Sid Walker

A most interesting article by Mike Whitney. War Crimes in the Lebanon continue. The players at this stage in the violence wear suits, not military uniform. They set vicious financial terms so this victim country can rebuild (again!), leave the aggressor nation that bombed the country (again!) off the hook (again!), forment conflict within the Lebanon people to the disadvantage of resistance forces - and mislead the western public via the LMM while they're at it. And yes, while I've admired and learnt from Robert Fisk over the years, I've also become increasingly suspicious of his take on a number of issues and lack of follow-up on others. IMO, he's either bent, leaned on or playing a very long term game. Why Fisk is wrong about Lebanon January 27, 2007 "This is how the 1975-90 conflict began in Lebanon. Outbreaks of sectarian hatred, appeals for restraint, promises of aid from Western and Arab nations and a total refusal to understand that this is how civil wars begin". Robert Fisk, "World ignores Signs of Civil War in Lebanon" UK Independent 1-27-07 Robert Fisk is all wrong about Lebanon. The country is not on the brink of another "civil war". It's been subsumed in an "imperial war" engineered in Tel Aviv and Washington. He’s also mistaken in thinking that the Paris 3 Conference is designed to "save" Lebanon from the mountain of debt which piled up after Israel’s destructive 34 day war. The real purpose of the $7.6 billion in loans is to shackle Lebanon to the international lending institutions that are demanding additional taxes on the poor, more privatization of state-run industries, and restructuring the economy to meet the requirements of the global banking elite. According to a recent article by Chris Marsden in Countercurrents: "Only a fraction of the loans will be spent on reconstruction projects. Most will go towards servicing Lebanon’s short-term debt and therefore back into the coffers of the imperialist governments and financial institutions, while leaving Lebanon’s long-term debts to climb even higher. The rest will go into paying the Lebanese army (and security services) in order to suppress the opposition in the Shia areas in the south of the country. And, once again, any money given will be made conditional on the government implementing the reforms demanded by the IMF and World Bank." This is the real war--the class war-- that continues to be directed at the people in developing world. How many times have we seen the World Bank and IMF swoop down on their prey after a nation has been savaged by war only to apply the vice-grips of massive debt and set up another corporate colony? The rise of sectarianism and the "clash of civilizations" bunkum is just the mask that conceals the real struggle; the ongoing war and exploitation of the people who have no voice in government. Here’s a question for Fisk: Is there any doubt now that the US and Israel used the UN to push Syrian troops out of Lebanon just so they could execute their bloody plan to invade the country and set up a puppet regime in Beirut? Or was that merely a coincidence? And, is there any doubt that World Bank president, Paul Wolfowitz, knew that he would be used in Phase 2 of the assault on Lebanese sovereignty by providing more economy-busting loans? The US military is just the left hand of the banking establishment. One hand washes the other. It’s the perfect system; the US-Israeli war machine flattens an entire country and then their buddies in the in the corporate-banking business rake in the profits from loans and reconstruction contracts. At the same time, they insist that the "New Lebanon" be rebuilt according to the neoliberal model; the same economic model that has kept Latin America and Africa in abject poverty for 2 decades. Fisk is wrong; it’s not "sectarian hatred" that is driving the war, but outside powers that are using their proxies within Lebanon to achieve their geopolitical objectives. In other words, this not the beginning of civil war, but a continuation of the 34 Day war; the deliberate pulverizing of Lebanon to create an US-Israeli protectorate in a critical area of the Middle East. Future pipeline corridors and regional hegemony require a compliant pro-western government in Beirut. That’s why the Bush administration has armed and trained the massive security apparatus of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, so he could succeed where Israel failed, by crushing Hezbollah and the pro-democracy movement. On the other hand, Hezbollah is demanding that the Siniora respect the constitution and step down to allow for the formation of a unity government. That is what is REQUIRED under the law (after six members of the Parliament walked out, it effectively disbanded the government) and that is why Hezbollah has been camped out in the center of the city since December 1. If the Bush administration was serious about democracy, they’d throw their support behind the opposition. (Hezbollah and Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement) But then we know what happens when the will of the people clashes with the aims of the administration. (check the war against the democratically-elected government of Hamas) Siniora’s political base is limited to Sunnis, some parts of the Christian community, and the Lebanese business elite (Hariri). Some of them like, Samir Geagea, "the ex-civil war militia killer" are connected to right-wing extremist organizations. These are the groups who stand to benefit the most from an open confrontation with Hezbollah. Washington needs them to conceal its dirty war; a war that Bush stepped up last week when he authorized the CIA "to take covert action against Hezbollah as part of a secret plan to help the Lebanese government prevent the spread of Iranian influence. Senators and congressmen have been briefed on the classified 'non-lethal presidential finding’ that allows the CIA to provide financial and logistical support for Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora". (UK Telegraph) Consider this: Siniora is freely violating Lebanese sovereignty to conduct covert operations against the very people (Hezbollah) who stood alone in defending Lebanon from Israeli invasion. Additionally, he is accepting this "assistance" from the United States knowing that it was the Bush administration that provided the laser-guided munitions and cluster-bombs which were used to kill Lebanese nationals just months ago. And one last thing; despite his promises, Siniora has made no effort to help the poor Shias in the South rebuilt their homes and communities. Much like the victims of Katrina, the Shia have been left to languish in the ruins created by Israel’s relentless bombing raids. Is it any wonder why Nasrallah and Aoun want to get rid of Siniora? It should be noted that the Bush administration sees no inconsistency in a policy that supports Sunnis in Lebanon, but Shias in Iraq. The rule of thumb appears to be: "If our actions create greater mayhem and suffering for Muslims, then we are on the right course." Hezbollah chief, Hassan Nasrallah, has wisely ordered his people to stop their acts of civil disobedience and to get off the streets to avoid further violence. Three Shias were reportedly killed by snipers at the university. Already we can see the familiar tactics which have been used in cities in Iraq. Nasrallah, is portrayed in the western press as a provocateur, but he has kept the peace for the last 2 months and is committed to preventing another civil war. Just days ago, he told his people, "Even if they kill 1,000 of us, we will not use our weapons against them." He also added, "We have the political, popular and organizational strength to bring down the unconstitutional government at any time. What has prevented the fall of this government is not the support of the western powers but the opposition’s will to preserve civil peace in the country." But it’s likely that Nasrallah will not be able to stop the fighting; already events are beyond his control. Washington is preparing to open another front in its ongoing war on terror and is looking for a showdown with Hezbollah. The neoconservative ideal of "creative destruction" is now in full-flower and has extended the conflict from the northern tip of Afghanistan to the southern coast of Somalia swallowing up an immense swath of the Middle East and Central Asia. This is the "total war" the neocons promised when Bush took office. It isn’t civil war, but the calculated destruction of an entire region by the imperial powers.

The technique of infamy is to start two lies at once. and set people arguing which one is true. Hitler as pathetic neurotic bedwetter v Hitler as unprecedented mega-murderer. One does not have to be very smart to realise the limited value of this discussion as a contribution to historical understanding - or to notice that it deftly positions all 'acceptable" views of Hitler somewhere between sissy and monster, with no other points on the compass.

It was a typo Len. But I imagine you can guess? I would bet on a fair jury convicting Mr S of conspiracy to murder - and scores of other charges, if they could also be brought, from insurance fraud to gross breaches of pollution regulations. Of course, he might skip the country and head for refuge somewhere nice and sunny. Of course I meant Larry SilverSTEIN. I was in the navy with a guy named SilverBERG. I suppose now Colby will accuse me of anti-semitism. I have a bad memory for names. Jack Calm down White just having a little fun at your expense. Are you going to offer any evidence he gained financially from the destruction of the WTC complex and 7 WTC? I'd like to see the math since he has been making lease payments on an empty plot of land for over 5 years and will continue to so for many years and will have to bear must of the expense of rebuilding that seems doubtful. Also you have you facts wrong as we've come to expect he didn't argue the 3 collapses were 3 separate incidents but that the two airplane collisions into two separate buildings were two separate attacks 7 WTC was covered by other insurance. Len As you appear to have the relevant factsfile at your fingertips, any chance of a breakdown of the WTC insurance arrangements? Which companies were involved? What sums have been paid out? What claims are pending (if any)? I presume you don't have to rely on press clippings and web material like we plebs. How about levelling the playing field on this one? Show us what you've got on the well-insured Mr S and his occasional partner Mr L. Don't make us stab at the truth, pleading to be corrected! You seem like a nice man. Please stop being stingy with your insider's insights.

It was a typo Len. But I imagine you can guess? I would bet on a fair jury convicting Mr S of conspiracy to murder - and scores of other charges, if they could also be brought, from insurance fraud to gross breaches of pollution regulations. Of course, he might skip the country and head for refuge somewhere nice and sunny.

The mind reels! Here's a thought for Gordon Brown, who's obviously no fool when it comes to cash. How about a weekly "Where's Bin Laden?" competition - run as an interactive website as a joint venture between the National Lottery. MI6, Mossad and the CIA? The object would be to spot Bin Laden somewhere on the planet - similar to 'Where's Wally?' books of fond memory, but with an added twist. Punters would be required to submit photographic proof that Bin Laden was truly in their neighbourhood during the last week. Participants going for the $25 million jackpot would need to send in Bin Laden sighting photos, by mobile phone charged at $5 per thirty seconds. A million Bin Laden look-alikes would bloom. The world would wallow in paranoia. Kids would get some laughs. Just what's needed for the 100 Year, Budget Infinity, Global War on Whatwasitnow?

Yeah, well it's not very funny in my opinion, for reasons explained. "German" does not = "Fascist" and "Herr" does not = "Nazi" Germans, I imagine, must find this seemingly light-hearted quip an unnecessary and unwarranted insinuation (perhaps I'm wrong about that, but I believe I would find it offesnive if I was in their shoes). Why is it OK in an English-speaking forum to implicitly assume the feelings of Germans count for nothing?

Thanks Peter You ask: If I (and millions of others) are correct, 9-11 was essentially a false-flag operation. It was designed to set up an archetypal villain - Islamic extremism - providing cover for a series of unprovoked assaults on target nations with large Moslem populations and a stringent crack down on civil liberties. In that context, spectacular is good. Shock and awe is better. There may well have been other reasons why the towers had to come down to fulfil this insane plan. Several have been suggested. Not knowing these villains personally, I can only speculate on their motives. The waters have undoubtably been muddied by a substantial amount of deliberately seeded disinformation - using both official and unofficial channels. Some theories about 9-11 are crackpot. Others may be very accurate. Some are confusing mistures of sane analysis and rubbish. But the willful destruction of evidence, the absurb subsequent official investigations, the glaring lack of mass media follow-up on some topics that scream out for it... these all point to a major conspiracy involving several collaborating 'intelligence services' (or senior elements therein), key elements within the western mass media and at least a handful of complicit politicians. That is not, BTW, intended to be an exhaustive list of conspiring forces. There may be others, even better shielded from scrutiny than the above. How, for example, were the insurance / reinsurance companies bought off? Usually those guys don't like losing billions without putting up a fight. There has to be some very big money involved, if this scenario is correct.

People Once again I protest the use, on this forum, of the term 'Herr' as an assumed term of abuse. While not German myself, I find this so offensive I may consider applying for German citizenship if it keeps going, out of straightforward solidarity for fellow human beings who should not be expected to put with this persistent, insidious abuse, but cop it sweet out of decency tinged with fear.

Any takers? If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition. The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero. Any takers?If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition. The probability that the Controlled Demolition story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero. By the way Sid - I'll be easy on you - find me just one. My Point: Sid's question may sound impressive and relevant but it is rhetorical nonsense. I can no more find an example of a building collapsing the same way as the towers, than he can find an example of a building surviving the same amount of damage as the towers and not collapsing. The reason is simple - 9-11 was unprecedented. The scope of the terrorist attack was unprecedented. The method of attack was unprecedented. The construction and scale of the targets was unique. Given all that, is it really all that surprising that the resulting damage was unprecedented? Your point, Len, is obfuscation. A steel framed concrete towerblock is a rather resilient structure. That's why they are common in modern cities. No steel framed concrete towerblock, to my knowledge, has ever been known to collapse - straight down and at near free-fall velocity - because the steel framework effectively melted due to internal fuel fires. There ARE cases of tower block collapse that are similar to what was observed on 9-11. Those are cases of controlled demolition, in which high-temperature explosives were stragically deployed. There are NO cases - I understand - of such collapses that did NOT involve controlled demolition. If there are such cases, please let us all know. If there aren't, this extraordinary co-incidence affecting THREE buildings in Manhatten on that day and only on that day is one heck of a smoking gun... Sid, I don't understand your obsessive suspicion of the twin tower collapse. Please look at the site I hyperlinked in the previous posting, as it clearly shows photos of the buildings' collapse, which occurred after some hours, and provided, what I believe is a sound engineering explanation. The events of 9/11, especially those prior to 9/11, may bear further scrutiny due to certain suspicious facts, such as the connection between the flight school in Florida and the CIA, but the building collapse, in and of itself, doesn;t appear to me to be much more than what it seemed. The attack occurred on a weekday, following a working day. To plan and execute a demolition, as pointed out at sites discussing this question (see the aforementioned hyperlink) would take many days of careful planning and execution, including placement of charges, structural modifications, and then controlled, sequential demolition. This would be impossible, I believe, logistically, to execute within a building occupied by thousands of white collar workers and the security staff. The logistical arrangement of faking the hijacking of the passenger jets, that is setting up these planes being hijacked and striking the targets would take the complicit surreptitious involvement of thousands, not including the assumption that the buildings had demolitions installed and used. Based upon the history of some past conspiracies (JFK’s assassination, for example) it seems that the US Government would have enough trouble coordinating a much smaller conspiracy, and even then, the “company line”, after the work done by several dedicated researchers, is shown up to be completely implausible. Coordinating a Government conspiracy on the order of 9/11 seems to me to be much too great to pull off. But even so, if it was, I don’t believe the Twin Tower hit and collapse would be part of it. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. One facet of the Twin Tower attack, which really hasn’t been exploited by the Media or the Government, is the fact that these building were especially vulnerable to this type of attack. Based upon their design, that they were curtain wall design, and exterior wall supported for all live loading, made these buildings especially vulnerable to strikes from jets with a large amount of fuel stored in their wings. This to me is very scary, that is, the attackers thought out and exploited this vulnerability impressively. I wonder why this fact wasn’t really exploited to a greater degree. Please read the hyperlinked site. I think that to find the string that might lead to (or be) clues to a conspiracy, one should first discount and eliminate, those events that are as they appear (the facts), and what I left over, esp. what suspiciously appears as conspiracy, may indeed be such. But there are people on this forum who are far more qualified than me at separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to conspiracy theory. By the way I enjoyed reading your response on WWI and your explanation of your position on Zionism around the turn of the century (the 20th century) and would like to read more of your ideas on the Jewish “Intellegentsia”, and its impact on early 19th century European politics. I had previously been taken aback with your statements as being anti Semitic. I am not agreeing with all of your views (esp. your Holocaust related views) but some discourse may be beneficial. Peter McKenna Hi Peter If it's obsession to stand my ground and insist on an answer to a relatively simple question then I guess I'm guilty as charged. I take it, by now, the (simple) answer is NO? In other words, there HASN'T been a collapse remotely like the collapse of THREE towers that ocvcured on 9-11, at ANY time in history before or since, EXCEPT when techniques of controlled demolition have been applied? Is that correct? (Last call...) OK... people. Draw your own conclusions from this mind-bending fact. I'll draw mine. You wrote: Why would it have been impossible? Maintenance staff work on large buildings teeming with people. If they are working in shafts and stairwells, many white collar staf won't even know they're in the building.I agree that an operation would be difficult, if not impossible, to rig the building for explosives without the consent or acquiescence of those in control of the buildings. Very useful to have the leaseholders onside. Chums within the leadership of the Port Authority would be handy too... I read your reference to the work of Tim Wilkinson of the Uni of Sydney. Not very impressive, I must say. Here's a sample: In other words, Tim hasn't much idea at all what happened to WTC 7. But we are encouraged to ponder a few questions. Never mind about WTC 7 folks... Nothing to see there! It's just one of nature's little mysteries - and may have to stay that way, as long as there's more pressing tasks at hand such as chasing terrorists, starting wars and stamping out 'hate crimes' against obvious suspects such as Mr Silverstein. Regarding the comments at the end of your post, Peter, thanks for what you said. I certainly believe that discourse is beneficial - and I respect people who play fair in free and open debate, people who aren't just out to 'win', score points or dissemble but who have a genuine interest in approaching that elusive Holy Grail: The Truth. Old Socrates had a good idea or two, IMO.

Looks like a nice country inhabited by normal people going about their business. Sid, I'm confused. According to the western media, especially the Murdoch media, Iran is a nation of unspeakable evil, whose people, whipped into a frenzy by crazy mullahs, spend every waking moment dreaming of destroying the west and wiping Israel off the map. This is why America and Israel must strike first to save all our ungrateful hides. Most of the west doesn't understand the dire peril we are in. America and Israel know best. Iran plans to blow up the world and luckily we have those two superhero nations--Israel and the US--to save us. That pleasant little montage of yours must be phony. I know what you mean Mark. What made me suspicious was the nice looking women and smiling childrens' faces.

Any takers? If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition. The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero. Any takers?If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition. The probability that the Controlled Demolition story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero. By the way Sid - I'll be easy on you - find me just one. My Point: Sid's question may sound impressive and relevant but it is rhetorical nonsense. I can no more find an example of a building collapsing the same way as the towers, than he can find an example of a building surviving the same amount of damage as the towers and not collapsing. The reason is simple - 9-11 was unprecedented. The scope of the terrorist attack was unprecedented. The method of attack was unprecedented. The construction and scale of the targets was unique. Given all that, is it really all that surprising that the resulting damage was unprecedented? Your point, Len, is obfuscation. A steel framed concrete towerblock is a rather resilient structure. That's why they are common in modern cities. No steel framed concrete towerblock, to my knowledge, has ever been known to collapse - straight down and at near free-fall velocity - because the steel framework effectively melted due to internal fuel fires. There ARE cases of tower block collapse that are similar to what was observed on 9-11. Those are cases of controlled demolition, in which high-temperature explosives were stragically deployed. There are NO cases - I understand - of such collapses that did NOT involve controlled demolition. If there are such cases, please let us all know. If there aren't, this extraordinary co-incidence affecting THREE buildings in Manhatten on that day and only on that day is one heck of a smoking gun...

The problem is that it gets much of its credibility from the fact that people do try to censor it. The best way of dealing with this nonsense is by arguing against it as I have done. What I meant was that it was the same argument that was used in Mein Kampf. In fact it was a common view of those on the right who were also anti-Semitic. It is true that there were a lot of Jews involved in the revolutions that took place in Russia (1917) and Germany (1919). It is understandable that people who faced prejudice and discrimination should be attracted to a left-wing ideology that preached equality and justice. However, to go onto argue that these revolutions were therefore part of a Jewish conspiracy is ridiculous. The ruling elite encouraged the publication of these views as they knew it would play on people’s prejudices and could be used to undermine the solidarity of the working classes. This is especially true when capitalism is in crisis. In the early 1930s Germany had probably the most powerful left-wing movements in Europe. Without the support of Hitler and the Nazis by the ruling class in Germany, there was a good chance that a Marxist revolution would have been successful. The ruling classes in the rest of the world were aware of this and that is why Hitler was allowed to develop. This was the political motivation behind appeasement. Hitler was seen as someone who not only destroy the left in Germany but create a counter-balance to communism in the Soviet Union. When I was researching my books on Hitler and Stalin I was shocked to discover the way the British media covered these two men. Hitler was given a great deal of praise for the way he dealt left-wing activists. Remember, they were the first to enter Hitler’s concentration camps. What was even more surprising was the praise that Stalin received for purging the Soviet Union of the left. By this time Stalin was promoting the idea of “communism in one country” and was eliminating those still arguing for world revolution. Interestingly, a large percentage of those being executed by Stalin were Jews. Why? They believed in world revolution because they wanted to remove prejudice, injustice and inequality in all countries. Over the centuries Jews have a tremendous record for taking part in the struggle against inequality and injustice. Look at the role they played in the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. The white racists in the Deep South were also anti-Semites and as a result Jewish civil rights workers were more likely to be murdered. Take the Mississippi Burning case. It was no coincidence that two of the three young civil rights workers who were murdered were Jewish (the other one was black). http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAburning.htm It is a common tactic of anti-Semites to quote Jews in order to support their racist views. You will always get people so full of self-hatred that they willing to betray their race. Others do it for financial reasons. For example, see the role played by the Warburgs in the growth of Nazi Germany. The fact that the message is coming from a Jew like Benjamin Freedman is irrelevant. It has to be judged by what it says. At it is is politically illiterate nonsense. John, I think this is a very interesting discussion and I'd like to take it a little further. I agree with much of what you say. Part of the confusion, I believe, is in any attempt to speak of 'the Jews' or 'the Jewish people' as though they (or it) is a single entity with a single purpose. That's clearly nonsense, IMO - but it is a common view held traditionally by many right wingers who hold anti-Jewish views. It is, more or less, the view that Hitler seems to have held. It should be noted, however, that this same manner of speaking is common in much Jewish discourse – especially Zionist discourse. The notion that “Jews are One” is, unsurprisingly, very useful to Jewish nationalism. Hitler (along with a lot of right wing Judeophobes in his time and since) had a rather unscientific view about 'race'. Mein Kampf doesn’t, as far as I'm aware, contain any references to genetics at all. There's talk of nation, of race, of people and of 'blood'. Blood, in this context, represnts the alleged biological basis for race. Hitler had a tendency to view Jews as a unified racial group (something which, as I hope I’ve explained, I believe is irrational and misguided). Mein Kampf argues against the notion that ‘Jewishness’ is religious in essence. In that respect, of course, Hitler was again on the same side as the Zionist movement (and in conflict with most non-Zionist Jews). Hitler appears to have disliked ‘Jews’ for various reasons. Some were quite irrational or based on cultural prejudice. Others had foundation in reality. Opposition to Jewish banking interests and practices, for example, scarcely originated with Hitler or within the 'right wing'. Read the speeches of Hyndman, first Socialist MP in the House of Commons - or Karl Marx for that matter. It was significant, at the time, that 'Jewishness' was generally understood to be a religious phenomenon – more akin to Catholicism or Hinduism than to any ‘ethnic’ grouping. The significance was profound for those in the Jewish community who feared the demise of Jewry as a separate and distinctive branch of humanity. During the 19th century and early 20th century, more and more Christians and Jews in Europe became influenced by rational and scientific thought – and moved in a secular direction in beliefs and lifestyle. For many Christians and for many Jews, this was a great liberation. Israel Shahak describes the impact on the latter in Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years Many Jews, in fact, were in the forefront of secularism and played important leadership roles in progressive and socialist movements, many of which were quite anti-religious. All this posed a ‘danger’ for those concerned – for whatever reason – to retain the ‘unity’ of Jewry. Without a robust religious foundation, and given more and more inter-marriage with non-Jews, Jewry (that is, the ‘Jewish People’) must have appeared to be a phenomenon in decline, kept alive only by a shrinking rump of endogamous religious devotees. Zionist history – and the remarkable apparent success of Zionism in the 20th century – is usually viewed as the history of a small but determined group of people achieving their objectives despite objections and resistance from a hostile mainly gentile world. What is usually left out of the story is that arguably the greatest obstacle of all to achieving Zionist objectives – in those crucial decades leading up to the foundation of an Israeli State – was opposition within the ‘Jewish’ community itself. This took various forms. In the USA, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism were both generally skeptical of Zionism. There was also substantial opposition with Orthodox Judaism. As these were generally recognized as the three main branches of American Judaism, it was not a promising foundation for Zionist aspirations. Then there was Russia. It's true a remarkable preponderence of the leadership of the Bolshevik Party (and some of the other revolutionary parties in pre-1917 Russia) were Jews by origin. A great deal was made of this point by Adolf Hitler and it features prominently in the speeches and writings of Freedman. Partly through the influence of those two men, this fact is regarded as highly significant to this day by many contemporary Judeophobic right-wingers. However, while a lot of people with Jewish ancestory did participate in Russian revolutionary movements at high levels, what’s a lot less clear – at least to me – is that Jewish Bolshevik leaders from Trotsky down were part of any ‘Jewish conspiracy’ as such. That they were secular Jews helping forment a Communist revolution is clear - but there’s no strong evidence – as far as I’m aware – that they consciously caucused as Jews, pursued a specifically “Jewish” agenda or held Jewish supremacism as a goal. They didn't look down on Lenin because he was not Jewish. They revered him as a revolutionary leader. Like their gentile comrades, these were mainly idealists, generally universalist in outlook. They were aware of Zionism – and opposed it. These were Communists first and foremost. Had the early leaders of Bolshevism truly been part of a conscious Jewish conspiracy – and given the high level of Jewish participation in the Bolshevik Party’s leadership at the time of Lenin’s death - I find it inconceivable that they could have muffed things so badly as to cede or lose power to a gentile supreme leader in the mid-1920s who moved, rather quickly, to execute, imprison or execute many of these original leaders of the revolution. The notion that Communism was a ‘Jewish plot’ came into being early. British 'Intelligence' seems to have played a role. Winston Churchill was one of its early promoters. Hitler pushed the story along in Germany. Judeophobic elements with the American right wing took up the chorus – and many repeat the fable to this day. I think they are wrong. I also think that this malevolent story has been pushed along, right through to our own times, by a strange alliance of forces. Some of them may have been innocent dupe. Others were more devious. Anthony Sutton has a take on this . I don't necessarily endorse Sutton's view, but it's of interest that in Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution he comments The persistence with which the (International Bolshevik) Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes... What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?: Back to Freedman. I have no conclusive evidence for this, but if I were to take a guess, I’d put Freedman’s writings in the category of disinformation generated by a veteran Zionist insider who remained so throughout his life. I gather that’s also the view of Eustace Mullins, although I haven’t heard his reasoning (and not, of course, to imply that his word should be taken as Gospel). I'll give a little circumstantoial evidence for this in a future post - and make a connection to JFK (whom Freedman claimed to have known persoanlly over a long period of time)

Well said Ron! It might also be worth putting "Flight 93" in inverted commas.

Rodney King said it well: "People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Meanwhile, at the risk of being tiresome, I would like to ask my question again: Any takers? If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition. The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero.

The problem is that it gets much of its credibility from the fact that people do try to censor it. The best way of dealing with this nonsense is by arguing against it as I have done. Which why I am usually against censorship, but some things do go beyond the pale. To post this sort of drivel right before Holocaust Day seems to put this in that category. This person seems to be of the view that all the evils of the world can be blamed on a Jewish conspiracy -- as you observed yourself, that's straight out of Mein Kampf. The point I made about credibility is that it's difficult for the ill-informed to take seriously posts made by bona fide educators like you and Andy when they're right alongside this sort of poison. And yes, Sid, I WOULD ban Mein Kampf and the Protocol of the Elders of Zion from an "education" forum. These documents are widely available on "specialized" sites should serious researchers wish to consult them, or on a myriad of neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial sites for those who believe in that stuff. They have no place on a site which is purportedly for those involved in education. Mike, You refer to important historical documents that have influenced a lot of people. Do you really believe it is a good idea to ban those documents, so they can be viewed only in fringe media? Do you really believe major historical documents that you find offensive should never be discussed rationally in open dialogue, where all views may be voiced and tested? An Educational Forum with a focus on history is, surely, an ideal place to discuss such material! It’s where one expects to find intelligent folk searching for the truth (in the case of ‘history’ I take ‘truth’ to mean the most accurate account possible at any given time of past events). What on earth is there to fear through open debate? Absurd and irrational views are most likely to be exposed through such a process and in this kind of forum. This is not a bar-room brawl. It’s well-moderated discussion between literate and sentient human beings. Mike, I notice you declined to comment on my biblical quotation. Should I infer that The Bible would survive your censorship regime? If so, on what basis, given it contains such egregious and violent material? Where would your censorship end, once you got started? Would you ban the Magna Carta? It's first edition contains material that has provoked fierce discussion over at Wikipedia, whose ever-vigilent editors discovered that some of its contents are, to a modern ear, highly offensive. Perhaps only later editions of this classic document should be permitted? How about Marx’s ‘On The Jewish Question’? Full ban? Or pre-selected, selective quotations only? Really, Mike, the censorship you advocate is not the way to go - unless you actually want suspicions festering that there IS a malevolent conspiracy in which all Jewish people are partcipants (something I most emphatically do not believe). John’s earlier post is a thoughtful contribuition to an important debate. I’d like to reply to it later, time allowing. Doing so requires considerably more thought than a routine defence of the rationale underlying Article 19.of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Here's an article by Gavin Gatenby, a stalwart of the environment movement in New South Wales. Gavin's article carries a sedition warning. Prudent Australians may wish to avoid reading beyond this line, just in case your eye movements are being tracked __________________________________ How to Organise a Major Terrorist Scare - The Big Dummy’s Guide to Security Booga-Booga How easy is it to organise a major terrorist scare like the one that’s currently gridlocking the world’s airports? Dead easy. If you follow a few simple points you can panic the populace and stampede the media with virtually no risk of getting caught. All it takes is a little confidence. Here’s a simple “how-to” for aspiring top-level spooks: 1. The politicians don’t want to know Have confidence that the government really doesn’t want to know what it is you’re getting up to, as long as the effect benefits them. By their very nature, secret police intelligence and espionage organizations operate in secret and often do, “in the national interest”, illegal things or stuff which ordinary folk would regard as grossly unethical – things that would embarrass the government if they were to be exposed. If anything goes wrong the politicians want to be able to “plausibly deny” they were involved. This relationship hands enormous, uncontrolled, power to your small, ultra-secretive, self-governing elite clustered at the top of the nation’s security “service”. Your colleagues are invariably drawn from the upper reaches of the political and economic elite and of course you know better than anybody what’s in “the national interest” and you have a God-given right to rule. Breaking ranks and talking isn’t in your colleagues’ class nature. 2. Keep things on a need-to-know basis Keep your security organization compartmentalised and discourage specialist sections from talking to each other. You can plausibly plead security reasons for this. Make sure all information gets passed up the line to your small group at the top who compile and “assess” the overall threat and decide when to act. Thus you control the “narrative” and the timing of the scam. The foot soldiers may shake their heads and wonder at some of the things you come up with, but they’ll be in no position to contradict you. And if they do, it’s a very serious offence. It’ll ruin their careers and could land them a very long stretch in gaol. 3. At the right time, get the president or prime minister involved When you’ve decided on the optimum time for your security scare and sorted out who your “plotters” will be, it’s important to involve the head of the government. He’ll want to broadcast to the nation, taking credit for keeping the people safe from the terrible plot. He’ll automatically be followed by the leaders of the mainstream opposition parties, all eager to prove their credibility, responsibility and patriotism. As soon as you’ve made the official line clear, the media and the state apparatus will fall into line. 4. “Prove that we lie” Always remember: it’s breathtakingly easy to claim you’ve “thwarted” something horrible and almost impossible for sceptics to prove that you haven’t. This applies especially if you “thwart” the plot in its early stages. Invariably you’re acting against individuals from a group that’s already been demonised and will be scared to speak up or fight back. The majority will be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. Questioning the government in a time of “national emergency” isn’t an easy gig. 5. Don’t worry, they’ll all play their part Complex conspiracies involving lots of people are entirely unnecessary. All that’s needed is for your close knit, unaccountable group to order those lower down the chain to act on “information received”. They don’t even have to know what the information was. They just have to know the addresses to raid and who to arrest. When they do, they’re sure to find some political or religious literature, or something on the hard drives, or some household chemicals that will, under the circumstances you’ve created, look suspicious. If you’re using agents provocateur, they’ll be able to plant “evidence” and report suspicious conversations to “sex-up” the case. Of course, details will never be available officially or in a verifiable form, but fragments and hints of purported “evidence” can be leaked to selected journalists (see below). 6. Feed the chickens Keep information in official news releases to an absolute minimum. There’s a plausible excuse for this: more information will harm ongoing investigations and might prejudice the case when it gets to court. In place of any hard attributable facts, provide a steady stream of small leaks “under condition of anonymity” to selected journalists from politically reliable mainstream news organizations. These people are carefully selected for political conservatism and journalistic “responsibility”. Even if they weren’t, they need a story and they’re totally reliant on you for one. It doesn’t matter if the leaked details are outrageously illogical. Even if they’re suspicious of the story, your contacts will run it rather than lose a scoop. In this way you’ll establish an unofficial official narrative that most members of the public will be inclined to accept as something like the truth. They’ve already been conditioned by the media attack-dogs to thoroughly distrust the group from which your victims come so they’ll figure that if the charges are a fit-up the victims are probably guilty of something and it would be prudent to put them away. 7. Politicians who aren’t 100 per cent with you are friends of terrorists No politician enjoys being attacked as “irresponsible” or accused of being unpatriotic or soft on terrorists. Very few will dare question the allegations in case they’re proved wrong. Most are venal politics junkies making a very good living doing something they enjoy. It’s safer for them to join the chorus condemning terrorism and congratulating you on your vigilance. With any luck, some politicians will show their credentials by loudly criticising you for not acting sooner and more ruthlessly. Those few who are troubled will probably just say nothing. 8. Don’t worry about proving links to real terror groups Once upon a time, not so long ago, it was felt necessary to show that your local “terrorist cell” was recruited by, and in communication with, al-Qaeda, or some group with actual form some time in the not-too-distant past. This requirement brought its own problems, since evidence of the links often failed to convince, or, worse still, unearthed shady figures with a track record of collaboration with the CIA or M16 or Mossad. It’s still a good idea to hint at such links but it isn’t de rigueur because the problem disappeared with the happy invention of the “spontaneously-forming, self-activating” (SFSA) terror cell theory in the aftermath of the 7/7 London bombings. According to the SFSA theory, terrorists don’t have to be recruited or trained. Wherever any three integrated, happy, and successful young Muslim men get together to discuss politics or religion or even just to play cricket, they spontaneously decide to set up a do-it-yourself terror cell. They scour the internet for recipes for powerful but highly unstable explosives made from sports drinks, peroxide, hair gel, acetone and baby formula. Without outside direction they select targets and decide the day. All you need to “prove” conspiracy was that they met, discussed politics and had in their possession common household chemicals, fizzy drinks and a mobile phone. It doesn’t matter if their conversations show nothing explicit. Just say they were talking in code. If you can show at least one of them has travelled overseas, that’s a plus. If not, assert that they “investigated” booking airline tickets or showed an interest in travelling overseas. The SFSA theory not only relieves you of having to prove connections to international terror groups, there’s a bonus: it also increases public fear. Any group of young Muslims kicking a ball around in the park is actually planning to blow up trains. Or airliners. Anything you do to these people is likely to be “overlooked”, if not vocally supported by patriotic simpletons. 9. It doesn’t really matter if a court finds them innocent Your victims won’t get their day in court for months, maybe years, and if you’ve organised things well, you’ll be operating under laws that ensure that the public and your tame media are prevented from reporting key details or even excluded from court altogether. By the time your victims get to court, the scare you used them to create will have done its job. Even if your victims are found innocent, that fact will get little press attention from a media who are embarrassed by their role in such an obvious scam, and anyway, the accused terrorists’ acquittal will be lost in the next big scare. Good luck, and have fun.

Here's an article by Gavin Gatenby, a stalwart of the environment movement in NSW. Gavin's article carries a sedition warning. Prudent Australians may wish to avoid reading beyond this line, just in case your eye movements are being tracked __________________________________ How to Organise a Major Terrorist Scare - The Big Dummy’s Guide to Security Booga-Booga How easy is it to organise a major terrorist scare like the one that’s currently gridlocking the world’s airports? Dead easy. If you follow a few simple points you can panic the populace and stampede the media with virtually no risk of getting caught. All it takes is a little confidence. Here’s a simple “how-to” for aspiring top-level spooks: 1. The politicians don’t want to know Have confidence that the government really doesn’t want to know what it is you’re getting up to, as long as the effect benefits them. By their very nature, secret police intelligence and espionage organizations operate in secret and often do, “in the national interest”, illegal things or stuff which ordinary folk would regard as grossly unethical – things that would embarrass the government if they were to be exposed. If anything goes wrong the politicians want to be able to “plausibly deny” they were involved. This relationship hands enormous, uncontrolled, power to your small, ultra-secretive, self-governing elite clustered at the top of the nation’s security “service”. Your colleagues are invariably drawn from the upper reaches of the political and economic elite and of course you know better than anybody what’s in “the national interest” and you have a God-given right to rule. Breaking ranks and talking isn’t in your colleagues’ class nature. 2. Keep things on a need-to-know basis Keep your security organization compartmentalised and discourage specialist sections from talking to each other. You can plausibly plead security reasons for this. Make sure all information gets passed up the line to your small group at the top who compile and “assess” the overall threat and decide when to act. Thus you control the “narrative” and the timing of the scam. The foot soldiers may shake their heads and wonder at some of the things you come up with, but they’ll be in no position to contradict you. And if they do, it’s a very serious offence. It’ll ruin their careers and could land them a very long stretch in gaol. 3. At the right time, get the president or prime minister involved When you’ve decided on the optimum time for your security scare and sorted out who your “plotters” will be, it’s important to involve the head of the government. He’ll want to broadcast to the nation, taking credit for keeping the people safe from the terrible plot. He’ll automatically be followed by the leaders of the mainstream opposition parties, all eager to prove their credibility, responsibility and patriotism. As soon as you’ve made the official line clear, the media and the state apparatus will fall into line. 4. “Prove that we lie” Always remember: it’s breathtakingly easy to claim you’ve “thwarted” something horrible and almost impossible for sceptics to prove that you haven’t. This applies especially if you “thwart” the plot in its early stages. Invariably you’re acting against individuals from a group that’s already been demonised and will be scared to speak up or fight back. The majority will be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. Questioning the government in a time of “national emergency” isn’t an easy gig. 5. Don’t worry, they’ll all play their part Complex conspiracies involving lots of people are entirely unnecessary. All that’s needed is for your close knit, unaccountable group to order those lower down the chain to act on “information received”. They don’t even have to know what the information was. They just have to know the addresses to raid and who to arrest. When they do, they’re sure to find some political or religious literature, or something on the hard drives, or some household chemicals that will, under the circumstances you’ve created, look suspicious. If you’re using agents provocateur, they’ll be able to plant “evidence” and report suspicious conversations to “sex-up” the case. Of course, details will never be available officially or in a verifiable form, but fragments and hints of purported “evidence” can be leaked to selected journalists (see below). 6. Feed the chickens Keep information in official news releases to an absolute minimum. There’s a plausible excuse for this: more information will harm ongoing investigations and might prejudice the case when it gets to court. In place of any hard attributable facts, provide a steady stream of small leaks “under condition of anonymity” to selected journalists from politically reliable mainstream news organizations. These people are carefully selected for political conservatism and journalistic “responsibility”. Even if they weren’t, they need a story and they’re totally reliant on you for one. It doesn’t matter if the leaked details are outrageously illogical. Even if they’re suspicious of the story, your contacts will run it rather than lose a scoop. In this way you’ll establish an unofficial official narrative that most members of the public will be inclined to accept as something like the truth. They’ve already been conditioned by the media attack-dogs to thoroughly distrust the group from which your victims come so they’ll figure that if the charges are a fit-up the victims are probably guilty of something and it would be prudent to put them away. 7. Politicians who aren’t 100 per cent with you are friends of terrorists No politician enjoys being attacked as “irresponsible” or accused of being unpatriotic or soft on terrorists. Very few will dare question the allegations in case they’re proved wrong. Most are venal politics junkies making a very good living doing something they enjoy. It’s safer for them to join the chorus condemning terrorism and congratulating you on your vigilance. With any luck, some politicians will show their credentials by loudly criticising you for not acting sooner and more ruthlessly. Those few who are troubled will probably just say nothing. 8. Don’t worry about proving links to real terror groups Once upon a time, not so long ago, it was felt necessary to show that your local “terrorist cell” was recruited by, and in communication with, al-Qaeda, or some group with actual form some time in the not-too-distant past. This requirement brought its own problems, since evidence of the links often failed to convince, or, worse still, unearthed shady figures with a track record of collaboration with the CIA or M16 or Mossad. It’s still a good idea to hint at such links but it isn’t de rigueur because the problem disappeared with the happy invention of the “spontaneously-forming, self-activating” (SFSA) terror cell theory in the aftermath of the 7/7 London bombings. According to the SFSA theory, terrorists don’t have to be recruited or trained. Wherever any three integrated, happy, and successful young Muslim men get together to discuss politics or religion or even just to play cricket, they spontaneously decide to set up a do-it-yourself terror cell. They scour the internet for recipes for powerful but highly unstable explosives made from sports drinks, peroxide, hair gel, acetone and baby formula. Without outside direction they select targets and decide the day. All you need to “prove” conspiracy was that they met, discussed politics and had in their possession common household chemicals, fizzy drinks and a mobile phone. It doesn’t matter if their conversations show nothing explicit. Just say they were talking in code. If you can show at least one of them has travelled overseas, that’s a plus. If not, assert that they “investigated” booking airline tickets or showed an interest in travelling overseas. The SFSA theory not only relieves you of having to prove connections to international terror groups, there’s a bonus: it also increases public fear. Any group of young Muslims kicking a ball around in the park is actually planning to blow up trains. Or airliners. Anything you do to these people is likely to be “overlooked”, if not vocally supported by patriotic simpletons. 9. It doesn’t really matter if a court finds them innocent Your victims won’t get their day in court for months, maybe years, and if you’ve organised things well, you’ll be operating under laws that ensure that the public and your tame media are prevented from reporting key details or even excluded from court altogether. By the time your victims get to court, the scare you used them to create will have done its job. Even if your victims are found innocent, that fact will get little press attention from a media who are embarrassed by their role in such an obvious scam, and anyway, the accused terrorists’ acquittal will be lost in the next big scare. Good luck, and have fun.

Was the arm originally part of Martin Butler's body?

Do you get most images of your images of Tehran via the LMM*? Here's a pleasant, thoughtful audio-visual corrective _____________________ * Lying Mainstream Media

Mike I realise the view you have expressed is not unusual. What's more, it's been gaining the backing of more and more governments in recent years, under pressure from (especially but not exclusively) organizations representing some Jewish interests. I believe, however, it is profoundly mistaken. Do you really believe that someone reading this material is likely to be incited to "racial hatred"? Woud you ban Mein Kampf also? How about the "Protocoals of the Elders of Z"? How about the Old Testament? Perhaps you need reminding that in the latter case, there are unmistakable exhortations to 'smite' and 'destroy' enemies of different tribal origins. How about this, for example, from Samuel Chapter 15: Amazing, really, that it's popularly known as the 'Good Book', available in all good motels and hospitals. The fallacy, in my opinion, is the notion that people are safer not being exposed to mateial, historical or otherwise, as it may incite them to act offensively. As we all know, that's just not how human beings work. If you Mike - or I, for that matter - read Freedman's artcile (or that ugly section from the Torah / Old Testament, for that matter), it is not likely to incite us to violence. Why should it? We treat both as historical texts. We read them, seek to understand them and place them in context. We do not assign to these texts inherent magical powers... do we? May I put it to you that IF documents such as Ben Freedman's are NOT open for discussion in a forum like this, folk who find the material credible and/or persuasive would be much more likely to believe they are the victims of a conspiracy as described in the text. After all, in that event, they'd be less able to evaluate the subject matter - because they would not have been exposed to cogent, well-documented critiques of the material (of the type you, for example, could doubtless write if you put your mind to it). I have a very tentative view about the rather mysterious Mr Freedman and the agenda behind the material attributed to him... but I think I'll hold fire a little and see whether other folk provide more information and views. One point made by John , I think, is not quite on the mark. He asks if Freedman has learn anything from history, complaining that a paragraph he's wrote sounds like its straight out of Mein Kampf. Well, if one is to believe Mr Freedman's account of himself and his life, he and Hitler were roughly contemporaneous. Some of the events that Hitler complains about in Mein Kampf - such as the way Germany was treated after WW1 - are events in which Freedman claims to have participated directly.

If anyone cares to listen to Piper's hour long radio show on E Howard Hunt, the story of how Hunt came to be promoted as one of the tramps is explained in some detail therein. According to Piper, a number of well-known (and some less well-known) characters were responsible for promoting the story, including Angleton and none other than the Prince of Darkness himself, Richard Perle. One might expect that a story promoted by characters such as these is almost certainly misleading and diversionary. That is indeed Piper's conclusion. The link is HERE - click on Thursday, January 25th 2007

My favourite Robert Anton Wilson quotation is apparently a story he was fond of telling, that also surfaced as Position Paper #23 of the Guns & Dope Party It may not be appropriate for an Educational Forum, so I'll just provide the link. Pure American libertarianism. R.I.P.

Folk interested in E Howard Hunt (RIP) might like to tune in to Michael Collins Piper's radio show - The link is HERE - click on Thu., January 25, 2007 The entire hour is devoted to Hunt. Piper worked at Liberty Lobby at the time Spotlight was sued by E Howard Hunt, in the case Hunt ultimately lost after cross examination by Mark Lane. It is, IMO, a most interesting hour of radio.

Any chance of setting up online poker for forum members? I love a game of poker - but refuse to pay a percentage of the pot to organized crime, It's against my principles. One the other hand, depleting the wallets of some of the folk who visit here regularly would be sweet indeed. I won't name my hit list. Best if they find out afterwards

I recall watching a 'one year on' 9-11 anniversary special, here in Australia. One of the people interviewed was the wife of famous Australian novelist Peter Carey. She had been in the vicinity of the towers on the fateful day. I recall her saying something qlong these lines: "At first we all thought bombs were going off - only later did we realize that it was all the result of planes hitting the towers". In other words, she made her memories of the event fit the reality presented to her afterwards by the mass media. She seemed a nice woman and Carey is a very fine novelist. I wonder if she's still living in fairyland - or whether she's figured out the hobgoblins are rather closer to home than the caves of the Hindu Kush? She may have wised up, because I haven't seen her interviewed about this since.