, which is a universal part of the peer review process. Instead, Davis simply received a bill for an $800 fee which was to be sent to a post office box in the United Arab Emirates.

Following the disclosure of the fake nature of the article (and withdrawal of the manuscript) by Davis, the chief editor at the journal, Bambang Parmanto, resigned. "I didn't like what happened," Parmanto told reporters for The Scientist Magazine. "If this is true, I don't have full control of the content that is accepted to this journal." Following this, Marc Williams, an immunologist and stem cell researcher at the University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry who served on the editorial advisory board of The Open Stem Cell Journal also resigned his position with the Bentham Group.

Previously, the chief editor of the Bentham journal that the Thermite article was published in resigned, and denounced the journal with this statement: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal.

The advocates for the nanotech thermite theory of the WTC collapse will never accept the fact that the Bentham Group journals are not actual peer reviewed scientific publications, but scientists all around the world are now convinced of the fact.

Thursday, 8 October 2009

Velvetrevolution - a confession?

I thought this was strange to see at VelvetRevolution, considering what I'd previously wondered about - whether a far-right organisation could pose as a critic of the election system to clandestinely undermine faith in the democratic process. Rather than serve as a critic of election fraud to defend the principle of democracy - as they purport - it is easily possible to imagine a critic seeking to promote election fraud as a means of undermining faith in "liberal democracy". It could be done to create a sense of illegitimacy of government, and also to create the space for a demand for "something different".......possibly even something not based upon democracy (following the example of Weimar, and Nazism)

Stop Domestic Terror

Recently, there has been an explosion in threats and acts of domestic terrorism. The majority of these can be traced to groups and individuals who do not accept the results of our recent election or the laws enacted or proposed by those who have been elected. They seek to undermine the democratic process through threats, intimidation, and even outright murder. They can't accept the legitimacy of the President, or a woman's legal right to make choices about her own medical care, or an immigrant's right to be treated humanely under the law, so they carry out acts that are antithetical to American democracy, American values, and both civil and human rights.

The fringe element that makes up those who commit these acts of terror is frequently exploited by a continuous wave of rightwing media advocating violence, either directly or indirectly, and by commentators amplifying the talking points of extremist religious leaders and extremist political leaders. This fringe is incited on our public airwaves, and urged to take matters into their own hands, with the underlying belief that the Bible and/or U.S. Constitution justify using ‘whatever means’ are necessary to oppose what they believe to be immoral laws.

That seems to reveal an uncannily accurate rejection of what I suggested. Yes - it's a rejection - but that's the point. They're saying they reject exactly the sort of thing I had been on about - for the exact same reasons.

But this is coming from people who work to promote the notion of "election fraud" -- which they just asserted has been a major driving force behind "domestic terrorism".

ETA: Their campaign features this note:
We are supporting the efforts of other organizations that are addressing various aspects of this campaign, such as,,,,,,,,,,,,
Hey - VelvetRevolution founder member Brad Friedman should look closer to home? As if the moderator of his website (BradBlog) appreciates SPLC and ADL as allies? Hmmmm. Very odd.

Elsewhere in their campaign, VR call for a few things......which because of my experience of the people around the VelvetRevolution/BradBlog group make me immediately think they are targeting "joooos":
review whether any media groups are violating antitrust laws by monopolizing media or media markets
If that was written by BradBlog's moderator, it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude they meant to target "joooos". Big Dan's Blog, populated by BradBlog commentators, including the moderator, indulge a long-running theme that the media is "joooish controlled".

At one moment the commentariat and moderator of BradBlog are espousing "jooooish media control" at BigDan'sBigBlog - "google Hitler's last testament!" - whilst over at BradBlog's associated website, VelvetRevolution, people are calling for investigation of media monopolies - alongside the ADL and SPLC!!

Pardon me, but how the fucking hell does that make sense?

Bradblog's Plunger saying "Media = ALL LIES = Jewish owned and complicit".......BradBlog's Z saying "Media is Jewish Controlled".......BradBlog's VelvetRevolution saying "let's work with the SPLC and ADL to work against 'monopoly media'"


VR say:
The campaign urges .....federal legislation to require more diversity in the media, and congressional hearings on media monopolies and the responsibilities of media to act in the public interest.
They mean "reduce jooooish media control"? What else can they mean when considering the same website proprietor (Brad Friedman) indulges the anti-semitism of plunger, Z, BigDan, Agent99 (Brad's moderator!)

For example - at BigDan's, Z - a commentator at BradBlog - and friend of BradBlog's moderator and others - wrote:
They [Jews] only control 96 % of the world media - propaganda machine.

The power of lies, deceptions and disinformation as Americans pay the price of collective stupidity.

Should any minority be allowed to wield such awesome power?

Facts of Jewish Media Control
Plunger - another BradBlog regular - and friend of BradBlog meoderator Agent99 - wrote:
ALL LIES. Media = Jewish-owned and complicit.
Yet Brad's VelvetRevolution seeks to work with ADL and SPLC!? Against racism? (And (joooish) media monopolies.....very clever)

When I posted at BradBlog previously to ask about his apparent indulgence of such anti-semitism, it was deleted, I was denounced as insane.....etc.

Now they're campaigning with the ADL against racism? (and jooooish media monopolies, of course.....)

Only in America

Only in America

Collapse started at plane impact sites

Impossible to explain by "controlled demolition". How could pre-concealed explosives survive such a fire? Impossible. How could the perps know where the planes would hit? Impossible.

Controlled demolition hypothesis cannot explain the indisputable facts that both tower-collapses started at the imapact sites where it was impossible for the explosives required for demolition to survive intact and functional.

WTC Towers : Definitely not free-fall