Tuesday, August 16, 2005

An Anti-Iraq War; Anti-Iran War, and Anti-Zionist, Alliance.

Introduction.
The neocons, most of whom are jews, have been behind most of the critical political changes in american foreign policy since the early 1970s and yet, politically, they remained completely invisible for almost thirty years. For instance, the jewish lobby in america, and the jews-only state in palestine, were responsible for pushing america and britain into the first gulf war. With the exception of patrick buchanan’s remarks about the jewish amen corner, no commentator discussed the neocons’ role in triggering this war or the subsequent sanctions against iraq. However, america’s invasion of iraq in 2003 has brought about a significant political change. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of commentators criticizing the likudnik traitors at the heart of the bush administration who initiated america’s invasion of iraq.

The invasion of iraq has also contributed to the disintegration of the left in both america and britain. The left has preferred to vote for right wing, pro-war, parties such as the democratic party in america and the labour party in britain, rather than for anti-war alternatives. Radicals ought now to give serious consideration to abandoning these allegedly left-wing political parties to form an alliance with those on the right of the political spectrum not merely to oppose the iraq war, and a possible war against iran, but to combat the jewish elite which is pushing america, and britain, into more proxy zionist wars.

Iraq Not an Imperialist War.
In the run up to the invasion of iraq, few of america’s military leaders supported the neocon propositions that american troops would be welcomed in iraq as liberators and that the country could be occupied with only a minimal military force. American military leaders may have wanted the war to flex their military muscles and to boost american imperial power but they didn’t want it on the terms imposed on them by the neocons because they believed, correctly as it turns out, they wouldn’t have enough troops to control the country. "This is no doubt a sore spot for the White House: opposition from American's military leaders to the Iraq adventure made headlines in the run-up to war, and their continuing objection to this administration's policy of unconstrained aggression was summed up in the remark of a retired general to the Washington Times: "The Army is just too small for what they want it to do."" (Justin Raimondo ‘Bush Against the Generals’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6938 August 15, 2005).

The american military was pushed, against its better judgement, into this war by neocons and is now suffering grievously in terms of military losses and military prestige. There are huge political differences between the vietnam war and the iraq war - there were massive anti-war protests throughout the vietnam war whereas as regards iraq anti-war protests virtually stopped after the invasion. Militarily, however, the wars themselves are almost identical. In both cases the american military invaded a foreign country and found itself being humiliated by a rag-tag army of volunteers. And everything it does to combat the enemy makes it look even more barbaric. The consequence is that the american military faces the same humiliation in iraq that it suffered in vietnam. "The fact that America faces as big a national humiliation as it endured in Vietnam is not one much discussed." (Alexander Cockburn ‘The Plame Affair and the Function of Scandals’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07302005.html July 30 / 31, 2005). The war crimes being committed by the american military in iraq are just as morally disgusting as those it perpetrated in vietnam. Perhaps it is too much to expect patriotic americans to be ashamed of the war crimes being committed on their behalf but the world is appalled and revolted by what the american military is doing. Perhaps if so-called american patriots had experienced shame over what the american military did in vietnam they would have been too fearful to support the invasion of iraq and wouldn’t now be suffering so grieviously for the wounds being inflicted on their country by this jewish neocon inspired war.

Not a War for Democracy.
The sole reason put forward by the bush administration for the invasion of iraq was the military threat posed by saddam hussein. The neocons fantasized that saddam could use inter-continental drones to deliver weapons of mass destruction to attack the united states and britain. "In 2002 the US and United Kingdom proclaimed the right to invade Iraq because it was developing weapons of mass destruction. That was the "single question," as stressed constantly by Bush, Prime Minister Blair and associates. It was also the sole basis on which Bush received congressional authorisation to resort to force. The answer to the "single question" was given shortly after the invasion, and reluctantly conceded: The WMD didn't exist. Scarcely missing a beat, the government and media doctrinal system concocted new pretexts and justifications for going to war." (Noam Chomsky ‘It's imperialism, stupid’ July 5th 2005).

The idea of exporting democracy to iraq was put forward by neocons prior to the invasion of iraq but it played little role in persuading americans to support the invasion. The idea became popular only after al sistani forced the americans into accepting the need for national elections in iraq. The bush administration started promoting such an idea primarily to rationalize the change in policy that resulted from sistani’s ultimatum.

The muslim world is politically backward because of american domination of the region. That domination stretches back nearly 50 years starting in 1953 with the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of iran. For the last half century, america has propped up every reactionary regime in the middle east preventing any democracy from emerging. The neocon idea of invading islamic countries to establish democracy is a complete fabrication because all they are interested in is the invasion side of the equation. That americans are gullible enough to believe such jewish lies just goes to show the power of the jewish neocons in moulding american minds.

The Iraq war is a Zionist Proxy War.
There were a lot of arguments against the invasion of iraq. It is almost impossible for opponents to a war to rally around a truthful, and popular, objection when such a war is being promoted by a flood of state-sponsored lies. National security and intelligence analyst john prados in his 2004 book ‘Hoodwinked’ describes the Bush "scheme to convince America and the world that war with Iraq was necessary and urgent" as "a case study in government dishonesty ... that required patently untrue public statements and egregious manipulation of intelligence." (Quoted in Noam Chomsky ‘It's imperialism, stupid’ July 5th 2005). The jewish neocons knew they could build up an unstoppable momentum for war simply by getting the president and his cabinet to utter a succession of lies to win public approval for their plan to invade iraq. The reason the american public is currently turning against the iraq war is because these lies e.g. about wmd, are gradually being exposed. It was jewish neocons who were primarily responsible for manipulating america into what is a re-run of the disastrous vietnam war. Most americans completely failed to spot the blatant deceptions being perpetrated on them by the jewish neocons in the media and congress. Jewish neocons, traitors to america, are driving america into political, moral, and financial, bankruptcy. The blame for america’s proxy zionist war against iraq has got to be laid fairly and squarely on the jewish neocons and their shabbat goy allies. "The neocons are parasites. They build nothing. They bring nothing. They don't have a foundation. They don't stand for business. They don't stand for ideology. They use a host to facilitate and grow their own power. They are parasites that latch onto oil until it is no longer convenient. They latch on to democracy until it is no longer convenient." (Scott Ritter quoted in Larisa Alexandrovna’s ‘Scott Ritter: Neocons as Parasites’ http://www.alternet.org/story/21631 March 30, 2005).

The Disintegration of the Left.
The disintegration of the left.can be appreciated through a number of developments. Firstly, in both america and britain, the collapse of the anti-war movement. Secondly, in the 2004 presidential campaign in america, many of those on the left refused to support nader’s anti-war campaign because they believed it was imperative to elect john kerry, a pro-war democratic candidate, rather than face another four years of george bush. Six months later their british counterparts ended up doing exactly the same thing - voting for the pro-war labour party. Thirdly, the left’s refusal to irganize sanctions against the jews-only state. Fourthly, the left’s support for the gaza disengagement charade initiated by the war criminal and terrorist ariel sharon. And, finally, the left’s refusal to expose the jewish traitors running the american political system.

Is it a coincidence that the left has disintegrated in america, britain, and the jews-only state in palestine? Of course not. Jews dominate the left in all three countries. It is their traitorous commitment to the racist jews-only state, ariel sharon, and the so-called gaza peace process, that has brought about this collapse. Basically the jewish left in america and britain have been taking their cue from the jewish left in the jews-only state in palestine. Many left wing jews in america and britain opposed the invasion of iraq, but once it had happened they were happy to see the end of saddam’s threat to the jews-only state and the disintegration of iraq. There is no anti-war protest movement in america and britain because jewish left wingers are not willing to organize them given that the jews-only state in palestine is politically benefitting from the war so much – despite the military and financial losses being suffered by america and britain because of the war.

The Need to put Anti-Zionism at the top of the Political Agenda.
Since the start of america’s zionist proxy war against iraq, the main political battle has not been between republicans and democrats (or, in britain, between labour and tories) but between pro-zionists, who want more wars around the middle east (as well as the expulsion of palestinians from their homeland) and increasing numbers of anti-zionists.

There are those who believe that only paleo-conservatives such as patrick buchanan or libertarians like justin raimondo can counter the political power of the neocons. Whilst there is much to admire in their anti-war polemics they have a marginal political impact on the power of the neocons. The only way of exposing, and deposing, the jewish neocons is if the right and left form a mutual alliance. The basis of such a collaboration is to keep the focus on the jewish neocon establishment which rules america in the interests of the jews-only state in palestine.

Anti-War Protests need an Anti War Party
It is not possible to fight zionism within the democratic party in america, or the labour party in britain, because zionist domination is so overwhelming. "The antiwar movement is limping along, and the Democratic Party is desperate to be seen as a "loyal" opposition. Many of its leaders call not for an end to the war, but a war fought with more troops, with greater efficiency." (Alexander Cockburn ‘The Plame Affair and the Function of Scandals’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07302005.html July 30 / 31, 2005). If the non-neocon left want america and britain out of iraq (and to stay out of syria and iran) then the best way to bring this about is to leave the democratic and labour parties. The anti-war issue is never going to rise to the top of the political agenda until those who oppose the war join an anti-war party.

It has been stated that, "Bush administration neocons such as Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Libby, along with their cheerleaders at Fox "News", the Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal editorial page, National Review, and the New York Times' Judith Miller will go down in history as the architects and enablers of the greatest strategic blunder in American history. The neocon dream of conquering the Middle East for Israel and destroying Islam as a force is now in history's trash heap of failed adventures along with such miscalculations as Hitler's march into Russia and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Leave Now’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07282005.html July 28, 2005). But until left and right unite to sideline the jewish establishment controlling america, the neocons will continue to push the world towards world war three.

In the 1980s, the neocons infiltrated the republican party until now they control it. Since the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings and the invasion of iraq, left wing jews have surrendered to their neocon likudnik allies. What this means is that the political priority of both the left and the right should be to challenge the zionist occupied governments of america, britain, and palestine, and the zionist occupied parties which sustain these governments. "Regardless of the particular causes or principles that most move us, that are closest to our hearts, no issue is of greater urgency than breaking the Jewish-Zionist grip on American political, social and cultural life. As long as this power remains entrenched, there will be no end to the systematic Jewish distortion of history and current affairs, the Jewish-Zionist domination of the US political system, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the Israeli threat to peace." (Mark Weber ‘The Challenge of Jewish-Zionist Power in an Era of Global Struggle’ http://www.ihr.org/other/thechallenge.html July 16, 2005). Unfortunately this sort of alliance seems unlikely given that the traditional left and right seem to prefer to attack each other rather than their zionist masters. The traditional left-right political spectrum has been dead for ages and yet such irrelevance doesn’t seem to stop those on the left and the right from indulging in their politically conventional, slapstick routine.

posted by The Mundi Club @ 10:31 AM

Questionable Oomans

Tim wise starts off his article ‘PETA and the Politics of Putting Things in Perspective’ (http://www.counterpunch.org/wise08132005.html August 13 / 14, 2005) with a clear cut statement of support for the Animal rights movement, "I have long supported the vast majority of the goals set forth by the animal rights movement." This seems to imply he supports rights for Animal but at the end of his article he seems to suggest his support for Animals is merely, "a struggle for greater compassion for all." If Animals have got to rely on ooman compassion for their survival then they’re dead – and, as we shall see, so are oomans.

In his first sentence wise tells his readers that personally he doesn’t like Animal rights activists. This is a bit like saying that he supports jews or blacks but personally he can’t stand them. So, Animal rightists are all the same are they? Well yes, because according to wise they’re all white and rich. In other words, Animal rights is not a moral issue which need to be confronted by everyone, rich and poor, black and white, young and old, but basically a hobby taken up by rich white folk who haven’t got anything else to do with their lives. Instead of keeping his personal dislikes to himself he turns them into a political issue. In his article he builds on these personal prejudices to point out that all Animal rightists, being rich white folk, also indulge in smug moral certitude. He somehow manages to convey the impression that such smugness is the unique possession of all Animal rightists. It shouldn’t be difficult to imagine the rest of the blarney in his article from what he’s spewed out so far.

His second paragraph disparages an Animal rights campaigner for stating that an american college should not merely divest from companies investing in apartheid south africa but should also stop propping up the Animal exploitation industry. Well fancy that – an Animal rightist complaining about Animal exploitation.

In his third paragraph wise complains about a female Animal rightist wanting to work for Animals. What appalling depths of moral degradation to which Animal rightists have sunk! Of course, wise’s main point about this particular Animal rightist is that she’d stated she preferred working for Animals than for oomans. To wise this is misanthropy. Wise has extended the definition of misanthropy from a hatred of ooman evil to a preference not to work for oomans. Given ooman history, particularly events over the last century or so such as the first world war, the emergence of totalitarianism, the vietnam war, the emergence of the jews-only state in palestine imitating its nazi progenitors, the iraq war, etc, it might be thought that any normal ooman would constantly find themselves wondering whether they belonged to the most barbaric species on Earth. If a normal person doesn’t have such doubts about their own species then really they are either out and out species’ bigots, victims of oomano-imperialist propaganda, or oomans’ bereft of any intellectual substance. It is inconceivable for any decent human being not to have doubts about ‘homo sap’ given the appalling ooman bloodbath of the last century or so, the hundreds of billions of Animals currently being slaughtered around the world each year, and the vast scale of anthropocentric ecological devastation.

Wise asks, "what is more important to the animal rights movement: actually ending animal experimentation, and other blatant cruelties, or being able to preen about as moral superiors" as if all (rich white) Animal rightists just want to sit on the moral high ground – the implication being that they want Animal exploitation to continue in order for them to maintain their moral purity – which is itself a form of Animal exploitation. All political movements attract a range of attitudes so why should the Animal rights movement be any different?

The political point wise makes is how can Animal rightists win support if they castigate those whose support they need. Perhaps wise lives in do-lally land where everyone involved in politics tries to win support by promoting positive messages and eschewing all negative comments. If not perhaps he’d like to list those political movements in ooman history which have used only positive messages? Obviously wise’s condemnation of the Animal rights movement for being disparaging doesn’t apply to his own political outlook.

Wise then moves away from his generalized disparagement of the Animal rights movement with some specific criticisms, "Oh, and while we're not caring about how many people we offend" by sarcastically remarking "let’s really go off the deep end and launch a photo exhibit entitled "Are Animals the New Slaves?" which compares factory farming to the lynching of black people. This, quick on the heels of PETA's prior publicity effort: the notorious "Holocaust on your plate" campaign, which just a few months ago compared cruelty to farm animals with the extermination of millions of Jews, Romany and others at the hands of the Nazis."

According to wise, comparing what oomans are doing to Animals with what was done to blacks or jews is morally wrong. In his view, oomans are so superior to Animals that such comparisons are a slur on oomanity. It is true that saying that oomans are Animals is wrong but saying that what oomans are doing to some types of oomans is similar to what oomans are doing to Animals is a perfectly valid point. The extermination camps used to slaughter people during the second world war are really not that different from those used to slaughter Animals. What wise is really moving towards in his argument is that no matter how similar oomans’ treatment of Animals may be to oomans’ treatment of other oomans (whether blacks, jews, working classes, third world poor, etc) their suffering should not be comparable because oomans are morally superior to Animals. Their suffering is morally superior to that suffered by Animals. The possession of moral powers or reason or conscience or language elevates oomans above Animals to such an extent that the suffering of Animals should never be included in any comparison with the suffering of oomans. Wise backs up his argument by stating: "But of course, whether they admit it or not, most all believers in animal rights do recognize a moral and practical difference between people and animals: after all, virtually none would suggest that if you run over a squirrel when driving drunk, that you should be prosecuted for vehicular homicide, the way you would be if you ran over a small child."

It is exactly this sort of anthropocentric bigotry that is currently leading oomans into extinction. The belief that oomans are superior to Animals (although there is some confusion over what exactly this superiority might consist of) entitles oomans to do whatever they wish to Animals whether this might be ruining Wildlife habitats or expropriating Wildlife habitats or treating Wildlife as sport or as a supply of raw materials. As in the case of Animals hit by cars, where motorists just drive off without a second thought for the creature they have just killed and have no duty to report the accident, or remove the body from the road, or deal with any injuries the Animal might be suffering, oomans can kill Animals at will with no moral consideration. In other words, and quite contradictorily, oomans’ belief in their moral superiority over Animals entitles them to ignore any moral consideration when dealing with Animals. How’s that for ooman bigotry? Now wise might protest that he wants all oomans to treat Animals with compassion but in seeking to emphasize oomans’ supremacism over Animals he can only end up allowing oomans to treat Animals in whatever way they want.

The problem with wise, like the problem with some Animal rightists, is that he really doesn’t understand the planet he lives on. He’s a universalistic thinker who understands nothing about his own particular planet Earth. He seems totally unaware of planetary realities. Firstly, Animals helped to create the Earth’s habitability that eventually enabled the planet to support the species ‘homo sap’. Secondly, Animals gave birth to the ooman species in the same way that a woman gives birth to a child. For both of these reasons, oomans owe Animals ecological, and existential, debts which they ought to translate into some sort of moral code towards Animals. The fact that oomans do not recognize either of these debts is another indication of the fact that oomans are not as moral as they believe themselves to be and that their so –called moral supremacism over Animals is just a bit of species’ propaganda which enables them to promote their own interests against those of all other species on Earth.

Thirdly, and much more pertinently, the Animal exploitation industry is primarily responsible for triggering off a global burning disaster which could lead to the extermination of the ooman species and even ecocide i.e. the destruction of a living planet. In the value system of any reasonable being, ecocide trumps genocide. The reason that the holocaust that oomans are waging against Animals is far worse morally than the so-called holocaust against jews (and we all know what a lot of self-serving propaganda this has become) is that whilst the extermination of jews (or any other race) might be morally bad it is no threat to the survival of oomanity or to the survival of life on Earth. However, the Animal exploitation industry is not only a threat to the survival of the ooman race but the survival of all life on Earth. There is only one holocaust on Earth and that is the holocaust oomans are inflicting on Animals.

All that wise is doing with his Squirrel analogy is reinforcing the slogan promoted by all oomano-imperialists: ‘It’s either the Rat or the life of your child’. Put into the position of being forced to choose between one or the other, the Animal exploiter is able to inflict a political drubbing on any Animal rightist. The oomano-imperialist seeks to solve all conflicts over Animal rights in favour of oomans with the presentation of this simplistic choice. In every dispute over Animal rights this choice is wheeled out and the public invariably opts to deny Animals any rights. This choice leads directly to the belief in ooman supremacism and thus oomans’ right to maim, mutilate or murder any Animal. Incidentally, as regards the Squirrel analogy, it has to be wondered what punishment a Squirrel might face if it accidentally killed a small child? And, secondly, the analogy takes for granted the right of oomans to drive around the planet accidentally killing tens of millions of Animals every year although one wonders what the health of the planet would be if everyone on Earth, rather than rich white supremacists, owned at least one car.

In order to understand the inadequacies of wise’s Squirrel analogy we need to take a planetary perspective. Oomans’ slaughter of Animals is leading to the destabilization of the climate and ecocide. To emphasize this point it could be argued that if, somehow, all oomans were suddenly to die off (or piss off to another planet) then the climate would begin to stabilize itself again and life would flourish once more on Earth. Whilst virtually all oomans around the Earth are contributing, to one degree or another, to the destruction of the Earth’s life support system, virtually all Animals are helping to protect those life-sustaining processes. In other words, whilst oomans are planet wreckers, Animals are planet creators. Whilst Animals have a proven track record of creating a habitable planet, oomans’ record so far indicates they are only ever going to destroy living planets.

Thus, in the comparison of the Squirrel to the small child, there is not only a moral consideration i.e. that oomans have reasoning/moral/linguistic powers that Animals do not have (although the vast majority use their reasoning powers to bring about death and destruction) but ecological considerations. The Squirrel contributes to the Earth’s habitability whereas the ooman, if we go on all the evidence to date, is likely to destroy the Earth’s habitability.

So which then do we choose? The Squirrel, which has no moral powers but helps to maintain the habitability of what was once a wondrously beautiful planet, or the ooman, whose moral powers are used only to promote its material interests which are destroying the planet? Those who dismiss any consideration for the Squirrel are planetless individuals who hate environmental issues.

Wise, basking in the delusions of his oomano-imperialist bigotry, his geophysiological ignorance, and his vacuous moral reasoning, concludes his article with yet another disparaging remark about the movement to which he pretends to have some allegiance – he’s a bit like one of those zionist jews who keeps saying they support palestinians but never does anything to help them, "Perhaps if PETA activists had ever demonstrated a commitment to fighting racism and the ongoing cruelty that humans face every day, they would find more sympathy from those who, for reasons that are understandable given their own lives, view animal rights activism as the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns, rather than as a struggle for greater compassion for all." It is utterly odious of wise to pretend that majority of Animal rightists do not fight for both Animal and ooman causes. But it is really apt that he should believe that Animal rightists are fiddling whilst rome burns. If he knew anything about the relationship between the Animal exploitation industry and the destabilization of the climate then he would realize that it is precisely Animal rightists who are not only trying to protect Animals but are doing their best to prevent the Earth from catching fire. He would also realize that, conversely, it is ecological ignoramuses like him who by concentrating on boosting oomano-imperialism, are fiddling whilst the Earth starts to burn up.

posted by The Mundi Club @ 9:28 AM