Sunday, 31 January 2010

Ron Paul - and Freedomworks' Dick Armey

Alex Jones supports Ron Paul, as do all his "followers", apparently.

Amusingly the imbeciles whom swallow Alex Jones's guff imagine both they and Alex Jones are fighting (amongst other things) "Big Pharma".

Even as Ron Paul rubs shoulders with Armey! (Armey is famed for working for Big Pharma....) And Ron Paul appears at Armey's "grassroots" rallies against healthcare reform.......

Yet Alex Jones' supporters still twitter on about how they are "fighting Big Pharma". HAHA

Oh - and there's no left or right, remember? Sure.......

Mises Institute - subsidised by interesting source.

Ron Paul's favourite outlet for his own extreme neo-liberalism is Lew Rockwell's Mises Institute. Quite an interesting bunch - with some pretty ugly themes running along.

For instance......Rockwell's Mises Institute has been subsidised to the tune of $116,000 since 2000 by a Las Vegas resident named James Edward McCrink.

State subsidy bad - private subsidy good?

And who is this James Edward McCrink? Why is he subsidising a seemingly extreme neo-liberal think-tank?

Well, look who else Mr James McCrink has similarly subsidised?
The Institute for Historical Review, the Holocaust-denying hate group created in 1978 by anti-Semitic patriarch Willis Carto, has had few better friends over the past decade than a Las Vegas resident named James Edward McCrink. A foundation created and controlled by McCrink gave the institute at least $10,000 a year from 2001 through 2007 — $137,000 altogether, according to the foundation's annual reports to the Internal Revenue Service.

McCrink, who typically distributes $125,000 to $200,000 each year to various causes through his Do Right Foundation, is a low-profile bankroller of more than a dozen far-right organizations, including several that, like the Institute for Historical Review, are in hate-group territory. Since 2001, his foundation has also given $37,000 to the white nationalist New Century Foundation, whose leader, Jared Taylor, wrote recently: "When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears."

With assets of $3.8 million in its latest filing to the IRS, McCrink's foundation is not a huge player in the nonprofit world. But many of the organizations it supports are small enough for Do Right's contributions to account for a significant chunk of their income. In the case of the Institute for Historical Review, for example, McCrink's 2005 contribution of $25,000 accounted for 8.6% of the group's total revenue ($290,332) for the year.

McCrink's IRS reports also indicate that he cut off his giving to certain extremist groups after supporting them for a year or two. In 2001 and 2002, he gave a total of $25,000 to Louisiana's New Christian Crusade Church, whose pastor, James K. Warner, helped found the American Nazi Party and had close ties with KKK leader David Duke. The church embraced a theology known as Christian Identity, whose adherents believe that whites of European descent can be traced back to the biblical lost tribes of Israel; that Jews are the literal offspring of Eve and Satan; and that non-whites are soulless "mud people" created as "beasts of the field." The Do Right Foundation's reports show no contributions to the church since 2002.

The foundation also made a one-time 2006 contribution of $1,000 to the white nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens, a St. Louis-based group that says in its Statement of Principles that it "oppose[s] all efforts to mix the races of mankind," has described blacks as a "retrograde species of humanity," and once ran a photographic comparison of pop singer Michael Jackson and a chimpanzee.
Interesting no? Especially when one looks at what McCrink's foundation claims to be working for:
The foundation's mission statement, found on its website, says its goal is to "help mankind create a more joyful society. … We promote respect for God and all His creations; family unity; limited government; private property; free enterprise and the rule of righteous law." Among its aims, it says, is "championing that which was intended by the anti-Federalist, Christian founders of our country."
This is how it for "a more joyful country" can actually mean support for fascism.

Funny that this far-right milieu always shows up around Ron Paul......must be coincidence.....nothing to see here....move along......

And funny such an extreme neo-liberal pressure-group such as Ron Paul's Mises Institute should happily accept private subsidy..... Why don't Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul fold Mises Institute if it can't survive without "subsidy"? That's the advice they dish out to others.....

*ETA: Here's McCrink donating $2300 to RonPaul's presidential campaign

And here's the rest of the McCrinks family donating to.....Ron Paul and John McCain

Saturday, 30 January 2010

Man, are Halfway some bona fide wankers

I'm so banned I can't even link to the thread. That blows chunks - bastards.

Anyway - I posted here and got banned - for writing this:
I would like to draw attention to the articles posted here and in the original thread that's central to this post - "does anti-zionism = anti-semitism?" - I would simply ask the reader to take a closer look at the nature of the arguments in that thread, the content and style of the articles posted, and the history of the posters involved.

I would ask you to note:

1) Rogue and plain *wrong* definitions of anti-semitism are accepted as true. (So the entire question, and hence the thread, is misguided. But no-one cares..... Did you notice? Nevermind that it's easy to prove an equivalence between things when one's entire definitions are based on a tacit and circular equivalence of the very things under discussion? And no matter that the basic definitions are plain wrong. Doesn't it matter?)

2) Only a single perspective is considered. Opposing views are not represented. There is an obvious inability to understand opposing views at all - let alone to recognise them as remotely reasonable even if obviously conflicting.

3) Extremist, far-right and anti-semitic sources are quoted - and endorsed. (Why even ask crypto-nazis about "da joooos"? Does anyone really need telling what opinion a crypto-nazi has about joooos? Who takes the opinion of nazis as validation? Why should I? Why is this the dominant viewpoint presented?)

4) The only voice of jews present is that of jewish critics of Israel. Otherwise jewish voices are entirely absent. Like how the far-right employ Benjamin Freedman - the only use made of jewish opinion is that of the supposedly "honest" know, the jewish critics of jews. They're the honest jews - all the others are the jew liars.....the cockroaches.....the cancer etc etc.

5) The commenters at the website in question, Halfway.con, have a history of associating with and endorsing the ideas, themes, organisations and goals of organised fascism.

6) Overlying it all, the thread betrays an obvious inabilty to recognise genuine antisemitism. Without this ability to distinguish, one really must consider the "question" to be specious, dissembling, anti-semitic bullshit. Which it certainly is, IMO.

I ask you - consider what the thread was seeking to do?

The thread superficially appears to be saying criticism of israel/zionism is *not* necessarily anti-semitic. Fair enough, perhaps. There's an argument to be had there, for sure.

But the thread goes much further than that - it clearly seeks to claim that the term "anti-semitism" is used only to silence critics of .........what? Well.......look at the terms used? "the jewish mafia", "the zionist mafia", "zionism", israel. And go look at the sources? Look at their general use of "joooos"? We know what they mean, and they don't have to say it..........and definitions aren't important in a thread about definitions are they?

If this is an argument about definitions then surely the protagonists might at least themselves be careful about their defintions?

But are they?

No - clearly not.

Go read the definitions? Go read the "skill" with which they distinguish?

How can you ask the question if you can't even distinguish?

Anti-semitism is a prejudice against jews.

Go see if you can find a decent definition of anti-semitism in that thread?

Go see if you can find any recognition in that Halfway thread of what genuine anti-semitism is?

It isn't there. SO what are they asking, really?

I would ask you to note the context:

The people on the thread - at Halfway - support Arthur Topham's freedom of speech: they endorse and condone publications presenting extreme anti-semitism; they promote and condone white nationalism, fascism and even nazism.

That is "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" apparently.

And yet, whilst they argue this, they are busy censoring critics of their opinion.

They are censoring critics of their anti-semitism.

They're censoring critics of their far-right sources, censoring critics of the Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion........Topham......Curt Maynard...Stormfront.

That's what their "free speech" commitment consists of ----- opening avenues for the racist far-right.......

You've gotta be free to hate, to be really free, right?

No - I don't think so. I don't think you earn it like that.

Being intolerant of intolerance is no paradox - in the real world. Not at all.

What's the choice? To be so tolerant of intolerance that tolerance is obliterated? Oh great! Thanks for the wisdom.
It got deleted. says it all.

For that outrageous diatribe I got this:

They did say:
Dear Marx and Spencer,

Thanks for registering at Personal Development for Smart People Forums! We are glad you have chosen to be a part of our community and we hope you enjoy your stay.

All the best,
Personal Development for Smart People Forums
But then they banned me.

Freedom of speech ------ gotta love it? Fuck you, wankers.

And that includes you too, Sweejack.

Wednesday, 27 January 2010

Schaeffer and BradBlog fall-out over Obama

Interesting to witness BradBlog's reaction to their columnist Frank Schaeffer's column in which he blames the "ideologically purist" left for responsibility for the recent election of a Republican in Edward Kennedy's former seat, which has led to a setback to the likelihood of meaningful healthcare reform.

Bradblog has couched Schaeffer's article with all sorts of disclaimers. Bradblog makes clear it doesn't support Schaeffer's view, and claims it publishes such views for the sake of seeing opposing views, and arguing about etc etc.

Funny that Bradblog say this when they repeatedly deleted quotes from London Guardian by Michael Tomasky warning the left (in advance) not to listen to voices claiming "betrayal".......that opposition to even limited reform was very real and powerful.

Why didn't they delete Schaeffer's views, and denounce him as "insane" - as they did when I tried posting warnings (like Tomasky's) that their denouncements of Obama were going to risk reform - not help it.

When we look at BradBlog's moderator condoning views such as "Obama's *real* masters are in Israel" and "All media all lies = All jewish media" we surely get an inkling of the motivation for Bradblog's moderator opposing Obama on all fronts. ie not just on adequacies of healthcare reform.

Here's Brad Friedman's personal note added to Frank Schaeffer's article:

[Ed Note 11:16am PT: The views and opinions of guest bloggers, editorialists and essayists do not necessarily reflect those of the ownership of this blog. Nor do they necessarily not reflect them. We believe in actual democracy here and the expression of varying legitimate viewpoints and perspectives, as well as the civil and open debate and discussion of those points.


This piece is clearly opinion, versus news, and should be both recognized as much, and serve, as it has, as a departure point for healthy and reasonable discussion and debate. --- BF]
Ha! That reads like some of the most hypocritical self-serving shit I have ever seen.

Bradblog has actually worked pretty hard to prevent "varying legitimate viewpoints and perspectives" appearing at Bradblog.

And look how clear it is that they (Bradblog) obviously never really print opinion pieces that disagree with their own view? So often do they do it, they feel the need to warn their readers they're doing it.......and they make such a point of simply fencing it off as such. Funny.

I wonder how Frank feels about having his article so couched in editorial disclaimers?

Especially as he's hardly saying something hugely reprehensible? Schaeffer's argument is a reasonable one to make: that the left holds some responsibility for undermining healthcare reform. It's simply true that Obama has been attacked from the left - on every issue?

I couldn't agree that sole responsibility lies with the left, and in that I disagree with Schaeffer, if that is what he was saying. I don't think he could have been saying that though - as he obviously recognises the opposition amongst the right.

I think Schaeffer is saying something important - that the criticism we've seen of Obama from the left has certainly not helped obtain a substantial healthcare reform. The criticism - from "the ideologically purist left", as Schaeffer calls it - has been that the reforms aren't going "far enough".

We've reached a point where reform might not go anywhere - let alone can it now go "far enough". At this moment this is a major political defeat - one for which the critics coming from the left must take some responsibility for.

For me, I see it as America having failed Obama, not Obama having failed America. If anyone thought there was an incipient socialist revolution underway in the USA, then they were mad, quite frankly. Obama clearly has struggles achieving even minor reform - to imagine there isn't genuine deep and powerful resistance to the least leftwards tilt is fantasy. Even moderate reform seems to represent "communism" to many americans - and worse, they equate Obama's "communism" with "fascism". Even Bradblog's moderator and friends denounce Obama's administration as "fascist".

This reminds me of Stalinist Communist International, which had denounced social democracy as "social fascism" and worked to oppose it - rather than to oppose the genuine fascism that was growing and was a real threat against the social democracy. Of course, social democracy is much more amenable to socialism (and most everything else) than is fascism, so Stalin made a major mistake to work against social democracy - rather than with it - a failure which helped lead to the rise of fascism (it can be argued).

Here's wiki:
Social fascism was a theory supported by the Communist International (Comintern) during the early 1930s, which believed that Social democracy was a variant of Fascism because it stood in the way of a complete and final transition to communism. At the time, the leaders of the Comintern, such as Joseph Stalin and Rajani Palme Dutt, argued that capitalist society had entered the Third Period in which a working class revolution was imminent, but could be prevented by social democrats and other "fascist" forces. The term "social fascist" was used pejoratively to describe social democratic parties, anti-Comintern and progressive socialist parties, and dissenters within Comintern affiliates throughout the interwar period.
Wiki also gives Trotsky's criticism:
Leon Trotsky argued against the accusations of "Social Fascism". In the Bulletin of the Opposition of March 1932 he declared:
"Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!"
For a Workers' United Front Against Fascism B.O. No. 32

I was initially amazed when I saw Bradblog printing Frank Schaeffer's articles: he's unlikely not to notice elements of the far-right and their memes and methods, should they appear at Bradblog. I'm pretty certain Schaeffer can spot such things pretty well. So I felt bradBlog was taking a fairly big risk, what with Brad's moderator condoning some extreme anti-semitic and fascist myths, propaganda and sources. (Of course, previously Bradblog have deleted my responses about any of this to Schaeffer. They also denounced me as "insane" - for trying to post quotes from the London Guardian, for example. One has to be insane to post Michael Tomasky quotes and Guardian opinion pieces?)

I'm interested to see what happens next. And well done to Schaeffer for putting something so incendiary into BradBlog's complacent little coterie.

Tuesday, 26 January 2010

Chilcot - Iraq War Illegal

Iraq war was illegal, top government lawyer tells Chilcot inquiry

Foreign Office legal adviser says use of force against Iraq contravened international law

Along with this lawyer, and others, saying the legal opinion in the UK government was that the Iraq War would be illegal, we have the Attorney General's opinion on the legal aspects of the war, and his advice to Blair about it.

Astonishing to read (the Attorny General) Lord Goldsmith's dry (and self-incriminatory) argument about the war's "legality" knowing that somewhere around 1,000,000 innocent people died because of it.

And amazing too to recognise how close and almost indistinguishable the greatest war-crime is from something perfectly legal - and presumably moral - for these well-educated, highly paid, heads of the Great and Good.

Look how difficult they find it to distinguish between a war crime and legality? Look at how little appears to seperate the two things - at least in the eyes and thoughts of those populating the highest positions in the land.............


Attorney General Letter of Advice to Tony Blair (from Chilcot Inq.)

Thursday, 14 January 2010

From Stromfront

For my part, in many cases with films such as The Money Makers and other documentaries, I don't really miss the direct pointing out of the culprits; after all, it's so obvious. Obvious enough for the Jews themselves, who realize very well that almost all 'conspiracy theories' (= bits and pieces of forbidden knowledge) in the end will point in one direction....