Showing posts with label Neocons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Neocons. Show all posts
Saturday, September 29, 2012
"We Need a False Flag to Start War with Iran"
Breaking!!
NeoCon Lobbyist - We Need a False Flag to Start War with Iran
http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/endless-war/breaking-neocon-lobbyist---we-need-a-false-flag-to-start-war-with-iran.html
YouTube Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVEYk98xsSQ
"NeoCon At Globalist Think-Tank Says Use False Flag to Start War With Iran"
Susanne Posel
September 26, 2012
Occupy Corporatism
OccupyCorporatism.com
Patrick Clawson, member of the globalist-controlled think-tank and neo-con influenced Washington Institute for Near East Studies (WINES); recently spoke about the use of false flags as a necessary way for instigating a war with Iran. Clawson remarked that Obama has had a difficult time “getting the US into a war with Iran” and advocating the use of conventional means (i.e. using a false flag to provoke a military strike).
Clawson said: “If in fact Iran is not going to compromise, then it would be best if someone else started the war. . . One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. We could step up the pressure. I mean, look people – Iranian submarines go down all the time. What if one of them did not come back up? Who would know why?”
The WINES was founded by Martin Indyk, an academic and deputy of research for the Zionist lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Through AIPAC, the US government supplies Israel with:
• Defense intelligence and military security
• Counterterrorism
• Technologies that facilitate defense and military equipment
• Science and agricultural products
The WINES attempts to coerce the US Congress into following their “recommendations” with conferences, the Military Fellows Program (which has ties to the Council on Foreign Relations and the RAND Corporation), the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress , and secret meetings; as well as a multitude of publications and research reports. WINES instill Zionist propaganda and demonize Arabs and Muslims. However, they are hand-in-hand with one of the largest Zionist-controlled and pro-Israeli lobby in the US.
The neocon phenomenon consists of Zionists and sympathizers that dictate and coerce US foreign policy to reflect the agendas of the Zionist regime. According to neocon Irving Kristol, founder of the movement and the Commentary Magazine , the neoconservative agenda is explained as: “The historical task and political purpose of neo-conservatism is to convert the Republican Party and American conservatism in general, against their prospective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”
Kristol believes that the US can be compared to the Soviet Union in ideology and interests. “The US will then always feel obliged to defend a democratic nation under attack from non-democratic forces, external or internal. That is why we feel it is necessary to defend Israel when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.”
Prominent neocons have purveyed the Zionist agenda such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Jeanne Kilpatrick, Norman Podheretz, Joshua Goldberg, and many others.
Evidence of the power of WINES was manifest in the bill HR 4133 which allocates US resources to Israel at the expense of the taxpayer. This legislation marks Obama’s unwavering commitment to Israel as a puppet of the global Elite. Israel may siphon money from the Federal Reserve, use the US military at their whim and expect the backing of the US government during provoked attacks of other Middle Eastern sovereign nations.
Mainstream media is following the Zionist script to the letter in regard to the false claims of Iranian endeavors to build nuclear weapons. Now there are reports that Iran is capable of launching a pre-emptive strike should Israel attack, as they are threatening to do.
According to Amir Ali Hajizadeh, brigadier general for the CIA-sponsored Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps states that: “Iran will not start any war but it could launch a pre-emptive attack if it was sure that the enemies are putting the final touches to attack it.”
Hajizadeh explains that the Zionist-controlled Israeli government will not start “a war without America’s support. Therefore, in case of a war, we will get into a war with both of them and we will certainly get into a conflict with American bases.”
Other propaganda purveyed by an anonymous expert claims that Iran “will attack the forces of the US or any country that tries to take out its nuclear program are not mere boasts, experts say, but any such strike could be met with devastating counterattacks.”
The Zionist regime are continuously decrying that Iran has a nuclear weapon. However, this is an old game they are playing and the American public’s memory may be too short to recall how many times this lie has been perpetrated. In the past, there have been several claims by Israeli Prime Minister and globalist puppet Benjamin Netanyahu and other supporters of the lie that Iran was on the precipice of having a nuclear weapon.
In 1992, Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon.
In 1992, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.
In 1995, New York Times reports US and Israel claim Iran would have the bomb by 2000.
In 1998, speaking before Congress Donald Rumsfeld proclaims Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.
The reality is that between 1985 and 2002 the Israeli Ministry of Defense used shell corporations to smuggle nuclear triggers from the US. One of the operatives, Richard Kelly Smith, met with Netanyahu who worked for one of the shell corporations called Heli Trading Company and was an integral part of the smuggling ring.
In the 1950’s the US assisted Iranian nuclear endeavors with the aid of Atoms for Peace program that united the US and other European governments to contribute to Iran’s nuclear program until the state-sponsored removal of the Shah of Iran. When the US-friendly Ayatollah Khomeini was installed, he disbanded the nuclear program citing conflictions of nuclear weapons with the Qur’an.
Still, mainstream media continues to sound the alarm that Iran not only has nuclear weapons, but will strike US bases if attacked by Israel. While Iran maintains that their nuclear program is to develop power for their nation, Israeli officials, including Netanyahu say: “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explains that Iran does not take the Zionist regime’s threats of military strike seriously. Ahmadinejad asserts that Iran is quite capable of defending itself against an attack with Israeli armed forces. He also said that Iran views the Zionists at a “dead end” and scrambling to gain ground and maintain power.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Why no neocon assassinations?
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4324.shtml
Why no neocon assassinations? Because the ‘war on terror’ is a hoax
By Paul Craig Roberts
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Feb 5, 2009
According to US government propaganda, terrorist cells are spread throughout America, making it necessary for the government to spy on all Americans and violate most other constitutional protections. Among President Bush’s last words as he left office was the warning that America would soon be struck again by Muslim terrorists.
If America were infected with terrorists, we would not need the government to tell us. We would know it from events. As there are no events, the US government substitutes warnings in order to keep alive the fear that causes the public to accept pointless wars, the infringement of civil liberty, national ID cards, and inconveniences and harassments when they fly.
The most obvious indication that there are no terrorist cells is that not a single neocon has been assassinated.
I do not approve of assassinations, and am ashamed of my country’s government for engaging in political assassination. The US and Israel have set a very bad example for al Qaeda to follow.
The US deals with al Qaeda and Taliban by assassinating their leaders, and Israel deals with Hamas by assassinating its leaders. It is reasonable to assume that al Qaeda would deal with the instigators and leaders of America’s wars in the Middle East in the same way.
Today every al Qaeda member is aware of the complicity of neoconservatives in the death and devastation inflicted on Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza. Moreover, neocons are highly visible and are soft targets compared to Hamas and Hezbollah leaders.. Neocons have been identified in the media for years, and as everyone knows, multiple listings of their names are available online.
Neocons do not have Secret Service protection. Dreadful to contemplate, but it would be child’s play for al Qaeda to assassinate any and every neocon. Yet, neocons move around freely, a good indication that the US does not have a terrorist problem.
If, as neocons constantly allege, terrorists can smuggle nuclear weapons or dirty bombs into the US with which to wreak havoc upon our cities, terrorists can acquire weapons with which to assassinate any neocon or former government official.
Yet, the neocons, who are the Americans most hated by Muslims, remain unscathed.
The “war on terror” is a hoax that fronts for American control of oil pipelines, the profits of the military-security complex, the assault on civil liberty by fomenters of a police state, and Israel’s territorial expansion.
There were no al Qaeda in Iraq until the Americans brought them there by invading and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, who kept al Qaeda out of Iraq. The Taliban is not a terrorist organization, but a movement attempting to unify Afghanistan under Muslim law.. The only Americans threatened by the Taliban are the Americans Bush sent to Afghanistan to kill Taliban and to impose a puppet state on the Afghan people.
Hamas is the democratically elected government of Palestine, or what little remains of Palestine after Israel’s illegal annexations. Hamas is a terrorist organization in the same sense that the Israeli government and the US government are terrorist organizations. In an effort to bring Hamas under Israeli hegemony, Israel employs terror bombing and assassinations against Palestinians. Hamas replies to the Israeli terror with homemade and ineffectual rockets.
Hezbollah represents the Shi’ites of southern Lebanon, another area in the Middle East that Israel seeks for its territorial expansion.
The US brands Hamas and Hezbollah “terrorist organizations” for no other reason than the US is on Israel’s side of the conflict. There is no objective basis for the US Department of State’s “finding” that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. It is merely a propagandistic declaration.
Americans and Israelis do not call their bombings of civilians terror. What Americans and Israelis call terror is the response of oppressed people who are stateless because their countries are ruled by puppets loyal to the oppressors. These people, dispossessed of their own countries, have no State Departments, Defense Departments, seats in the United Nations, or voices in the mainstream media. They can submit to foreign hegemony or resist by the limited means available to them.
The fact that Israel and the United States carry on endless propaganda to prevent this fundamental truth from being realized indicates that it is Israel and the US that are in the wrong and the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, and Afghans who are being wronged.
The retired American generals who serve as war propagandists for Fox “News” are forever claiming that Iran arms the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents and Hamas. But where are the arms? To deal with American tanks, insurgents have to construct homemade explosive devices out of artillery shells. After six years of conflict, the insurgents still have no weapon against the American helicopter gunships. Contrast this “arming” with the weaponry the US supplied to the Afghans nearly three decades ago when they were fighting to drive out the Soviets.
The films of Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza show large numbers of Gazans fleeing from Israeli bombs or digging out the dead and maimed, and none of these people are armed. A person would think that by now every Palestinian would be armed, every man, woman, and child. Yet, all the films of the Israeli attack show an unarmed population. Hamas has to construct homemade rockets that are little more than a sign of defiance. If Hamas were armed by Iran, Israel’s assault on Gaza would have cost Israel its helicopter gunships, its tanks, and hundreds of lives of its soldiers.
Hamas is a small organization armed with small caliber rifles incapable of penetrating body armor. Hamas is unable to stop small bands of Israeli settlers from descending on West Bank Palestinian villages, driving out the Palestinians, and expropriating their land.
The great mystery is: why after 60 years of oppression are the Palestinians still an unarmed people? Clearly, the Muslim countries are complicit with Israel and the US in keeping the Palestinians unarmed.
The unsupported assertion that Iran supplies sophisticated arms to the Palestinians is like the unsupported assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. These assertions are propagandistic justifications for killing Arab civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure in order to secure US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice.
Why no neocon assassinations? Because the ‘war on terror’ is a hoax
By Paul Craig Roberts
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Feb 5, 2009
According to US government propaganda, terrorist cells are spread throughout America, making it necessary for the government to spy on all Americans and violate most other constitutional protections. Among President Bush’s last words as he left office was the warning that America would soon be struck again by Muslim terrorists.
If America were infected with terrorists, we would not need the government to tell us. We would know it from events. As there are no events, the US government substitutes warnings in order to keep alive the fear that causes the public to accept pointless wars, the infringement of civil liberty, national ID cards, and inconveniences and harassments when they fly.
The most obvious indication that there are no terrorist cells is that not a single neocon has been assassinated.
I do not approve of assassinations, and am ashamed of my country’s government for engaging in political assassination. The US and Israel have set a very bad example for al Qaeda to follow.
The US deals with al Qaeda and Taliban by assassinating their leaders, and Israel deals with Hamas by assassinating its leaders. It is reasonable to assume that al Qaeda would deal with the instigators and leaders of America’s wars in the Middle East in the same way.
Today every al Qaeda member is aware of the complicity of neoconservatives in the death and devastation inflicted on Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza. Moreover, neocons are highly visible and are soft targets compared to Hamas and Hezbollah leaders.. Neocons have been identified in the media for years, and as everyone knows, multiple listings of their names are available online.
Neocons do not have Secret Service protection. Dreadful to contemplate, but it would be child’s play for al Qaeda to assassinate any and every neocon. Yet, neocons move around freely, a good indication that the US does not have a terrorist problem.
If, as neocons constantly allege, terrorists can smuggle nuclear weapons or dirty bombs into the US with which to wreak havoc upon our cities, terrorists can acquire weapons with which to assassinate any neocon or former government official.
Yet, the neocons, who are the Americans most hated by Muslims, remain unscathed.
The “war on terror” is a hoax that fronts for American control of oil pipelines, the profits of the military-security complex, the assault on civil liberty by fomenters of a police state, and Israel’s territorial expansion.
There were no al Qaeda in Iraq until the Americans brought them there by invading and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, who kept al Qaeda out of Iraq. The Taliban is not a terrorist organization, but a movement attempting to unify Afghanistan under Muslim law.. The only Americans threatened by the Taliban are the Americans Bush sent to Afghanistan to kill Taliban and to impose a puppet state on the Afghan people.
Hamas is the democratically elected government of Palestine, or what little remains of Palestine after Israel’s illegal annexations. Hamas is a terrorist organization in the same sense that the Israeli government and the US government are terrorist organizations. In an effort to bring Hamas under Israeli hegemony, Israel employs terror bombing and assassinations against Palestinians. Hamas replies to the Israeli terror with homemade and ineffectual rockets.
Hezbollah represents the Shi’ites of southern Lebanon, another area in the Middle East that Israel seeks for its territorial expansion.
The US brands Hamas and Hezbollah “terrorist organizations” for no other reason than the US is on Israel’s side of the conflict. There is no objective basis for the US Department of State’s “finding” that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. It is merely a propagandistic declaration.
Americans and Israelis do not call their bombings of civilians terror. What Americans and Israelis call terror is the response of oppressed people who are stateless because their countries are ruled by puppets loyal to the oppressors. These people, dispossessed of their own countries, have no State Departments, Defense Departments, seats in the United Nations, or voices in the mainstream media. They can submit to foreign hegemony or resist by the limited means available to them.
The fact that Israel and the United States carry on endless propaganda to prevent this fundamental truth from being realized indicates that it is Israel and the US that are in the wrong and the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, and Afghans who are being wronged.
The retired American generals who serve as war propagandists for Fox “News” are forever claiming that Iran arms the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents and Hamas. But where are the arms? To deal with American tanks, insurgents have to construct homemade explosive devices out of artillery shells. After six years of conflict, the insurgents still have no weapon against the American helicopter gunships. Contrast this “arming” with the weaponry the US supplied to the Afghans nearly three decades ago when they were fighting to drive out the Soviets.
The films of Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza show large numbers of Gazans fleeing from Israeli bombs or digging out the dead and maimed, and none of these people are armed. A person would think that by now every Palestinian would be armed, every man, woman, and child. Yet, all the films of the Israeli attack show an unarmed population. Hamas has to construct homemade rockets that are little more than a sign of defiance. If Hamas were armed by Iran, Israel’s assault on Gaza would have cost Israel its helicopter gunships, its tanks, and hundreds of lives of its soldiers.
Hamas is a small organization armed with small caliber rifles incapable of penetrating body armor. Hamas is unable to stop small bands of Israeli settlers from descending on West Bank Palestinian villages, driving out the Palestinians, and expropriating their land.
The great mystery is: why after 60 years of oppression are the Palestinians still an unarmed people? Clearly, the Muslim countries are complicit with Israel and the US in keeping the Palestinians unarmed.
The unsupported assertion that Iran supplies sophisticated arms to the Palestinians is like the unsupported assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. These assertions are propagandistic justifications for killing Arab civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure in order to secure US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Beast of the Month - September 2008
Beast of the Month - September 2008
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama Foreign Policy Guru
"I yam an anti-Christ..."
John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) of The Sex Pistols, "Anarchy in the UK"
"Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss"
The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"
Those evil Russians. With their mastermind Vladimir Putin in charge (using "President" Dmitry Medvedev as his front-man puppet) those nasty Soviets invaded the noble, peace-loving nation of Georgia, just so they could steal land from a thriving little democracy that just wanted to be left alone.
At least that's how it’s been portrayed in the press.
Okay, maybe Russia isn't the most sympathetic "victim" in world affairs, and Putin has proven himself to be quite the would-be dictator. But the story as it's been presented just doesn't add up. Let's start with the issue of who attacked who first. In fact, it was Georgia, who bombarded the province of South Ossetia unilaterally. The mainstream media even admits this truth, but then argues that since South Ossetia is part of Georgia sovereign nation, the attack was legitimate. Of course, this ignores that South Ossetia long has had secessionist desires from Georgia so it could reunite with the Russian homeland. Indeed, a 2006 referendum in which voter turnout was 95 percent showed that 99 percent of South Ossetians supported their continued quasi-independence from Georgia, a landslide of near-universal proportions. 34 international observers monitored the election, and none disputed the validity of the results. This shouldn't be a surprise: since 1992, Russian peacekeeper have remained in the province under agreement with Georgia to protect its desired independence from the rest of the nation.
In attacking South Ossetia, Georgia went after the city of Tskhinvali, which has no military targets and is a residential and industrial center home to 30,000 people. The majority of these people, incidentally, have both Russian citizenship and passports. The massive bombing and shelling of these people can rightly be deemed a war crime, and according to Russia, over 2,000 people were murdered in the massacre. Given this provocation, Russia did what any superpower nation would do under similar circumstances: sent its own military to repel the assault and defend its own citizens.
(This, of course, leads to the ultimate absurdity of the situation: Team USA feigns outrage at supposed Russian violation of sovereignty of a hostile nation situated right at its border, while the invasion of the Iraqi nation half-way across the planet continues in its sixth year.)
Even in the Western media, Putin (long made out to be a Bond-like super-villain) and Medvedev (long mocked as Putin's poodle) didn't lose the most PR-wise, since they didn't have far to fall. It was Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili, who long had been championed as a supposed leader devoted to democracy. At best, he appeared to be a sniveling opportunist who falsely assumed that Russia wouldn't respond to its attack, or that NATO would defend it if Russia did. At worst, he was revealed as a political charlatan who uses charm and Western propaganda to hide his power-hungry actions, actions which have made him increasingly unpopular in Georgia. (And as far as NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine goes, does anyone really believe that defending a nation on the border of Russia with the NATO pact is a good idea, even ignoring what an arrogant buffoon Saakashvili is in particular?)
Still, focusing on Saakashvili misses the big picture of who is in charge here. After all, if Medvedev is Putin's puppet, so is Mikhail S. to NATO and the West. (In fact, Saakashvili is such a tool, it is safe to assume the Bush Team greenlighted the South Ossetia invasion.) And in particular, Saakashvili is beholden to one man: Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Konformist Beast of the Month.
Brzezinski, for those unaware, was founding executive director in 1973 of the Trilateral Commission, the conspiracy bugaboo long alleged to be the major not-so-secret player in international affairs. Created by David Rockefeller, the TLC got together leaders of the US, Western Europe and Japan (hence the "trilateral" part of its name) to coordinate foreign policy plans in secret. Jimmy Carter became a member, and when he was elected President, he named Z-man as his National Security Advisor.
Nearly twenty-eight years after his presidency, Carter is known for being a warm, snuggly Nobel Peace Prize winner, but whatever fuzzy, peace-loving tendencies Jimmy had, Zbig didn't share them. He was the decided hawk in the Democratic establishment, and he is best described as the Democratic Party's answer to Henry Kissinger. Nor is he particularly fond of democracy, as the 1974 TLC report "The Crisis of Democracy" revealed: it argued the masses had too much influence over government and economics, influence that needed to be curtailed.
How to curtail that democratic influence on government? The best way, it seems, is by creating faux-populist leaders who would dazzle the public, then let the same old club of powerful insiders run the show behind the curtain. Jimmy Carter was the first of these in 1976, followed by Ronald Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1992 and GWB in 2000. All of these candidates feigned that they were outsiders during the campaign, but then mainly served sectors of the establishment after occupying the White House. (Bush Sr. was the solitary admitted insider after he won in '88.) This leads to this year's election, where the Democrat's have Mr. "Hope and Change" Barack Obama battling the Republican's "Maverick" John McCain. Do we see a pattern?
Of course, as far as ties to Brzezinski go, Barack Obama is far deeper than McCain, something heavily detailed by author Webster Tarpley in the recent political expose Obama - The Postmodern Coup. Zbig's support of Obama turned covert after Brzezinski became publicly critical of Israel and its lobby. As Obama would explain in February, "He's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once. I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times. He came to Iowa to introduce me for a speech on Iraq." (If this line of argument sounds familiar, it's the same one he used for his deep ties to financial swindler Tony Rezko and former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.) But until the Israeli controversy, Brzezinski was featured prominently as a chief Obama foreign policy advisor, a de facto position that has likely remained the same.
This may not be for the better. While the GOP has been taken over by the destructively incompetent neocons, at least even George W. Bush was smart enough to know that wars in the Middle East are less dangerous than an overt battle with either Russia or China (which is why he wisely ducked a major confrontation with Russia over the Georgia crisis.)
Don't take The Konformist's word for it. Brzezinski laid it all out in his 1998 book The Grand Chessboard, where he argued the 21st century would turn into a major battle between Russia, China and the West for control of natural resources, in particular oil. Ten years later, his book looks more like a blueprint than a prediction, although the battle between the West and both Russia and China still remains extremely cold. But that could change: both Georgia's Saakashvili and Ukraine's Viktor Yushchenko (two former Soviet Republic's with important strategic locations in the battle for access to Caspian Sea oil between the West and Russia) are presidents whose campaigns were backed by the brains of Brzezinski and the funds of George Soros. Both were rushed in on a wave of gushing populist frenzy, followed by increasing unpopularity as they followed policies of neoliberal economics and provoking the Russian bear in foreign policy. That the same recipe behind Saakashvili and Yushchenko is being used for the Obamahead cult shouldn't be too comforting.
But so this doesn't get confused as an advertisement for the McCain campaign, Mr. Maverick has as his foreign policy guru Randy Scheunemann, a frothing neocon who for four years was a paid foreign lobbyist of (drum roll please) the nation of Georgia. It is important to note that after the Georgia-Russia conflict began, McCain immediately was far more forceful in bellicose anti-Russian posturings than Obama. No surprise for the one 2008 candidate more tied to Bush's Iraq War than any other.
All of which suggests that, when it comes to foreign policy, 2008 is a rigged game. Obama, after feigning to be the "antiwar candidate" during the Democratic primary, has shed all such pretensions as November approaches. To his credit, McCain has never pretended otherwise than to be a Commander-in-Chief President. Either way, we're looking at four more years of Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly new misadventures in Iran and, yes, Russia. Meet the new boss...
In any case, we salute Zbigniew Brzezinski as Beast of the Month. Congratulations, and keep up the great work, Z-man!!!
Sources:
Adams, Cecil. "Is the Trilateral Commission the Secret Organization that Runs the World?" The Straight Dope 6 November 1987 <http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/524/is-the-trilateral-commission-the-secret-organization-that-runs-the-world>.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York: Basic Books, 1998.
Judis, John B. "Neo-McCain." New Republic 16 October 2006 <http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=23c3a0ff-9d55-4d28-a94e-0b0e09e26505>.
Scheer, Robert. "Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?" Truthdig 12 August 2008 <http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080812_georgia_war_a_neocon_election_ploy/>.
Smith, Ben. "Obama Adviser Worries Israel Supporters." Politico 12 September 2007 <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5783.html>.
Sweet, Lynn. "Obama Assures Jewish Leaders on Religion, Israel Stance." Chicago Sun-Times 25 February 2008 <http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/811251,CST-NWS-sweet25.article>.
Tarpley, Webster Griffin. "Brzezinski's Georgia Puppets Attack Russia - WWIII In Sight." Rense.com 11 August 2008 <http://rense.com/general82/indt.htm>.
Tarpley, Webster Griffin. Obama - The Postmodern Coup. Joshua Tree: Progressive Press, 2008.
Traynor, Ian. "Georgia Crisis: Medvedev Promises to Guarantee Any Vote by Rebel States to Break with Tbilisi." The Guardian 15 August 2008 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/15/russia.georgia>.
Whitney, Mike. "Putin's Winning Hand." Information Clearing House 16 August 2008 <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20535.htm>.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama Foreign Policy Guru
"I yam an anti-Christ..."
John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) of The Sex Pistols, "Anarchy in the UK"
"Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss"
The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"
Those evil Russians. With their mastermind Vladimir Putin in charge (using "President" Dmitry Medvedev as his front-man puppet) those nasty Soviets invaded the noble, peace-loving nation of Georgia, just so they could steal land from a thriving little democracy that just wanted to be left alone.
At least that's how it’s been portrayed in the press.
Okay, maybe Russia isn't the most sympathetic "victim" in world affairs, and Putin has proven himself to be quite the would-be dictator. But the story as it's been presented just doesn't add up. Let's start with the issue of who attacked who first. In fact, it was Georgia, who bombarded the province of South Ossetia unilaterally. The mainstream media even admits this truth, but then argues that since South Ossetia is part of Georgia sovereign nation, the attack was legitimate. Of course, this ignores that South Ossetia long has had secessionist desires from Georgia so it could reunite with the Russian homeland. Indeed, a 2006 referendum in which voter turnout was 95 percent showed that 99 percent of South Ossetians supported their continued quasi-independence from Georgia, a landslide of near-universal proportions. 34 international observers monitored the election, and none disputed the validity of the results. This shouldn't be a surprise: since 1992, Russian peacekeeper have remained in the province under agreement with Georgia to protect its desired independence from the rest of the nation.
In attacking South Ossetia, Georgia went after the city of Tskhinvali, which has no military targets and is a residential and industrial center home to 30,000 people. The majority of these people, incidentally, have both Russian citizenship and passports. The massive bombing and shelling of these people can rightly be deemed a war crime, and according to Russia, over 2,000 people were murdered in the massacre. Given this provocation, Russia did what any superpower nation would do under similar circumstances: sent its own military to repel the assault and defend its own citizens.
(This, of course, leads to the ultimate absurdity of the situation: Team USA feigns outrage at supposed Russian violation of sovereignty of a hostile nation situated right at its border, while the invasion of the Iraqi nation half-way across the planet continues in its sixth year.)
Even in the Western media, Putin (long made out to be a Bond-like super-villain) and Medvedev (long mocked as Putin's poodle) didn't lose the most PR-wise, since they didn't have far to fall. It was Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili, who long had been championed as a supposed leader devoted to democracy. At best, he appeared to be a sniveling opportunist who falsely assumed that Russia wouldn't respond to its attack, or that NATO would defend it if Russia did. At worst, he was revealed as a political charlatan who uses charm and Western propaganda to hide his power-hungry actions, actions which have made him increasingly unpopular in Georgia. (And as far as NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine goes, does anyone really believe that defending a nation on the border of Russia with the NATO pact is a good idea, even ignoring what an arrogant buffoon Saakashvili is in particular?)
Still, focusing on Saakashvili misses the big picture of who is in charge here. After all, if Medvedev is Putin's puppet, so is Mikhail S. to NATO and the West. (In fact, Saakashvili is such a tool, it is safe to assume the Bush Team greenlighted the South Ossetia invasion.) And in particular, Saakashvili is beholden to one man: Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Konformist Beast of the Month.
Brzezinski, for those unaware, was founding executive director in 1973 of the Trilateral Commission, the conspiracy bugaboo long alleged to be the major not-so-secret player in international affairs. Created by David Rockefeller, the TLC got together leaders of the US, Western Europe and Japan (hence the "trilateral" part of its name) to coordinate foreign policy plans in secret. Jimmy Carter became a member, and when he was elected President, he named Z-man as his National Security Advisor.
Nearly twenty-eight years after his presidency, Carter is known for being a warm, snuggly Nobel Peace Prize winner, but whatever fuzzy, peace-loving tendencies Jimmy had, Zbig didn't share them. He was the decided hawk in the Democratic establishment, and he is best described as the Democratic Party's answer to Henry Kissinger. Nor is he particularly fond of democracy, as the 1974 TLC report "The Crisis of Democracy" revealed: it argued the masses had too much influence over government and economics, influence that needed to be curtailed.
How to curtail that democratic influence on government? The best way, it seems, is by creating faux-populist leaders who would dazzle the public, then let the same old club of powerful insiders run the show behind the curtain. Jimmy Carter was the first of these in 1976, followed by Ronald Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1992 and GWB in 2000. All of these candidates feigned that they were outsiders during the campaign, but then mainly served sectors of the establishment after occupying the White House. (Bush Sr. was the solitary admitted insider after he won in '88.) This leads to this year's election, where the Democrat's have Mr. "Hope and Change" Barack Obama battling the Republican's "Maverick" John McCain. Do we see a pattern?
Of course, as far as ties to Brzezinski go, Barack Obama is far deeper than McCain, something heavily detailed by author Webster Tarpley in the recent political expose Obama - The Postmodern Coup. Zbig's support of Obama turned covert after Brzezinski became publicly critical of Israel and its lobby. As Obama would explain in February, "He's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once. I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times. He came to Iowa to introduce me for a speech on Iraq." (If this line of argument sounds familiar, it's the same one he used for his deep ties to financial swindler Tony Rezko and former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.) But until the Israeli controversy, Brzezinski was featured prominently as a chief Obama foreign policy advisor, a de facto position that has likely remained the same.
This may not be for the better. While the GOP has been taken over by the destructively incompetent neocons, at least even George W. Bush was smart enough to know that wars in the Middle East are less dangerous than an overt battle with either Russia or China (which is why he wisely ducked a major confrontation with Russia over the Georgia crisis.)
Don't take The Konformist's word for it. Brzezinski laid it all out in his 1998 book The Grand Chessboard, where he argued the 21st century would turn into a major battle between Russia, China and the West for control of natural resources, in particular oil. Ten years later, his book looks more like a blueprint than a prediction, although the battle between the West and both Russia and China still remains extremely cold. But that could change: both Georgia's Saakashvili and Ukraine's Viktor Yushchenko (two former Soviet Republic's with important strategic locations in the battle for access to Caspian Sea oil between the West and Russia) are presidents whose campaigns were backed by the brains of Brzezinski and the funds of George Soros. Both were rushed in on a wave of gushing populist frenzy, followed by increasing unpopularity as they followed policies of neoliberal economics and provoking the Russian bear in foreign policy. That the same recipe behind Saakashvili and Yushchenko is being used for the Obamahead cult shouldn't be too comforting.
But so this doesn't get confused as an advertisement for the McCain campaign, Mr. Maverick has as his foreign policy guru Randy Scheunemann, a frothing neocon who for four years was a paid foreign lobbyist of (drum roll please) the nation of Georgia. It is important to note that after the Georgia-Russia conflict began, McCain immediately was far more forceful in bellicose anti-Russian posturings than Obama. No surprise for the one 2008 candidate more tied to Bush's Iraq War than any other.
All of which suggests that, when it comes to foreign policy, 2008 is a rigged game. Obama, after feigning to be the "antiwar candidate" during the Democratic primary, has shed all such pretensions as November approaches. To his credit, McCain has never pretended otherwise than to be a Commander-in-Chief President. Either way, we're looking at four more years of Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly new misadventures in Iran and, yes, Russia. Meet the new boss...
In any case, we salute Zbigniew Brzezinski as Beast of the Month. Congratulations, and keep up the great work, Z-man!!!
Sources:
Adams, Cecil. "Is the Trilateral Commission the Secret Organization that Runs the World?" The Straight Dope 6 November 1987 <http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/524/is-the-trilateral-commission-the-secret-organization-that-runs-the-world>.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York: Basic Books, 1998.
Judis, John B. "Neo-McCain." New Republic 16 October 2006 <http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=23c3a0ff-9d55-4d28-a94e-0b0e09e26505>.
Scheer, Robert. "Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?" Truthdig 12 August 2008 <http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080812_georgia_war_a_neocon_election_ploy/>.
Smith, Ben. "Obama Adviser Worries Israel Supporters." Politico 12 September 2007 <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5783.html>.
Sweet, Lynn. "Obama Assures Jewish Leaders on Religion, Israel Stance." Chicago Sun-Times 25 February 2008 <http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/811251,CST-NWS-sweet25.article>.
Tarpley, Webster Griffin. "Brzezinski's Georgia Puppets Attack Russia - WWIII In Sight." Rense.com 11 August 2008 <http://rense.com/general82/indt.htm>.
Tarpley, Webster Griffin. Obama - The Postmodern Coup. Joshua Tree: Progressive Press, 2008.
Traynor, Ian. "Georgia Crisis: Medvedev Promises to Guarantee Any Vote by Rebel States to Break with Tbilisi." The Guardian 15 August 2008 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/15/russia.georgia>.
Whitney, Mike. "Putin's Winning Hand." Information Clearing House 16 August 2008 <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20535.htm>.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
How unrepresentative neocon Jewish groups are
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/12/ajc_poll/index.html
New poll reveals how unrepresentative neocon Jewish groups are
Most American Jews resoundingly reject the Middle East militarism and GOP foreign policy championed by right-wing Jewish factions.
Glenn Greenwald
Dec. 12, 2007
A new survey of American Jewish opinion, released by the American Jewish Committee, demonstrates several important propositions: (1) right-wing neocons (the Bill Kristol/Commentary/ AIPAC/Marty Peretz faction) who relentlessly claim to speak for Israel and for Jews generally hold views that are shared only by a small minority of American Jews; (2) viewpoints that are routinely demonized as reflective of animus towards Israel or even anti-Semitism are ones that are held by large majorities of American Jews; and (3) most American Jews oppose U.S. military action in the Middle East -- including both in Iraq and against Iran.
It is beyond dispute that American Jews overwhelmingly oppose core neoconservative foreign policy principles. Hence, in large numbers, they disapprove of the way the U.S. is handling its "campaign against terrorism" (59-31); overwhelmingly believe the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq (67-27); believe that things are going "somewhat badly" or "very badly" in Iraq (76-23); and believe that the "surge" has either made things worse or has had no impact (68-30).
When asked whether they would support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran, a large majority -- 57-35% -- say they would oppose such action, even if it were being undertaken "to prevent [Iran] from developing nuclear weapons." While Jews hold views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which are quite pessimistic about the prospects for Israel's ability to achieve a lasting peace with its "Arab neighbors," even there, a plurality (46-43) supports the establishment of a Palestinian state.
In the realm of U.S. domestic politics, it is even clearer that right-wing neoconservatives are a fringe segment of American Jewish public opinion. By a large margin, American Jews identify as some shade of liberal rather than conservative (43-25), and overwhelmingly identify themselves as Democrats rather than Republicans (58-15). And, most strikingly, by a 3-1 margin (61-21), they believe that Democrats, rather than Republicans, are "more likely to make the right decision about the war in Iraq," and by a similarly lopsided margin (53-30), believe that Democrats are "more likely to make the right decision when it comes to dealing with terrorism." They have overwhelmingly favorable views of the top 3 Democratic presidential candidates, and overwhelmingly negative views of 3 out of the top 4 GOP candidates (Giuliani being the sole exception, where opinion is split).
Contrary to the bottomless obssession which most neocon pundits and office-holders have with All Matters Israel, the principal political concerns of most American Jews have nothing to do with the Middle East. Thus, they identify "economy/jobs" (22) and "health care" (19) -- not Terrorism -- as "the most important problem facing the U.S. today." Still, most American Jews agree that "[c]aring about Israel is a very important part of [their] being a Jew" -- a common, innocuous and indisputable attribute that typically triggers noxious charges of anti-Semitism if pointed out by those who oppose the neoconservative agenda.
One of the defining traits of war-loving neoconservatives is that their unrelenting and exclusive fixation on the Middle East places them loudly at the center of any foreign policy debates. That tenacity -- combined with their reckless exploitation of "anti-Israel" and anti-Semitism accusations as instruments in their political rhetoric and their corresponding, deceitful equation of their own views with being "pro-Israel" -- often casts the appearance that they are some sort of spokespeople for the "pro-Israel" agenda or the Jewish viewpoint.
Manifestly, they are nothing of the sort. Even among American Jews, they comprise only a small minority, and their generally discredited militarism is widely rejected by most Jews as well. It is always worth underscoring these points, which are so frequently (and deliberately) obscured, and this comprehensive poll provides potent -- actually quite conclusive -- evidence for doing so.
New poll reveals how unrepresentative neocon Jewish groups are
Most American Jews resoundingly reject the Middle East militarism and GOP foreign policy championed by right-wing Jewish factions.
Glenn Greenwald
Dec. 12, 2007
A new survey of American Jewish opinion, released by the American Jewish Committee, demonstrates several important propositions: (1) right-wing neocons (the Bill Kristol/Commentary/ AIPAC/Marty Peretz faction) who relentlessly claim to speak for Israel and for Jews generally hold views that are shared only by a small minority of American Jews; (2) viewpoints that are routinely demonized as reflective of animus towards Israel or even anti-Semitism are ones that are held by large majorities of American Jews; and (3) most American Jews oppose U.S. military action in the Middle East -- including both in Iraq and against Iran.
It is beyond dispute that American Jews overwhelmingly oppose core neoconservative foreign policy principles. Hence, in large numbers, they disapprove of the way the U.S. is handling its "campaign against terrorism" (59-31); overwhelmingly believe the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq (67-27); believe that things are going "somewhat badly" or "very badly" in Iraq (76-23); and believe that the "surge" has either made things worse or has had no impact (68-30).
When asked whether they would support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran, a large majority -- 57-35% -- say they would oppose such action, even if it were being undertaken "to prevent [Iran] from developing nuclear weapons." While Jews hold views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which are quite pessimistic about the prospects for Israel's ability to achieve a lasting peace with its "Arab neighbors," even there, a plurality (46-43) supports the establishment of a Palestinian state.
In the realm of U.S. domestic politics, it is even clearer that right-wing neoconservatives are a fringe segment of American Jewish public opinion. By a large margin, American Jews identify as some shade of liberal rather than conservative (43-25), and overwhelmingly identify themselves as Democrats rather than Republicans (58-15). And, most strikingly, by a 3-1 margin (61-21), they believe that Democrats, rather than Republicans, are "more likely to make the right decision about the war in Iraq," and by a similarly lopsided margin (53-30), believe that Democrats are "more likely to make the right decision when it comes to dealing with terrorism." They have overwhelmingly favorable views of the top 3 Democratic presidential candidates, and overwhelmingly negative views of 3 out of the top 4 GOP candidates (Giuliani being the sole exception, where opinion is split).
Contrary to the bottomless obssession which most neocon pundits and office-holders have with All Matters Israel, the principal political concerns of most American Jews have nothing to do with the Middle East. Thus, they identify "economy/jobs" (22) and "health care" (19) -- not Terrorism -- as "the most important problem facing the U.S. today." Still, most American Jews agree that "[c]aring about Israel is a very important part of [their] being a Jew" -- a common, innocuous and indisputable attribute that typically triggers noxious charges of anti-Semitism if pointed out by those who oppose the neoconservative agenda.
One of the defining traits of war-loving neoconservatives is that their unrelenting and exclusive fixation on the Middle East places them loudly at the center of any foreign policy debates. That tenacity -- combined with their reckless exploitation of "anti-Israel" and anti-Semitism accusations as instruments in their political rhetoric and their corresponding, deceitful equation of their own views with being "pro-Israel" -- often casts the appearance that they are some sort of spokespeople for the "pro-Israel" agenda or the Jewish viewpoint.
Manifestly, they are nothing of the sort. Even among American Jews, they comprise only a small minority, and their generally discredited militarism is widely rejected by most Jews as well. It is always worth underscoring these points, which are so frequently (and deliberately) obscured, and this comprehensive poll provides potent -- actually quite conclusive -- evidence for doing so.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Crooks, Suckers, and Lazy Cowards
http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=300
Crooks, Suckers, and Lazy Cowards
Published by cyrano2
Depraved Aristocracy, Neocons, Crony Capitalism, Bourgeoisie, Banality of Evil, GOP, Republican filth
Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to JMiller@bestcyrano.org
By John Hanks
9/17/07
After the filth murdered the Wellstones, I knew that we were under a Nazi regime and that soon we would all be dead. At that point I just assumed I was dead, like any experienced combat soldier. I put signs in my car windows that say “Bush ordered 911? or “Republicans Return to Their Own Vomit”, etc. Since I live in Wyoming, I figured that I would be murdered in short order, but so far I’m fine, after 4 years of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. If you put good hateful signs in your windows, you outflank the crook media, and cell phones often do the rest.
The only way to counter demoralization, which is the stock and trade of the filth, is to cultivate a black and intelligent hatred. Anger is an exhausting weakness and just an expression of demoralization. But, hatred is an instinctual reaction to those who would like to kill you. Republicans are full of hatred because they know that liberals would like to revoke their license to steal. That is why they don’t have to think except in terms of slogans.
The world has a minority of crooks and their suckers. The rest of the world just a bunch of lazy cowards. If you don’t overcome your physical cowardice now, you may have to be equally cowardly inside a concentration camp.
I have always wanted to have a good argument with Thomas Hartmann (sucker) on Air America Radio. But the constraints of money and time make it impossible. He exemplifies the best of the liberal tradition in his broad intelligence, senility and his respect for facts and ideas.
Compared to know nothings like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter he is like a cool shower after an encounter with a six pack of stale vomit.
The only problem with this picture is that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter (crooks) are right about the human race while Hartmann is dead wrong. These crooks know that the human race consists of crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards, while Hartmann thinks that it is good and even educable in important ways. Liberals believe that people are moral actors, but experience shows us that nothing could be further from the truth. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, liberals still give lip service to the idea that people are good.
Hartmann thinks that the founding fatheads (crooks) thought well of men and their potential, while I think they were just the opposite. I think that the best of them, including Jefferson, were suspicious of both themselves and others. That is why they went to great pains to approve a Constitution that would set one institution against another in a sort of perpetual greedy gridlock. Of course, after all this work, they gave themselves a generous tip and the right to steal by doing nothing to balance the power of money or property. This omission has led to one catastrophe after another from the Civil War to commercial television.
But, I digress.
Why does it matter whether one thinks well or ill of mankind? Is it true that liberals are starry-eyed idealists that think a better class of humans can be produced in classrooms? Or is it also true that conservatives view man as depraved and therefore a ripe target for every sort of scam and contempt? I can only reply that I have always been a liberal, but I fail to entertain any hope for the world, this country, or anyone in it.
It is possible to have the cynical vision of H. L. Mencken without becoming a snobby blockhead or hypocrite. It is possible to get rid of the crooks without thinking that we haven’t asked for everything we get.
Republicans can walk and chew gum, but they rarely compare and contrast anything, since all major ideas have been set in concrete since 5th grade. They seem inherently incapable of entertaining more than one idea at a time. It is this lazy ignorance that makes them do their politics of destruction with no sense of blowback. They are so afraid of losing their stolen wealth that they try to demoralize an ignorant and cowardly population so that they actually think they are morally better by not voting.
This crookery works because Republicans prey on every human weakness. They mine Pride, Envy, Sloth, Anger, Cowardice, and Lust with gay abandon in or out of the political season.
In short, they know that weak emotions lead, while thoughts just tag along. They particularly like to exploit moralism and moralizing because it is the lazy man’s way of feeling superior to everyone else.
So what is the point of all this anyway? As long as liberals appeal to ideas and facts they can have a lot of good moralistic conversations, but they mean nothing to lazy cowards who like a good story which feeds conceit, lust, or fear. Almost all Republican jokes appeal to conceit because they are usually racist or sexist, and they give a little lift to the second-rate juveniles who make up the Republican filth.
Republican friends send me these jokes and I always analyze them in terms of the tawdry satisfactions they produce. Then I send them back since it usually pisses them off.
Today’s Republicans have all the characteristics of the Nazi movement. They are triumphal, ignorant, lazy, vicious, and they think that the use of lies and intimidation is the road to success. They love symbols, flags and media just like the Nazis did, and they have even built a few “internment” camps for the “homeland”. This time, they have turned Muslims into the bogey man, while the Jewish Neocons and the Pentagon are sporting the swastikas. They are even starting wars for bucks all over the world so that they can reap a bonanza from weapons, oil, graft, opium, and even museum treasures. This great adventure started with the 9/11 protection racket stunt, which has reaped even more billions from the lazy cowards amongst the gullible public.
Republicans have a problem with their sexuality, but Democrats have a problem with hatred. Anger has its problems because it is tiresome and sometimes outright dangerous. But a cold, black hatred is always serene and detached. Hatred is a natural response to liars and bullies. It is the source of all real thought and action. It is not a fist, but a compass. It is a radar that keeps us pointed in the right direction so we don’t get the next sucker punch. It is blowback with brains and understanding. It is not Osama or George. Republicans are always angry because they are afraid they will lose their stolen wealth. Their anger makes them clever like juvenile delinquents. My black hatred of them however makes me free to think up blowbacks. I would prefer government by Genghis Khan to these lazy half-dead second-rate bums.
Since liberals can’t allow themselves to develop hatred, they prefer to develop a culture of peace. The problem with this is that the only real peace is the peace of the grave. Otherwise peace is just a period when crooks set up the next war. This idea of a Beulahland heaven is just a childish fantasy. Man is and will always be more like a jackal than an angel. Hitler preyed on this sentimentality with his warm Nazi posters showing healthy farm girls holding infants in wheat fields. Everything a Nazi does is for a “higher good”, just like a liberal is supposed to provide an example of the one true moral way to a “higher good”. I have attended many liberal meetings where some blowhard bullies the proceedings and no one says anything for fear of falling off the sentimental moral pedestal. A Laramie peace group that I am in now is almost paralyzed by one professional female veteran who courts attacks, dominates and controls, and actually censors newsletter communications. All of her stunts are done with a lot of moralizing and remembering the “higher good”. Yet, the moralizers do nothing. Whenever I try to even start a conversation about this person, I get silenced. For all I know, she might even be an agent provocateur! For all I know, the whole group might be agent provocateurs!
John Hanks is a long-time agitator and fledgling sociopolitical editorialist.
Crooks, Suckers, and Lazy Cowards
Published by cyrano2
Depraved Aristocracy, Neocons, Crony Capitalism, Bourgeoisie, Banality of Evil, GOP, Republican filth
Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to JMiller@bestcyrano.org
By John Hanks
9/17/07
After the filth murdered the Wellstones, I knew that we were under a Nazi regime and that soon we would all be dead. At that point I just assumed I was dead, like any experienced combat soldier. I put signs in my car windows that say “Bush ordered 911? or “Republicans Return to Their Own Vomit”, etc. Since I live in Wyoming, I figured that I would be murdered in short order, but so far I’m fine, after 4 years of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. If you put good hateful signs in your windows, you outflank the crook media, and cell phones often do the rest.
The only way to counter demoralization, which is the stock and trade of the filth, is to cultivate a black and intelligent hatred. Anger is an exhausting weakness and just an expression of demoralization. But, hatred is an instinctual reaction to those who would like to kill you. Republicans are full of hatred because they know that liberals would like to revoke their license to steal. That is why they don’t have to think except in terms of slogans.
The world has a minority of crooks and their suckers. The rest of the world just a bunch of lazy cowards. If you don’t overcome your physical cowardice now, you may have to be equally cowardly inside a concentration camp.
I have always wanted to have a good argument with Thomas Hartmann (sucker) on Air America Radio. But the constraints of money and time make it impossible. He exemplifies the best of the liberal tradition in his broad intelligence, senility and his respect for facts and ideas.
Compared to know nothings like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter he is like a cool shower after an encounter with a six pack of stale vomit.
The only problem with this picture is that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter (crooks) are right about the human race while Hartmann is dead wrong. These crooks know that the human race consists of crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards, while Hartmann thinks that it is good and even educable in important ways. Liberals believe that people are moral actors, but experience shows us that nothing could be further from the truth. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, liberals still give lip service to the idea that people are good.
Hartmann thinks that the founding fatheads (crooks) thought well of men and their potential, while I think they were just the opposite. I think that the best of them, including Jefferson, were suspicious of both themselves and others. That is why they went to great pains to approve a Constitution that would set one institution against another in a sort of perpetual greedy gridlock. Of course, after all this work, they gave themselves a generous tip and the right to steal by doing nothing to balance the power of money or property. This omission has led to one catastrophe after another from the Civil War to commercial television.
But, I digress.
Why does it matter whether one thinks well or ill of mankind? Is it true that liberals are starry-eyed idealists that think a better class of humans can be produced in classrooms? Or is it also true that conservatives view man as depraved and therefore a ripe target for every sort of scam and contempt? I can only reply that I have always been a liberal, but I fail to entertain any hope for the world, this country, or anyone in it.
It is possible to have the cynical vision of H. L. Mencken without becoming a snobby blockhead or hypocrite. It is possible to get rid of the crooks without thinking that we haven’t asked for everything we get.
Republicans can walk and chew gum, but they rarely compare and contrast anything, since all major ideas have been set in concrete since 5th grade. They seem inherently incapable of entertaining more than one idea at a time. It is this lazy ignorance that makes them do their politics of destruction with no sense of blowback. They are so afraid of losing their stolen wealth that they try to demoralize an ignorant and cowardly population so that they actually think they are morally better by not voting.
This crookery works because Republicans prey on every human weakness. They mine Pride, Envy, Sloth, Anger, Cowardice, and Lust with gay abandon in or out of the political season.
In short, they know that weak emotions lead, while thoughts just tag along. They particularly like to exploit moralism and moralizing because it is the lazy man’s way of feeling superior to everyone else.
So what is the point of all this anyway? As long as liberals appeal to ideas and facts they can have a lot of good moralistic conversations, but they mean nothing to lazy cowards who like a good story which feeds conceit, lust, or fear. Almost all Republican jokes appeal to conceit because they are usually racist or sexist, and they give a little lift to the second-rate juveniles who make up the Republican filth.
Republican friends send me these jokes and I always analyze them in terms of the tawdry satisfactions they produce. Then I send them back since it usually pisses them off.
Today’s Republicans have all the characteristics of the Nazi movement. They are triumphal, ignorant, lazy, vicious, and they think that the use of lies and intimidation is the road to success. They love symbols, flags and media just like the Nazis did, and they have even built a few “internment” camps for the “homeland”. This time, they have turned Muslims into the bogey man, while the Jewish Neocons and the Pentagon are sporting the swastikas. They are even starting wars for bucks all over the world so that they can reap a bonanza from weapons, oil, graft, opium, and even museum treasures. This great adventure started with the 9/11 protection racket stunt, which has reaped even more billions from the lazy cowards amongst the gullible public.
Republicans have a problem with their sexuality, but Democrats have a problem with hatred. Anger has its problems because it is tiresome and sometimes outright dangerous. But a cold, black hatred is always serene and detached. Hatred is a natural response to liars and bullies. It is the source of all real thought and action. It is not a fist, but a compass. It is a radar that keeps us pointed in the right direction so we don’t get the next sucker punch. It is blowback with brains and understanding. It is not Osama or George. Republicans are always angry because they are afraid they will lose their stolen wealth. Their anger makes them clever like juvenile delinquents. My black hatred of them however makes me free to think up blowbacks. I would prefer government by Genghis Khan to these lazy half-dead second-rate bums.
Since liberals can’t allow themselves to develop hatred, they prefer to develop a culture of peace. The problem with this is that the only real peace is the peace of the grave. Otherwise peace is just a period when crooks set up the next war. This idea of a Beulahland heaven is just a childish fantasy. Man is and will always be more like a jackal than an angel. Hitler preyed on this sentimentality with his warm Nazi posters showing healthy farm girls holding infants in wheat fields. Everything a Nazi does is for a “higher good”, just like a liberal is supposed to provide an example of the one true moral way to a “higher good”. I have attended many liberal meetings where some blowhard bullies the proceedings and no one says anything for fear of falling off the sentimental moral pedestal. A Laramie peace group that I am in now is almost paralyzed by one professional female veteran who courts attacks, dominates and controls, and actually censors newsletter communications. All of her stunts are done with a lot of moralizing and remembering the “higher good”. Yet, the moralizers do nothing. Whenever I try to even start a conversation about this person, I get silenced. For all I know, she might even be an agent provocateur! For all I know, the whole group might be agent provocateurs!
John Hanks is a long-time agitator and fledgling sociopolitical editorialist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
