Sunday, 30 May 2010


Saturday, 29 May 2010

Messing with Max

Sunday, 23 May 2010

Rivero and Israel, N Korea, the UN

Mike Rivero invariably attacks anything Israel does. Fair enough, maybe. But it provides a test of his consistency. If he is inconsistent, it suggests Rivero is anti-semitic. The present developing situation over North and South Korea's dispute about the apparent torpedo-ing of a S Korean ship might prove to be a good test of Rivero's consistency (and hence his anti-semitism.)

For Rivero, Israel's criminality is proven by anytime it rejects the stipulates of the UN, whether they be Security Council resolutions or General Assembly ones. (indeed - this is contradictory enough as usually Rivero and his fellow travellers regard the UN as part of the NWO - their ultimate foe: the UN is a threat to american sovereignty, but nevertheless Israel must obey its every stricture. An example of the hypocrisy produced by the anti-semitism within American nationalism. This can also be seen in Rivero's position over the issue of Iran's nuclear program, whereby the UN is regarded as complicit in "NWO lies" and malicious machinations.)

So, now we have N and S Korea to use as a litmus for Rivero's consistency - and hence his anti-semitism: we can compare Rivero's position on the apparent attack by N Korea on the S Korean ship with his position on (roughly similar) actions committed by Israel, eg the supposed Israeli attack on USS Liberty(?).

What has Rivero's position been on this apparent attack on S Korea by N Korea? Apologism! Rivero calls for calm, negotiation, a clear rendering of the facts!

S korea seemingly wishes to take the issue to the UN. What will Rivero's position be? Will he insist that N Korea submit to any UN demands and punishment as he always insists Israel must? We shall see.

Here's Rivero's initial response (May 21 09:39) to stories linking N Korea to the sicking of a S Korean ship:
Memo to Secretary of State Clinton: all the bloviating in the world will mean absolutely nothing unless China comes on board for whatever you might be conjuring.

And the options here are profoundly limited.

Just as South Korea has a defense pact with the US, North Korea has a defense pact with China. So any military involvement would be a big, fat, hairy no-no.

And in light of the fact that China is North Korea's number one trading partner (and absolute salvation in terms of aid, without which North Korea would collapse), economic sanctions are also a non-starter.

What would probably be the logical thing would be to encourage China to get North Korea back to the negotiating table in terms of creating a comprehensive peace treaty to replace the armistice which was signed in 1953, which never technically resolved the state of war between North and South Korea.

That would go a long way to ratchet down tensions in the region, if that in fact is the outcome desired.
Conciliatory huh? What strikes me is that Rivero places a lot of weight on China's power, and its relations with N Korea. This is similar to how Rivero treats Iran and her close relations with Russia. Somehow this sort of reasoning never occurs to Rivero when considering Israel and her close relations to the USA ie N Korea and Iran are seemingly legitimately provided startegic protection by their relations with the major powers of China and Russia respectively, and this must be respected, whilst Israel's strategic protection from the USA is apparently illegitimate and is not to be respected. China's relationship with N Korea and Russia's relationship with Iran help prevent war, in Rivero's eyes, whilst Israel's relationship with USA serves to promote it. China and Russia aren't threatened and obligated by their alliances (with NK and Iran!) whilst America's alliance with Israel is proof of American subservience to Israel - according to Rivero!

Also notable is that Rivero says nothing can be done unless China is on-board. Of course, this is just the position he takes on Israel, right? Nothing can be done against Israel unless the USA is on-board - realpolitic - accept it? Sure he does. lol

Here's Rivero's explanation of the wider situation:
The US Government is desperate for another war with which to distract the sheeple from the crashing economy, corruption, oil spills, and the already lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So, apparently America seeks a new war to divert public attention from an already ongoing war! This is plainly ridiculous.

Friday, 21 May 2010

Rivero's definition of fascism - FAIL

Here's WRH's Mike Rivero attempting to define fascism:
May 21 09:49
Senate Passes Wall Street Permanent Bailout Bill,

[WRH] Webmaster's Commentary:

This is why the stock market is up today. The US Government just officially transformed this Republic into a fascist economy, in which corporations will keep their profits, but be allowed to always dump their losses on the American people.
Rivero's argument essentially takes the form of leftwing criticism of capitalism - except he names the culprit as "fascism" not capitalism.

There's one major problem with this - Mike Rivero is chummy with genuine fascists. Rivero helps promote the far-right in all sorts of ways, and yet he appears to criticise fascism.

In fact, what Rivero does it to use the label of fascism as an attack on capitalism - even though he is himself essentially wholly sympathetic to capitalism and an ardent anti-socialist. This is misdirection - an attempt to use the label to attack that which he usually supports. Rivero is a largely a capitalist, and so he can't attack "capitalism". Hence he uses the term "fascism" for it instead - no matter that many of his fellow-travellers are fascists. This is why his definition is so distorted - and why it can change as need be.

Similarly Rivero plays his populist line.......promoting MayDay as a day of workers' rights, for example, lamenting the loss of union organisation, and great civil movements etc. This is from Rivero the anti-socialist!

Rivero is clearly trying to please his audience by covering a lot of bases......who isn't opposed to "those damn Nazis", for example? (Rivero accuses liberals, feminists, ecologists, socialists and jews of being fascists....even as he promotes genuine fascists. Everyone is a fascist except his friends (who just happen to be real fascists!) Rivero holds that anti-fascism is fascism. yeah yeah, sure....)

Considering Rivero's positions on things over the years, the only way I can make sense of it is if I consider him to be a fascist. No other position makes sense?

Rand Paul.........whoopsie

Randy Paul loves the private sector. Randy Paul would prefer no public facilities existed whatsoever.....he's all for the private sector. Keeping this in mind, here's Randy Paul on the issue of racial discrimination:
"On Wednesday, Paul expressed support for the 1964 Civil Right's Act's provisions banning discrimination in public facilities, but he had misgivings about extending the same requirement to private businesses — then or now.

"Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?" he was asked by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Wednesday.

So, according to Randy Paul the provisions of the Civil Rights Act should only apply to public facilities (which Randy Paul intends to abolish.)

What a commitment?

ETA - Whilst Randy Paul seems quite equivocal about the issue, I think the source is wrong to say Randy Paul answered "yes". The 'yes' Paul gave wasn't to the question, rather just an acknowledgement he'd heard it.

Nevertheless, Paul's position seemingly remains one that would entitle private business to discriminate under the rubric of "freedom". Freedom to discriminate - not freedom from discrimination.

(more) Prisonplanet Hypocrisy

Prisonplanet likes to pose as opposition to what it calls "the tyranny of a police state". Any law or regulation they don't like is portrayed as part of some Orwellian dystopic "police state" (run by the NWO, total control network, big brother, bankers blah blah blah)

And yet, on Arizona's anti-illegal immigrant bill Prisonplanet stand squarely behind an extension of police powers which could entail arrest if the suspect cannot immediately prove they are legally entitled to be in the country. Here's Prisonplanet:
Since Arizona passed SB 1070, the corporate media has attempted to portray it as racist and unconstitutional. The law specifies that police questioning of an illegal immigration suspect can take place only in the context of a “lawful stop, detention, or arrest” and not as a result of racial profiling.

A poll conducted Pew Research Center found that 62 percent of those surveyed nationally supported allowing police to question illegal immigrants and 59 percent said they approved of the Arizona law that takes effect July 29.
How does one prove one is legally entitled to be in America? Why does anyone have to prove it at any cop's arbitrary behest? If this situation wasn't about immigration Prisonplanet would portray it as (another) "death-knell for freedom". It would be regarded as further evidence of the supposed nazification of America - They would be saying "Vere are your paperz?" - if it wasn't about immigration.

Clearly this is an example of the hypocrisy of Prisonplanet/Troofer/Patriot: they pose as libertarians.....yet they are all for authoritarianism (and violence) when it suits their ends. In this example, they support an extension of police powers (over everyone) so as to deal with a supposed problem caused by a minority. Notable that Alex Jones has previously said the Israeli wall is "beautiful", and how much he "wants one". It makes him drool. (not the response one would expect from an instinctive, principled, non-violent libertarian.)

Here's a video of Alex Jones being exposed as a hypocrite. The caller makes much the same point I am making - and Jones completely flubs his response.

Interesting what Jones does here - he says he is against open borders because the globalist bankers (!) are in favour of it. Jones isn't looking at the specifics of the particular, he is making his mind up based on his wider, pre-existing ideological perspective. It is by checking his wider, pre-existing views that he forms his position - not on any principle relating to the particulars of the situation.

Do "the Satanist NWO banker elites" (or whatever) want "open borders" as Alex Jones claims? I'd suggest not. But nevertheless, this is the fact on which hinges Alex Jones' support for the Arizona law. Even if true - and it's a very contentious claim - does it legitimise increasing police powers in this particular manner? The point is - it is an extension of police power whatever the arguments in favour or agin might be.

Note what Jones says at the end - and how he says it?


Vere are your paperz!? Ve muzt enforce ze law!

Tuesday, 18 May 2010

Neo-liberalism and Chomsky's opposition

Neoliberalism is the defining political economic paradigm of our time.

It refers to the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their personal profit. Associated initially with Reagan and Thatcher, neoliberalism has for the past two decades been the dominant global political economic trend adopted by political parties of the center, much of the traditional left, and the right. These parties and the policies they enact represent the immediate interests of extremely wealthy investors and less than one thousand large corporations.

Aside from some academics and members of the business community, the term neoliberalism is largely unknown and unused by the public at large, especially in the United States. There, to the contrary, neoliberal initiatives are characterized as free market policies that encourage private enterprise and consumer choice, reward personal responsibility and entrepreneurial initiative, and undermine the dead hand of the incompetent, bureaucratic, and parasitic government, which can never do good (even when well intentioned, which it rarely is). A generation of corporate-financed public relations efforts has given these terms and ideas a near-sacred aura. As a result, these phrases and the claims they imply rarely require empirical defense, and are invoked to rationalize anything from lowering taxes on the wealthy and scrapping environmental regulations to dismantling public education and social welfare programs. Indeed, any activity that might interfere with corporate domination of society is automatically suspect because it would impede the workings of the free market, which is advanced as the only rational, fair, and democratic allocator of goods and services. At their most eloquent, proponents of neoliberalism sound as if they are doing poor people, the environment, and everybody else a tremendous service as they enact policies on behalf of the wealthy few.

Noam Chomsky is the leading intellectual figure in the world today in the battle for democracy and against neoliberalism.

.......Chomsky, who could be characterized as an anarchist or, perhaps more accurately, a libertarian socialist, was a vocal, principled, and consistent democratic opponent and critic of Communist and Leninist political states and parties.

Monday, 17 May 2010

Neo-Liberalism - Ron Paul - Alex Jones

On neo-liberalism:
Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992) is probably the single most influential individual economist or political philosopher to shape what is now understood as neo-liberalism, although he is best regarded, and considered himself, as a classical liberal. Hayek's own theoretical direction sprang out of the so-called Austrian School established by Carl Menger, Eugen Boehm-Bawerk and Ludwig von Mises during first decade of the early twentieth century.
It was during the decade of the 1980s that Hayek's political and economic philosophy was used by Thatcher and Reagan to legitimate the neo-liberal attack on 'big government' and the bureaucratic welfare state with a policy mix based on 'free' trade and the establishment of the ‘open’ economy: economic liberalisation or rationalisation characterised by the abolition of subsidies and tariffs, floating the exchange rate, the freeing up of controls on foreign investment; the restructuring of the state sector, including corporatisation and privatization of state trading departments and other assets, 'downsizing', 'contracting out', the attack on unions and abolition of wage bargaining in favour of employment contracts; and, finally, the dismantling of the welfare state through commercialization, 'contracting out', 'targeting' of services, and individual 'responsibilization' for health, welfare and education. On this view there is nothing distinctive or special about education or health; they are services and products like any other, to be traded in the marketplace.

These policies, sometimes referred to as 'the Washington Consensus', were designed to ‘restructure’ or adjust national economies to the dramatic changes to the world economy that have occurred in the last twenty years: the growing competition among nations for world markets; the emergence of world trading blocs and new ‘free trade’ agreements; an increasing globalisation of economic and cultural activities; the decline of the postwar Keynesian welfare state settlement in Western countries; the collapse of actually existing communism and the ‘opening up’ of the Eastern bloc, and; the accelerated world-wide adoption and development of the new information and communications technologies.
The Main Elements of Neo-Liberalism

For neo-liberals the commitment to the free market involves two sets of claims: claims for the efficiency of the market as a superior allocative mechanism for the distribution of scarce public resources, and; claims for the market as a morally superior form of political economy. Neo-liberalism as a political philosophy involves a return to a primitive form of individualism: an individualism which is 'competitive', 'possessive' and construed often in terms of the doctrine of 'consumer sovereignty'. It involves an emphasis on freedom over equality where freedom is construed in negative terms and individualistic terms. Negative freedom is freedom from state interference which implies an acceptance of inequalities generated by the market. Neo-liberalism is both anti-state and anti-bureaucracy. Its attack on big government is made on the basis of both economic and ethical arguments.
Here's Ron Paul on the Austrians/Neoliberals:
Policy makers would have been wise to heed the warnings of the Austrian economists, and must start listening to their teachings if they want solid progress in the future. If not, the necessary correction is going to take a very long time.

The Austrian free-market economists use common sense principles.

Alex Jones' Prisonplanet supports Ron Paul.....yet Jones wrotes critically of neo-liberalism. eg:Prisonplanet writes of the Trilateral Commission that:
Many of its members are also Bilderbergers with the same mutual interests for the development of globalization, the so-called economics of 'neo-liberalism' including wholesale privatization of anything that moves, the new world order and corporate capitalist totalitarianism.
More of Alex Jones' attacks on Ron Paul's neo-liberalism.

Ron Paul's definition of fascism - FAIL

Ron Paul writes:
Comingling public control of private business is known as fascism.
That's a weak definition. So weak as to be useless.

Accepting Ron Paul's definition, a completely socialised state could not be fascist - as there would be no private business with which public control could comingle. Duh.

The implication is that if Hitler had only nationalised everything he would have ceased to be fascist! And it was only the maintenance of the private-sector which prevented Germany from ceasing to be fascist! Once that had gone, Nazi Germany would have ceased to be fascist?

This is ridiculous. Every government since a private/public sector could be indentified has operated a regime where there's an overlap in both spheres. According to Ron Paul this means that all such governments are fascist. They're all fascist? Ridiculous.

Why do Ron Paul supporters believe that.....

Why do Ron Paul supporters believe that he is against job-outsourcing and globalisation? Ron Paul will happily export your jobs....and capital: here he is speaking against the bailout of GM --
Had it been allowed to fail naturally, the profitable pieces of GM would have been bought up and put to good use by now. The laid off employees would likely have found new jobs and all that capital would be in private hands, reinvested in companies that produce products demanded by consumers. Instead, we are all poorer now.
Hmmm. "All that capital would be in private hands". How reassuring? And notice it would all be wisely "invested in companies that produce products demanded by consumers." cute. But who employs these prosperous and demanding consumers? Not GM. And if GM were liquidated and cast to the wind, would the capital necessarily be re-invested in N America? No. The private, deregulated, unshackled capital would supposedly seek out the most profitable avenue caring not at all for "America" or for the effects of the liquidation of an almost an entire industrial sector.

And yet Ron Paul attracts the support of Nationalists! They seem to imagine Ron Paul is against job-exporting and globalisation. Paul also attracts 911 conspiracist and patriot types who tend to view neo-liberalism and globalisation as inherently "evil". This despite Ron Paul being Misean neo-liberal, and presumably completely "globalist" in so far as in principle he'd surely like a world free of any controls or restrictions on capital - eg zero tax worldwide, zero environmental regulation worldwide, worldwide competition. Ron Paul is fully signed-up to this sort of 'globalism' and NewWorldOrder.

Economic nationalists seem confused by Paul's apparent nationalism/patriotism. It befuddles them. In reality of course Ron Paul's extreme economic libertarianism is directly antagonistic and anti-thetical to the economic nationalism which so many of supporters actually hold dear. Ron Paul would demand that GM (and all the banks) should have been simply allowed to go to the wall, and sold off to bidders. Cherry-picked and liquidated. Apparently this would have made everyone better off.

Previously Ron Paul has said that Americans are overpaid. Paul mocked the wages of Michigan auto-workers, suggesting he'd like some of it. This is all obviously implicit in his position - if international capital can get the job done cheaper/more profitably in China, then it should. Moreover, any organised attempts at mitigating the sometimes devastating social impacts of such economic libertarianism must be forbidden.....they spoil the purity of the model, and somehow prevent it delivering its oft promised bounty of golden eggs.

I suppose one can't blame Ron Paul's nationalist supporters for falling for his patriotism as he does seem very careful not to make explicit these implications of his economic and social views. Ron Paul avoids making explicit the antagonism between his economic libertarianism and the nationalism of his supporters. But why would he?

ETA: here's Ron:
Bailing out banks, continuing failed Fed policies and strapping the taxpayer with toxic debt will worsen the pain, and punish the innocent.
Of course, if the banks failed, and you lost your money, or they foreclosed, or shut your credit off, the innocent wouldn't have been punished at all, right?

Sunday, 16 May 2010

What a load of tosh

Mike Rivero's stupidity/ignorance

Rivero's stupidity

WRH says:
May 14 09:41
92% of Conservatives Believe Obama is a Socialist or a Marxist
Webmaster's Commentary:

The rest of us realize he is a fascist.

Mike Rivero - more Holocaust denial

Rivero is again trotting out lies about the Holocaust and the International Red Cross.

Rivero quotes and links to Holocaust denial at, which claims
No Evidence Of Genocide

Of course this is simply untrue:
The ICRC report is very clear regarding Nazi atrocities; for instance, in page 641 of vol. 1, the report states that the Jews were "outcasts condemned by rigid racial legislation to suffer tyranny, persecution, and systematic extermination".

It goes on to say "they were penned into concentration camps and ghettos, recruited for forced labor, subjected to grave brutalities and sent to death camps". Another verbatim quote is the following (in the same page):

"During the period in September 1940, when the 'Iron Guard' supported by the Gestapo and the German SS had seized power, the Jews had been subjected to persecution and deported to death camps".

and from vol. 2, page 514

"In Germany and her satellite countries, the lot of the civilians belonging to this group was by far the worst. Subjected as they were to a discriminatory regime, which aimed more or less openly at their extermination, they were unable to procure the necessities of life".

The report includes more references to the policy of extermination the Nazis adopted with regard to the Jews.

The deniers often make the preposterous claim that the ICRC estimated the number of Jewish losses during WW2 as far less than 6 million. This claim has no foundation in reality. In 22 August 1975, the central office of the ICRC announced, regarding such assertions, that -

"The figures cited by the author of the booklet are based upon statistics falsely attributed to us, evidently for the purpose of giving them credibility, despite the fact that we never publish information of this kind".

(The booklet in question was published in 1974 by Richard Verrall, the editor of the publication of the neofascist "National Front". Verrall used the name "Richard Harwood". It contains the same lies about the ICRC report which are currently repeated by Holocaust deniers).

The ICRC explicitly stated that it never published nor compiled any such statistics. All references to such statistics are lies.

-Danny Keren.
Compare that to these lies which Rivero publicises repeatedly:
"the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence whatever at the camps in Axis occupied Europe of a deliberate policy to exterminate the Jews. ..... [the Red Cross's] complete silence on the subject of planned extermination is ample refutation of the Six Million legend."

Ron Paul - support for offshore drilling

In the long term, Congress must pass legislation like HR 4004, which I introduced earlier this month. HR 4004 takes a comprehensive approach by allowing offshore drilling, eliminating regulations that restrict refining, and suspending harmful tax rules that discourage domestic oil production. If we hope to have a stable, affordable supply of gas, we must allow the free market to operate. SOURCE

RonPaul on April 5, 2010 (!)
.....the administration has announced plans to explore opening up more off-shore areas for exploration and drilling. On the one hand this can be lauded as a positive step. On the other hand, it is too little, much too late....
Here's Prisonplanet publishing an article on offshore drilling:
Offshore oil production makes economic sense. It creates jobs and helps fulfill America’s vast energy needs. It contributes to the gross domestic product and does not increase the trade deficit. Higher oil supply helps keep a lid on rising prices, and greater American production gives the United States more influence over the global market.

Drilling is also wildly popular with the public.
ETA - Here's Mike Rivero at WRH, now posing as a defender of the nation's environment:
May 14 09:06
Alaska's Murkowski blocks Senate on higher oil spill liability

Senate Democrats Thursday lost a bid to raise the liability cap for oil companies to $10 billion when Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski raised objections.
Webmaster's Commentary:

I wonder how much campaign cash Murkowski gets from big oil?
Funny, Rivero never asked the same of Ron Paul...? Rivero has enthusiastically supported Ron Paul and has never mentioned the least ill ease about offshore drilling. Indeed, Rivero has supported the "small government" and pro-business views of Ron Paul and treats ecologists as fascists (eco-fascists) or an integral part of the supposed "NWO".

Saturday, 15 May 2010

Curt Maynard - dead: another hater goes postal

Curt Maynard fatally shot his ex-wife several times before shooting his step-daughter in the face. His 12 yr old daughter fortunately ran-off with her 2 yr old sister. Maynard then fled in a car and whilst being chased by police fatally shot himself, sending his vehicle crashing across roads and into a vehicle containing another mother and children.

Here's the news, as reported at What Really (Why would WRH care about Curt Maynard? The item appears at WRH sympathetically. There isn't the least hint of criticism and not the least hint of condolence to the victims. Despicable.) Maynard has of course appeared as a guest on Rivero's radio show, and Rivero hosts several articles written by Curt Maynard. Rivero has heavily featured and promoted Maynard throughout the last 5 years (or more?).

Here's a news article on Maynard's monstrous dénouement.

So, yet another Troofer-Patriot-racist-nutter bites the dust, in a most despicable fashion too. Good riddance, you fucking bastard. What a loss to the Troofer-Patriots, eh?

Friday, 14 May 2010


Nearly every Englishman of working-class origin considers it effeminate to pronounce a foreign word correctly. During the war of 1914-18 the English working class were in contact with foreigners to an extent that is rarely possible. The sole result was that they brought back a hatred of all Europeans, except the Germans, whose courage they admired.

Thursday, 13 May 2010

Just thinking......

British workforce is 30m people, ish.
Average working week is 40 hrs, ish.

That's 1.2 Bn hours a week.

The official unemployment rate is 2.5m
To employ all these people (full time / 40hrs) we need 100m hours a week of work to do.

100m is 1/12th of 1.2Bn.

Therefore......if those in employment cut their hours by 1 for every 12 they work, there will be (more than) enough work available to soak up all of the unemployed.

Not only does this remove the blight of unemployment at a stroke, it creates 2.5m new taxpayers and simultaneously reduces the number of benefits claimants by 2.5m

I guess the argument against it - or at least the main factor working aginst it - is the concern that people with work right now will get poorer (by about 1/12?) Would that necessarily happen? I find it hard to believe it is genuinely more "efficient" and viable to maintain 2.5m unemployed people. But anyway, the idea scarcely registers anywhere, even though France went some way to introducing such a regime. I think it's astonishing the idea doesn't get greater play in debates on unemployment and the fiscal crises etc.

Friday, 7 May 2010

Election night.......

Labour win the first few seats. Ones they're expected to.

5% swing to Con from Lab atm. Not enough for a majority. Hung parliament territory.
I don't expect Lib-Dems to do so well as everyone seems to expect.

Hopefully there'll be no major swing to mandate. Of course, that puts us in trouble vis the bond markets as it makes the "necessary" cuts and tax-rises more difficult to implement. Greece has socialist government, and an apparently reasonably popular one.....and yet, look at it? People haven't even really felt the crisis yet in UK. An insecure government is going to find it very hard going. Doubtless the markets will notice it. Shit.

Tuesday, 4 May 2010

Prisonplanet's own view of Teaparty - WHITE

Prisonplanet's Paul Watson writes that
Despite the arrest of a Pakistani-American who authorities have been trailing for two days as the prime suspect behind the botched Times Square car bombing, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg wasted little time in smearing anti-Obamacare activists as terrorists during an appearance on CBS News last night, implying that the attack was the work of a Tea Party activist.
Outrageous huh? To even imagine it! Dear dear dear.......

Watson explains:
Without knowing the full explanation behind the motivations of the man arrested in connection with the bombing, it seems unlikely to us that a man of Pakistani origin named Faisal Shahzad would have much to do with conservatives or Tea Party activists, which makes Bloomberg’s smear all the more insidious.
Unlikely? that Faisal Shahzad would have "much to do" with TeaParty types? How come? Watson explains:
Bloomberg had to be aware of the fact that the prime suspect was a Pakistani and not a stereotypical white American anti-Obamacare activist, so why even invoke health care as a potential motivating factor behind the botched attack?
You catch that? Why invoke healthcare and anti-Obama activism as motivating issues when the dude isn't even "stereotypical white American"! Why even consider he might be a TeaPArtier when he's Pakistani, and not "stereotypical white American"!?

Watson expects Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York, to understand this.......but Watson refuses to admit it himself. However, this is an admission of it: "the prime suspect was a Pakistani and not a stereotypical white American anti-Obamacare activist". That's how Watson sees the TeaPartiers etc. That's how Watson expects Bloomberg to think - and everyone else. Duh!
Bloomberg had to be aware of the fact that the prime suspect was a Pakistani and not a stereotypical white American anti-Obamacare activist, so why even invoke health care as a potential motivating factor behind the botched attack?

The NY 'bomber' is Pakistan-born........Prisonplanet backpedals.....

Here's Prisonplanet today, backpedaling from their earlier claims that the Times Sq. car-bomb incident was "an obvious false flag" know who.....:
Authorities were initially confident that there was no foreign involvement in the bomb plot, but the Pakistani connection now opens a window of opportunity for the Obama administration to not let a good crisis go to waste, as Rahm Emanuel would advise, and use the incident as propaganda for the war on terror and an expansion of predator drone attacks inside Pakistan
Notice how now it morphs into just another "crisis" which can be cynically exploited by Rahm Emanuel. Suddenly it isn't so obviously "false flag".....suddenly it isn't an indication of a vast socialist-liberal government conspiracy against "peaceful gun-lovers"......right.

Just days ago (yesterday?) Alex Jones wrote/published this:
We have been warning for weeks about an imminent false flag domestic terror attack that would be used to demonize the government’s political opposition and this appears to have been such an attempt. It just remains to be seen who will be fingered as the culprit by an establishment media straining at the leash to justify characterizations of angry but non-violent Americans as dangerous extremists.
Funny, but why was Alex Jones so concerned it might be "blamed" on teaparty, patriots, Troofers? Seems like he was half-expecting it to be "blamed" on them? Or was he - like others - half-expecting them to be responsible - not merely "blamed"?

Worth reiterating the (now obviously ludicrous) claims of Prisonplanet's Kurt Nimrod from yesterday -
It is a feeding frenzy for the government-loving progressives. The corporate media has yet to pin the blame on the Tea Party. In the next few hours or day, they will jump on the bandwagon after “officials” arrest the white guy captured in the security video now posted all over the web.

Given Obama’s recent plea to everyone but white males for votes in the upcoming election, it’s safe to say they are going to do everything they can to pin this bombing on the Tea Party Movement. Just wait and see,” writes The Nation in Crisis Blog.

So much for those predictions then.........

They had also published some article blaming Israel in some incomprehensibly tortured conspiracist fashion:
Times Sqaure Bomb Hoax: Isreali Intel Group Shows It’s Hand

Who would have believed it? Only days after a warning of an Israeli “false flag” bombing against the US “in the works” a massive car bomb is discovered in Time Square! Better yet, though no intelligence organization in the world could discover anyone claiming responsibility for this embarrassing failure, SITE Intelligence, a group rumored as the “voice of the Mossad” has placed the blame on the Pakistani Taliban.

Note how the bomb is now "massive".

That was May 3rd.......but here's Prisonplanet's Kurt Nimmrod on May rd:
Expect the idiots who smeared peaceful Americans as terrorists on a whim to also back off quietly with their tails between their legs as their drivel is debunked by the fact the prime suspect likely has nothing to do with the Tea Parties.
Sorry - but what about the people (YOU, ALEX JONES!) who smeared the authorities by claiming it was they whom were responsible for the bombing? All predicated on a belief the Government is motivated by an insatiable lust to demonise and exterminate the TeaParty, Troofers and other Twats........or does "smearing" only work one way? Yeah, right......

Here's AJ again, from May 3rd, before 'the Pakistan connection' was announced:
We have been warning for weeks about an imminent false flag domestic terror attack that would be used to demonize the government’s political opposition and this appears to have been such an attempt. It just remains to be seen who will be fingered as the culprit by an establishment media straining at the leash to justify characterizations of angry but non-violent Americans as dangerous extremists.
Hmmmmm. Not going too well, this predictions malarkey, is it?

Monday, 3 May 2010


The Guardian reports that
"George Papandreou had to make one the toughest speeches by a European prime minister today, announcing he had bowed to the demands of the EU and IMF and agreed harsh economic reforms to avert bankruptcy in Greece.

At an emergency meeting of his cabinet, the first held on a Sunday morning, the socialist leader effectively conceded defeat in the battle to deal with the debt crisis without international aid.

Papandreou told Greeks, who have taken to the streets in protest against the austerity drive, that they had to chose between a rescue or an economic collapse."

European countries stepped into uncharted territory tonight, deciding on the first bailout of a single currency member state by agreeing a three-year package worth ¤110bn (£95bn) to rescue Greece from financial meltdown in return for pledges on the most drastic overhaul of a European economy ever attempted.

"It's not an easy day," added George Papaconstantinou, the Greek finance minister who earlier put his country's dilemma starkly: "The choice is collapse or salvation."

A day after May Day protests rocked Greece, the prime minister, George Papandreou, outlined his commitments to the EU and the IMF, making clear his programme envisaged the biggest shake-up of Greece's welfare state ever contemplated. A homemade bomb later exploded outside an HSBC branch in Athens.

With Greece's debt relegated to junk status and the country staring at Europe's first sovereign debt default without the bailout, European leaders sought to put the months of foot-dragging and squabbling behind them to try to shore up the euro and prevent the debt crisis rippling across to Portugal, Spain and Italy.
And Ireland......and the UK? And France and Germany and.....

Britain is arguably better placed than Greece, having the freedom to devalue if necessary. the UK spending cuts and tax rises have not yet been made. That reaction is yet to come, and presently the UK is electing a new government amidst complaints that the main contenders have not spelt out what cuts they will be making, nor what taxes they will be raising. Whoever is elected will struggle for support to push through their savage cuts because no-one at present knows what they are electing. If nobody is standing on a platform of savage cuts, then who will support them when the time comes for the sacrifice? This could create major social unrest, and propel UK into a position much closer to that of Greece. And then we'd be faced with the same choice as Greece - capitulation to the markets or disaster. (If that can be called a choice.)

And should the contagion spread to Spain, Ireland, Italy, UK then who will bail out these economies when there'll be less finance available, and the amounts required might be far larger?

Social unrest seems only to make the position more critical, as perhaps illustrated by the Greek experience. Seemingly if we protest at savage cuts our credit rating suffers and therefore our borrowing costs rise, imperilling us all the more causing cuts needing to become even deeper. Wow - that's some discipline. The "free" market---there's no choice.
Rehn said that the "systematic, specific, and rigorous" bailout plan came with strings attached tightly, including quarterly monitoring of Greek austerity measures. He revealed the deal required Greece to slash its soaring budget deficit by 6.5% this year alone, a staggering feat if it can be achieved.

In return for the lifeline, Papandreou has committed to the most ambitious and draconian reshaping of Greece's welfare state ever attempted. Spending cuts amounting to more than €36bn or 11% of national GDP are to be made over the next three years. Wages, pensions, and benefits in Greece's bloated public sector will be cut, and large VAT and other tax rises will be imposed. The retirement age is to be raised. The savage programme will inevitably deepen Greece's recession.Faced with strong public hostility and possible threats to the longevity of his government, Papandreou is squeezed between intense opposition at home and the pressure of the Germans, the IMF, and the other Europeans. Scepticism is high as to whether he will be able to deliver on the terms of the pact.
Shit! What a disaster. Coming soon to a High Street near you.....

ETA - And isn't the Greek capitulation essentially the policy Ron Paul recommends for America? He'd go much further of course, but his position is essentially one of proposing fiscal "responsibility" along the lines of what Greece has submitted to, isn't it? ie the neo-liberal idea of supremacy of "free-markets" and "market discipline" and all the rest of it. Ron Paul and the other free-market fundamentalists want the disaster to occur - as some semi-mystical(?) cleansing process - and they attack the proponents of bailout and Keynesianism for wanting to avoid disaster! Ron Paul and co recommend implementing the policies the Greek people reject and which cause such grief as to cause rioting. The Greeks consider it a disaster - but Ron Paul and co (the neo-libs) recommend these policies - to avert disaster! The very policies they suggest to avoid disaster are themselves disastrous. At least the Greeks seem to think so......

ETA2 - The Guardian has added:
Unions have been quick to react to the move, announcing walkouts, including a general strike that will paralyse the country on Wednesday.

"These policies are totally unfair. They place all the burden on the have-nots to pay the price of this crisis and not the plutocracy," said Yannis Papangopoulos, who heads the Confederation of Greek Workers. "There will be a social explosion once they begin to bite."
Oh good.

Sunday, 2 May 2010

Alex Jones - Sick

Following an apparent failed attempt at car-bombing Times Square, Alex Jones and Prisonplanet immediately try passing it off as "a false-flag" event, designed (by the powers that be) to discredit the patriot, Tea-Party and Troof 'movements'.

If 'the Feds' declare the perps as involved with any of these 'movements' we can conclude it is 'a false flag op'......according to Alex Jones' Prisonplanet.

Nevermind that we don't yet know anything about the event! What if the perps are from those movements? No case to answer - false flag!

Here's Alex Jones' Prisonplanet statement on the apparent failed car-bomb:
Will Feds Blame Car Bomb On Patriots?

Editor: The last time a building in Times Square was bombed, the small explosion which hit a military recruitment center in March 2008, the corporate media floated the myth that 9/11 truthers were responsible. How long will it be before the feds blame this thwarted car bombing on Tea Partiers, Constitutionalists, gun owners, or whoever they wish to demonize next?

We have been warning for weeks about an imminent false flag domestic terror attack that would be used to demonize the government’s political opposition and this appears to have been such an attempt. It just remains to be seen who will be fingered as the culprit by an establishment media straining at the leash to justify characterizations of angry but non-violent Americans as dangerous extremists.

Even though there is absolutely zero evidence to justify belief in the idea that the bombing was "a false flag", Jones declares, "this appears to have been such an attempt" and that "[I]t just remains to be seen who will be fingered as the culprit...."

But what if the attack was 'genuine'? That possibility is not even considered.

Here's some of the comments which Prisonplanet's readers have added:

----daniel Says:

i bet that the public wont get the surveillance footage showing the government culprits! fear fear fear, pretext for more tyranny against the public.

----patriot777christian Says:

This has “False Flag” all over it.

----Fezringham Says:

Designed to be found to generate the fear. Just happens that they found a gun safe in the car…to tie it all back to the militias and gun rights lobby groups.

----voice_of_reason Says:

Sounds more like someone just broke down will shipping some fireworks home. Car bomb? Fireworks, petrol and some camping gas?

----Brother Doug Says:

This is a false flag occurrence. Any “real” terrorist whether it is an actual Domestic or International, would not produce a simple flash bang without any shrapnel. Reminds me of the OKC bombing where a huge flashbang is used to cover to true govt bombers.

----Robert Paulson Says:

There’s bound to footage of the CIA operative parking the SUV…or did the cameras malfunction again?

----lorents Says:

yes. they just made a oklahoma city bombing video for t.v. in april. its so god damn obvious. how the hell can people be so god damn stupid not to see what is going on.

----AlteredState Says:

The fed will definitely blame this on patriotic Americans. More directly to malitia groups and gun owners. They intend to make malitias look bad; make guns look bad. Then they will ratify the UN’s small arms treaty to begin a nation wide gun confiscation program.

----Vic Says:

Of course anyone who uses his gut feelings knows this bomb scam in NYC is like all the rest of the FEAR propaganda they use to keep the people in FEAR mode.

...the only way to hope to impose there law and abuse is by creating a major event so they can impose marshal law. One does not need to be a scientist to see this.

----guitarguy Says:

The first thing that I thought before I even logged on here was. I bet the news media blames a Tea Party person or a Militia. Its a shame that they are so predictable.

----JohnLocke Says:

They may not accuse a patriot individual or group, but you can bet the farm they will pin it directly on domestic sources. The idea is to show threats from inside the United States.

But what if there are real threats from inside the United States? Clearly, these are not people whom are going to be easily convinced, and likely no amount of evidence would ever convince them. Especially when Alex Jones and Prisonplanet frame their entire perspective on such events around a theme of "false flag" - even before any evidence is available.

Who knows who the perpetrators were, or what they stand for, or what their motives are? Yet Alex Jones is already priming his audience just in case the evidence does point to some patriot, militia, tea-party, Troofer involvement.

Of course gun-loving 'patriots' calling for a new civil war are 'peace-loving'! What else could they be when they're (supposedly) up against some death-cult conspiracy that rules the world and is capable of committing and covering up just one step in its plans for total world domination.....

If one really believes all the stuff Alex Jones says then one would need be a coward not to "do something". And yet Jones poses as some peace-loving, civil-rights loving democrat when the fire of warranted criticism is turned on his views and his propaganda.

Jones - and the patriots and the Troofers et al - like to claim both that they are dangerous and that they pose no possible threat.

They like to pose as a threat - a radical one. Yet whenever anyone recognises their threat they cower, protesting their peacefulness....."We're only asking questions.....we're only defending our rights"......then they bleat about how they're falsely maligned as "dangerous" and how outrageous it is for anyone to recognise the genuine danger they pose and which they they themselves like to brag about. They brag about the power they wield, their propensity and capability for 'radical' and revolutionary their perspective is......until anyone recognises it, and addresses it for what it is........then the fearless patriots and truth warriors morph into something resembling the Women's Institute cookery club. "What? Me? Violent? A threat to society?"


Incidentally, Alex Jones supports off-shore drilling in the Gulf. Let's see him defend it now.

The coastline of Louisiana looks to be just about the worst place in the world for a huge oil-slick to hit. It's sad beyond belief. What a catastrophe for all the wildlife and ecology. I can't stand to see more animals splashing around, and dying, in oil. And when is the spill going to stop?

Let's look forward to seeing Alex Jones call on the private sector to pull out all the stops something.