Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad
  • Blog

    Tensions Between US/NATO & Russia Are Flaring Dangerously

    A cornered bear will ultimately use its claws
    by Chris Martenson

    Friday, June 17, 2016, 9:16 PM

As if there weren’t enough crises to worry about in the world already, from shooting rampages to accelerating species loss, the US and NATO continue to ‘poke the bear’ and risk an outbreak of war with Russia.

I wish this were idle speculation. But if you haven’t been paying close attention, you'll probably be shocked at just how much direct military and diplomatic provocation has been going on between NATO/US and Russia over the past several years — and in recent weeks, in particular.

Even more shocking is that no one in power can provide us with a compelling reason for exactly why these tensions are flaring. It seems that Russia’s main sin is in not entirely, completely and immediately giving the US/NATO anything and everything they request.

In other words, it’s imperial hubris and petulance that seems to be driving the ship of state. That’s a dangerous thing.

I’ve written extensively on the dangers of war with Russia as my concerns have mounted ever since the situation in Ukraine devolved in 2014.

There have been plenty of chances to dial down the rhetoric and mend fences, but they've all come and gone without healing. In fact, as we detail below, quite the opposite has happened. 

The bottom line is this: If you're not already mentally and physically prepared for the prospect of a NATO/US war with Russia, you really should be.

Perhaps the chances of outright war are still low on a relative scale, but the costs would be catastrophically high — making this worthy of your attention. A low risk of a catastrophic outcome is the very reason we all buy insurance – life, auto, and home.  Not because we wish things to go wrong in our lives, but because they sometimes do nonetheless.

A Russian Warning

The list of aggressive provocations by NATO that have been received as belligerent acts by Russia is quite long. It stretches back several years and continues to grow rapidly, making the chance for an ‘accident’ or unplanned incident quite high.

I was impressed with a recent piece penned and signed by eight prominent writers and blogger with Russian heritage. Titled A Russian Warning, it ran on a wide variety of blogs knowledgeable about the Russian situation including Dmitry Orlov’s and The Saker’s. I encourage you to read the whole thing. Right now, if you've got the time. I can wait.

To cut to the chase, the harsh conclusion of the piece is this: If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States will most certainly be destroyed, and most of us will end up dead.”

Russia is, of course, a major nuclear power with a long history of surviving being attacked by outsiders. But for some reason, US/NATO military and diplomatic efforts have all been geared at further encroaching upon and/or isolating Russia.

They note:

The US leadership has done everything it could to push the situation to the brink of disaster. First, its anti-Russian policies have convinced the Russian leadership that making concessions or negotiating with the West is futile. It has become apparent that the West will always support any individual, movement or government that is anti-Russian, be it tax-cheating Russian oligarchs, convicted Ukrainian war criminals, Saudi-supported Wahhabi terrorists in Chechnya or cathedral-desecrating punks in Moscow.

Now that NATO, in violation of its previous promises, has expanded right up to the Russian border, with US forces deployed in the Baltic states, within artillery range of St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, the Russians have nowhere left to retreat. They will not attack; nor will they back down or surrender.

Imagine for a moment that Russia had positioned its military less than 100 miles from New York City and installed armored battalions with artillery. How would we in the US respond to that provocation? Probably with outrage, anger and defiance — and rightly so. So why are we expecting Russia to act any differently?

The conclusion:

The sole reason why the USA and Russia have found themselves on a collision course, instead of defusing tensions and cooperating on a wide range of international problems, is the stubborn refusal by the US leadership to accept Russia as an equal partner: Washington is dead set on being the “world leader” and the “indispensable nation,” even as its influence steadily dwindles in the wake of a string of foreign policy and military disasters such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and the Ukraine.

Continued American global leadership is something that neither Russia, nor China, nor most of the other countries are willing to accept. This gradual but apparent loss of power and influence has caused the US leadership to become hysterical; and it is but a small step from hysterical to suicidal. America’s political leaders need to be placed under suicide watch.

The summary here is that Russia feels surrounded by an increasingly belligerent NATO/US military presence. It can find little common ground with diplomats from NATO generally and the US specifically. If fully backed into a corner, once it perceives it is out of other options, Russia will defend herself. I’m not sure how anybody could deny or begrudge her that right.

If the West, meaning the US and Europe, decide to further goad Russia, war is likely inevitable. (I'm leaning heavily here on the historically-dependable formula: Time + Shit Happens = Conflict).  Sooner or later, Russia will have to switch from response mode to reaction mode. I’ve written about that precition here, here and here.

The Provocations – Neocon Central

Here’s a very short and incomplete list of the provocations that have been undertaken against Russia. Again, just try to imagine what the reaction would be by the West were the roles reversed:

2014

2015

In return, Russia has been busy fighting its ‘isolation’ by inkling major energy deals, openly testing its nuclear weapons platforms, and railing against the double standards of the West:

You get the idea: both sides are settling into a pattern of escalating responses. The trajectory is alarming.

What's alarming is the above selection of headlines is a miniscule sampling of the possible ones I could have picked. The evidence is everywhere.

Now let’s fast forward to 2016 where things are really heating up.

2016

The US and NATO have been putting increasing emphasis on placing more military hardware and training exercises in the Baltic and Black seas as well as the Mediterranean ocean.  In one incident, Russian jets flew within yards of a key US naval asset over and over again in a provocation that John Kerry said the US “would have been justified” in shooting those jets down.

U.S. issues formal protest to Russia over Baltic Sea incident

Apr 14, 2016

(CNN) White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest says the U.S. Embassy in Moscow has communicated formal concerns to the Russian government about the incident in the Baltic Sea this week in which fighter jets flew very close to the USS Donald Cook.

A U.S. official described the Russian maneuver as "strafing runs" without firing any weapons. The unarmed Russian aircraft swooped in over the deck in the same flight profile that would have been used if an attack was underway.

(Source)

Here’s a video of that flyby:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxv2G9tun10

And, no, the US would not have been justified in shooting down those Russian jets. Kerry is being clearly belligerent with that statement.

A more level response comes to us from a retired Navy commanding officer:

“Well, we’re not at war with Russia," Capt. Rick Hoffman said. "It would be one thing to be operating and have a threatening attack profile from someone who might not recognize me — that’s not the case here.”

If you have visual identification of the jet, can see it isn't carrying weapons, and don't detect any electronic emissions suggesting there was a missile lock on the ship, there's nothing to be done.

And ultimately, the rules of engagement allow the CO to take defensive action if they feel they safety of their vessel is in danger, according to U.S. European Command spokesman Capt. Danny Hernandez told Navy Times. In this case the CO did not feel threatened, he added.

"You don’t get to kill people just because they’re being annoying," said Hoffman, who commanded frigate DeWert and cruiser Hue City.

(Source – Navy Times)

Thankfully there are saner minds in the military, even if the State Department is itching for a fight.

Which brings us to the most insane head scratcher of them all.

State Department Loses Its Cool

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (6/16/2016) came the bizarre revelation that 51 internal State Department officials signed a document protesting Obama’s lack of direct military engagement with Assad’s government forces in Syria:

U.S. State Department Officials Call for Strikes Against Syria’s Assad

Jun 16, 2016

BEIRUT—Dozens of State Department officials this week protested against U.S. policy in Syria, signing an internal document that calls for targeted military strikes against the Damascus government and urging regime change as the only way to defeat Islamic State.

The “dissent channel cable” was signed by 51 State Department officers involved with advising on Syria policy in various capacities, according to an official familiar with the document. The Wall Street Journal reviewed a copy of the cable, which repeatedly calls for “targeted military strikes” against the Syrian government in light of the near-collapse of the ceasefire brokered earlier this year.

(Source)

Now just reflect on that a moment. But as you do, be sure to recall that Russia is fighting alongside Assad’s forces. In other words, these State Department officials are asking for military action to be taken against Syria's allied forces fighting to preserve the current government’s hold on power.

In other words, there are 51 insane people (a least) in the US State Department that think attacking Russia directly would be a swell idea. All in the interest of promoting a foreign policy of regime change that has not worked out well in the Mideast countries where we've recently tried it. Iraq and Libya are unmitigated disasters, especially for the citizens left living with the aftermath.

I would certainly love to know the names of those 52 individuals. I'd bet good money that the list is heavily stocked with neocons.

Also be sure to recall that Russia moved the s400 antiaircraft missile system into Syria last year. This battery is widely respected and feared by pilots due to its enormous reach:

(Source)

So not only are these State Department folks agitating for direct military engagement with Russian forces by agitating for US airstrikes against Syrian targets, they are seemingly either unaware of or uncaring about the extreme risk US pilots would face in trying such a move.

Most likely the US would lose a fair number of planes if such action was attempted. I suspect, though, that would play to the hands of the neocons at State. Dead heroes would provide exactly the sort of justification they’d need to expand the war they’ve been itching for all along.

But just in case a regular shooting war doesn't break out, NATO is busy laying the groundwork to justify one along other channels.

Expanding the Definition of “War”

Recently, NATO has expanded the definition of "war". Let’s remember that NATO exists as a collective defense treaty organization. An attack on one member country is treated an attack on all.  NATO allies are obligated to come to each other’s defense.

Here’s the language:

Collective defence – Article 5

(Last updated Mar 2016)

The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

  • Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.
  • The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
  • NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
  • NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, for instance in response to the situation in Syria and in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
  • NATO has standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence efforts on a permanent basis.

(Source)

Now you and I might think that, if one member nation were invaded, that would meet the definition of “war”. But NATO, clearly not happy with that limitation, has recently proposed expanding that to include – get this – cyberwarfare:

NATO adds cyber to operation areas

Jun 14, 2016

BRUSSELS (AP) — NATO agreed Tuesday to make cyber operations part of its war domain, along with air, sea and land operations, and to beef up the defense of its computer networks.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the decision to formally consider cyber operations a military domain is not aimed at any one country. He says the allies need to be able to better defend themselves and respond to attacks on their computer networks.

The decision has been long in coming, particularly amid rising tensions with Russia, which has proven its willingness to launch computer-based attacks against other nations.

Russian hackers have been blamed for a breach into an unclassified Pentagon computer network and for a breach of NATO's computer network two years ago.

In 2014, after years of debate, NATO finally agreed that a cyberattack could rise to the level of a military assault and could trigger the Article 5 protections, which allow the alliance to go to the collective defense of another member that has been attacked.

(Source)

Got that?  Now a cyberattack could be used as justification to invoke Article V and bind everyone to engage the enemy in an actual 'boots on the ground' war.

Now that makes sense on some level. After all if a hostile nation took down your electrical grid by a cyberattack (which is entirely possible, by the way), that would be a threat to national security.

But in this world of electronic cat and mouse, creating a false-flag cyberattack that seems to originate from a hostile country could be initiated from anywhere, including the “attacked” country.  But the time all that had been sorted out, the bullets would likely have already been flying.

Conclusion

OK, that was a lot to read through. Thanks for persisting to this point. The punchline to it all is: War with Russia is a distinct possibility, and US and NATO are increasing that risk through escalating provocation.

Should a war break out, it could be along a variety of dimensions which are outlined in Part II below.

For now, it should be (hopefully) sufficient for you to take the threat seriously and to make whatever provisions seem prudent to you. To my European readers, such preparations seem even more necessary because you will be close to the front lines of any direct, conventional hostilities that break out.

In Part 2: How To Prepare For War, we explain how conflict can take many forms: trade wars, energy wars, financial wars, cyberwar, shooting wars, and nuclear war. We lay out in great detail the steps we, as individuals, can do to prepare for each.

And fortunately, this preparation comes with an upside: as many of these precautions will be life-enhancing steps even if — hopefully, if — tensions de-escalate from here.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

Related content
» More

122 Comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 9:24pm

    #1

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Bankers Wars.

    "There is too much loose talk nowadays about the danger of so much capital in the hands of a few men." — Baron Alphonso Rothschild, 1892
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 9:35pm

    #2

    pinecarr

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2008

    Posts: 1085

    Another poke - Russian track & field team banned from Olympics

    I heard this story while at the gym this afternoon, and just shook my head: "Vladimir Putin Says Russian Athletes’ Ban From Olympics Is Politically Motivated"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/world/europe/putin-russia-olympics-doping.html

    ST. PETERSBURG, Russia — Even before the announcement that Russia’s track and field team would be barred from the Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, President Vladimir V. Putin was incensed.

    He said Friday that the allegations of doping against his country’s athletes were part of a politically motivated “anti-Russia policy” by the West.

    The use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports is a global problem, he said at an economic forum in St. Petersburg, and Russia has been unfairly singled out.

    “This cannot be a foundation for building anti-Russia policy,” Mr. Putin said.

    The Olympics ban, announced after the Russian president’s speech at the annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on Friday, is the latest setback to his efforts to shed Russia’s pariah status and win allies among European politicians.

    After the announcement, Mr. Putin called the decision “unjust, of course,” saying that Russia was strengthening anti-doping controls and that athletes should bear personal responsibility for using performance-enhancing drugs. Punishing the whole team, he said, “doesn’t fit any norms of civilized behavior.”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 9:51pm

    #3
    efarmer.ny

    efarmer.ny

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 07 2012

    Posts: 7

    Comparing Leaders

    Ultimately this comes down to a former KGB agent vs a former community organizer. In that scenario, I think the winner is obvious.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 18, 2016 - 1:59am

    Reply to #2

    Jason Wiskerchen

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 17 2011

    Posts: 912

    Maybe Good to be Banned?

    From Zerohedge – read a comment that maybe is was one of many brilliant chess moves.   I don't think I would want to attend the 2016 Olympics.   http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-17/rio-declares-state-public-calamity-warns-total-collapse-security-health-and-transpor

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 18, 2016 - 3:56pm

    #4
    alexwest

    alexwest

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 19 2011

    Posts: 1

    here is the problem . its all bs..

     #Russia feels surrounded by an increasingly belligerent NATO/US military presence
     
      here is the problem . its all bs..
     
      Russiais big.. 2d longest land borders in the world (after china).
      only problem is : ITS NOT  POSSIBLE TO ATTACK RUSSIA through land operation.
     
      you cant attack Russia on north borders (supply problems / climat)
      you cant  attack Russia from east, i dont think China will like it
      you cant  attack Russia through asian republics (former USSR parts), they are friendly to russia, ++ Kazachatan is too big too
      you cant attack Russia from south, Caucasus mountains between Black/ Caspian seas ++ Iran is pretty friendly
      you cant attack Russia through baltic states, supply issues ++ too small territory to make permanent base.
     
      only reasonable is western part, through ukraine/belaruss, but wait
     
      DIDN'T  SWEDEN'S KARL XI in 18cent , NAPOLEON in 19cent , HITLER in 20 cent, AND  MYRIAD LESSER FIGURES TRIED IT  OUT.. YES.. AND WHAT IS OUTCOME   THEY ARE ALL GONE,  AND RUSSIA IS STILL BIGGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD
     
      proud russian
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 19, 2016 - 12:23am

    #5

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1445

    Here's some hope: German ForMinister calls BS on sabre rattling

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-18/suddenly-nato-imploding-alliance-member-germany-slams-nato-warmongering-against-russ

    And then everything imploded when none other than the Foreign Minister of NATO member Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, criticized NATO for having a bellicose policy towards Russia, describing it as "warmongering", the German daily Bild reported. And just like that, the entire ficitional narrative of "innocent" NATO merely reacting to evil Russian provcations has gone up in flames.

    As AFP adds, Steinmeier merely highlighted all those things which rational persons have known about for a long time, namely the deployment of NATO troops near borders with Russia in the military alliance's Baltic and east European member states. However, since it comes from a NATO member, suddenly one can't accuse Russian propaganda. In fact, NATO has absolutely no planned response to just this contingency.

    "What we should avoid today is inflaming the situation by warmongering and stomping boots," Steinmeier told Bild in an interview to be published Sunday.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 19, 2016 - 3:56am

    Reply to #4
    ao

    ao

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 882

    death from above

    Yes alexwest, that is all true.  But you CAN attack Russia from space.  Contrary to treaties and coming from someone who was inside NASA and saw every single project for 25 years (I can't name the position because it would give too much information), we are literally loaded for bear with space weaponry and certain parties are itching to try it out.  They're insane, of course, but that doesn't change the situation.

    I don't post any more but I thought this was important enough to mention.  

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 19, 2016 - 1:23pm

    #6
    funglestrumpet

    funglestrumpet

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 29 2011

    Posts: 20

    The Trident D5 weapon system

    The Trident D5 weapon system has a C.E.P. that makes it an anti-nuclear deterrent because it is capable of destroying hardened Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence installations (many of which are sited in centres of population) that the enemy would need to launch a retaliation.

    In short, if war breaks out, expect it to go nuclear from the outset and to be extensive in its targetting. – And may your God go with you, whatever you conceive it to be.

    There is but one positive factor: such a conflict would generate a nuclear winter, which is about the only thing that might stop the abrupt climate change we are now experiencing and has a long way to go. Whichever way it all pans out, one thing is certain: in a few short years the human species, if it is exceptionally lucky, will be severely curtailed in its numbers. If is not so lucky, it will be no more than a memory. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 19, 2016 - 1:44pm

    #7

    KugsCheese

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 01 2010

    Posts: 824

    Aliens

    Just maybe a universal law, given the vast expanse of spaces and times, is that no "intelligent" life is given enough time to develop advanced technologies such as fusion energy.  This is hinted at by Biologic Laws and E=M*C^2.  Therefore, if this holds it is unlikely that alien communication is possible.   

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 20, 2016 - 11:44am

    #8

    Ivo

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 26 2009

    Posts: 20

    state department officials resigned?

    I can't find any mention of it online anymore, but if I remember correctly, a host of experienced state department officials resigned a few years ago and made a public statement about their concerns about the undiplomatic direction the department was taking. Does anyone remember this?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 20, 2016 - 6:03pm

    #9

    sheila Grace

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 30 2015

    Posts: 3

    Tensions Between

    Chris, I cannot thank you enough for having the courage and presence of mind to post this, especially to the permaculture community. Let’s do a review; permaculture is about Awareness of Water, Climate & Culture.  We deepen our Awareness when we understand; the Concepts & Themes in Design, observe Patterns in Nature, and move on to take action via – a well thought out Design.

    When we become serious about practicing permaculture/regenerative ag in its entirety, we have the opportunity to move beyond our cultural paradigm of repeating cute phrases or focusing on specific techniques in a disconnected way. We have found that even in the Pc community, individuals have a difficult time letting go of this American Industrial Revolution consumerist meme.

    Your synopsis is the most comprehensive take on the impending situation we have seen so far, and again thank you for taking the time to hash this out. We cannot practice Pc in a bubble.  Culture, our culture may have far more profound influences on the outcome of our designs than we know and attempting to follow the principals of Pc, without paying equal attention to the other paradigm of design (Capitalism/endless growth/Unipolar superiority) we miss the mechanisms of how the end of cheap oil, increased debt, globalization and wage class war are playing themselves out in a fully connected centralized system.

    I would like to think that more permaculturists are aware of this, than those who are not. Positivism plays an essential role in how we think about reducing our dependency on the centralized system and increasing our willingness to work with Nature, not against her. Being enthusiastic after learning about something ‘new’ (Pc) doesn’t make it complete without then turning a mature eye and sober recognition of the present intentions by Washington Neocons to pursue the Monroe Doctrine at all costs. We can be positive and mature at the same time. We have more than enough information (Dmitry Orlov 5 Stages of Collapse), The Saker, John Micheal Greer, Gail Tverburg, and others) to think about how we may respond through our designs. As Dmitry points out; don’t panic, take stock, and do the next logical thing and I might point out; pay very close attention to the big pictures.

    If we have the enthusiasm to observe the patterns in Nature, we can also have the courage to observe the patterns in our culture and our culture’s leaders. We can achieve common sense notions that a large energy sucking self-organized dissipative structure like the US cannot go on pulling in the amount of energy required to support growth at the same rate it practiced 50 years ago. Relevant patterns are directly related to this predicament; systematically crying wolf!, invading and bombing oil & resource rich countries, intentional creation of chaos, Bubbles & Busts, encouragement of demographic infighting, and  deliberate deceptive language of safety, security, freedom & democracy.

    Doing more with less isn’t just some trite saying and I hope that persons, who are engaged in Pc, don’t follow the path of many liberal Americans who clamor for Change, but don’t want to change those things in their own lives (lifestyles of consumption). We can’t have our Earth and eat it too. We can learn to do with less, find creative ways to downscale and position ourselves as best as possible for an outcome we may not be able to control.  We can only educate others if we educate ourselves first.  

    sheila

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 20, 2016 - 7:58pm

    #10
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 864

    We can’t have our Earth and eat it too

    I love it!

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 22, 2016 - 5:24pm

    #11

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1873

    The SOUL of the Neocons

    With some trepidation, I will make a pass at articulating my evolving impressions of the Soul of the Neocons.

    Unfortunately, any attempt to discuss this topic is absolutely guaranteed to offend.  I don't know anyway around this.  Treasured identifications are threatened….  But the topic is SO important that it must be discussed.

    I make no claims to understand everything correctly.  I am not a historian, political scientist, comparative religions scholar.  And I have not phrased everything correctly either.

    I invite additional information.  (Please point to reading material so that I can learn more.)

    ——————————————–

    The Neocon/Zionists are one faction in the competition for global dominance.  Ordinarily, world dominance is primarily an ORANGE Meme activity.  But the Neocons have found a very effective angle giving this faction great success:  weaving in the (RED/BLUE) tribal loyalties and religious mythology of Judaism into what is fundamentally a military/economic domination project.

    The Neocon/Zionist group functions as a crime family, somewhat like the Mafia. 

    The Neocon faction is centered in the economic/political /military project called “Zionism.”  It begins by focusing on Israel, and expands to include the ascendance of Jewish and Israeli power-block on the entire world stage.

    The Neocons have only a peripheral associated with the religion of Judaism as a number of the most prominent Neocon’s are “secular Jews,” many are declared atheists and agnostics and some are of non-Jewish.  Two qualities of Judaism are harnessed:  1.  Fierce tribal loyalty, and, 2.  Biblical mythology.  (I believe that this is the secret sauce of the Neocon’s significant success.)

    The Neocons nurture and rely upon fiercely held Jewish tribal affiliation and loyalty. The wagons of tribal solidarity are kept circled tightly by the beliefs 1. special-status-in-the-eyes-of-God and 2.  perpetual persecution (also called perma-victim status).  Furthermore, Jewish and Christian peoples enjoy thy mythology of being promised a special place in the end times when God’s Kingdom comes to earth.

    Tribal loyalty and cooperation has proven to be a powerful source of economic advantage to insiders.  The Jewish 3% of the US population has risen to hold 40% of the Forbes Richest 400 list. 

    MYTHOLOGY

    Though the Neocons may not be religious, they have found the biblical mythology of the Jewish religion useful.  For example, the agnostic first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, believed that all Jews “must read the bible” and though he did not believe that God exists, he did believe that God had promised Israel to the Jews.

    Isaiah 2:1-4 is taken as a biblically prophesy that in the last days the world would be united in a single world government in peace and prosperity and that this one world empire would be ruled from Jerusalem.  I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.

    The Old Testament story of Joshua invading (“reclaiming”) the already occupied Promised Land seems to be a template for the modern Zionist approach to the Palestinians:

    Before they enter the land, the Jewish people send an envoy to the Canaanites with the message, “God, the Creator of the Universe has promised this land to our forefathers. We are now here to claim our inheritance, and we ask you to leave peacefully.”  Meanwhile, Joshua has clear instructions from God that if the Canaanites don’t get out, the Jews must wipe them out.

     

    EMPATHY

    The cornerstone of Spiral Dynamics BLUE Meme mythic membership thinking is exaggerated closeness with in-group and antipathy to out-groups.   Though anti-Semitism is an often-mentioned form of bigotry, the other side of this coin, anti-goyism is just as real.   Many of actions of the Neocon/Zionists can only be understood if deep anti-goyism is assumed.

    The Zionist/Neocons actors causing the greatest trouble hold an utter contempt for the lives of outsiders.  But they have learned how offensive and counter productive this attitude is when discussed publicly.  Anti-goyism is now held-close-to-the-chest and a liberal inclusive democratic face is worn in public.  Actions show the strength of the underlying attitude.  The practice of waging wars to “weaken” and fragment ME neighbor states has killed millions (including American soldiers.)  Yet the Neocons are not troubled by this and continue seeking greater and wider wars.

    The apartheid social structures of the occupied regions of Palestine show the contempt for non-Jews.   Anna Baltzer interview of International Women’s Peace Studies:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIyJpW4F_1M

    Madeleine Albright demonstrates this attitude famously in her reply to the question posed by 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl about the effects of US sanctions against Iraq in May 1996.

    “We have heard that a half million children have died [because of the sanctions],” stated Stahl. “I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

    “I think this is a very hard choice,” replied Albright, “but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

    In the same way that a farmer does not grieve when it is time to slaughter livestock, or a slave owner grieve when he has to execute a captured runaway slave, we do not empathize across powerfully held in-group / out-group boundaries.  They are “not like us.”  Ms. Albright did not give a rats-ass about the half million dead Iraqi children.  The Neocon/Zionists do not care about the lives or well being of non-Jewish neighbors in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq or the American's killed in the Twin towers or on the battlefield of Iraq.

    Deliberately creating a harsh in-group/out-group boundary and vilifying the out-group is routinely used to stifle empathy in soldiers being sent to war.  Atrocity stories and derogatory labels induce the belief that “the enemy” are sub-human and vile so that we to feel OK about killing them.  They are “not like us.”

    Sometimes an observed lack of empathy is mistaken for psychopathology, the hard-wired neurologic defect where an individual is incapable of any empathy.  But this is different.  The capacity for empathy does exist within the in-group.  It is just not available to those “subhuman and vile” out-groups.  This is the mind set from which “ethnic cleansing” and deeply segregated societies can arise.

    SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES

    1.  The strategy of Entryism, where members of a smaller group are sent to infiltrate a larger opposing group and gain control of it from the inside.  When done covertly, the strategy is difficult to detect.  The Neocon/Zionist infiltration of the White House, cabinet, pentagon, homeland security, judiciary and state department is a stunning example of successful covert entryism.  The US military was taken into major wars by the Neocon/Zionists without the awareness of most people that they control of national policy had be hijacked by this group.  The wars were blamed on “The Americans” and the fabricated intelligence explained as “Bush lied.”

    2.   Control of the media through ownership.  The owner of a newspaper can set editorial policy for that paper.   When a group that is covertly allied owns a majority of media outlets, themes can be disseminated or suppressed in public discussion.  Similarly, the control of internet search engine ranking algorithms (Google) gives great influence over public discussion.  Rupert Murdoch and others are most famous for insisting that his media outlets will be used to serve Israel.   Much more effective are the covertly coordinated efforts where ownership is not known and coordination is not realized. 

    3.  Moral relativism.  One set of moral principles applies to the rest of the world, but our group has a special relationship with God and operates by a higher and different set of moral principles.  We advocate you all have an open societies, but act to keep OUR nation ethnically pure.

    4.  The Shepherd.  The shepherd embraces his rightful role as the leader and decision maker without ethical concerns for the free-will or sovereignty of the sheep.  “They are not like us.”  We were intended to lead, they, to follow.  When this moral framework is combined with accomplished social scientist and computer modeling skills, great social reengineering projects are possible.

    5.  Leading from the number 2 position.  A figurehead, non-Jewish leader, helps to conceal the covert leadership embedded beneath.

    6.  No legitimate criticism if Judaism, Israel or the Neocons is possible.  They are above all reproach and analysis.  Any discussion of this group is irrational bigotry. 

    Reading list

    I have tried to keep this post brief – a summary of impressions.  These impressions are gathered from reading.

    • Spiral Dynamics by Beck and Cowan
    • Laurent Guyenot’s many articles and “50 Years of the Deep State.”
    • Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel
    • Ken O’Keefe’s many lectures and interviews on youtube
    • Christopher Bollyn’s books and lectures.
    • The Israeli Lobby
    • Understanding Jewish Influence
    • Grand Deceptions by Brandon Martinez
    • Anna Baltzers excellent interview on the conditions of the Palestinians [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIyJpW4F_1M ]
    • Alan Sabrosky’s talks and papers on 9/11 and Zionism
    • Kevin Barrett’s many lectures and commentary
    • Jim Lobe’s talks about the Neocons
    • Phillip Weiss’s website Mondoweiss.net
    • Tikkun Magazine
    • Articles by Kim Chernin published at Jewcy and Tikkun
    • Seymour Hersh, Glen Greenwald, etc., etc.

     

     

     

     

               

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 25, 2016 - 4:34pm

    #12

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1873

    Bob Moriarty of 321Gold Crushes the Neocons War Party

    Bob Moriarty from 321Gold.com skewers the Neocons (the RED/BLUE Meme, Israel-first, war party whose agents who are tucked within controlling positions of western governments) and their role in creating the global chaos we are seeing.

    In early summer of 2016 the world stands on a precipice looking down at a conflict that could easily lead to World War III. …

    In early 2014 the US sponsored a coup d’état in Ukraine replacing the legally elected government with their own specially selected thugs. US Assistant Secretary of State and Jewish Neocon Victoria Nuland… was quoted as saying, "Fuck the EU.”

    Nuland went on later that year to brag about how the US had spent $5 billion to destabilize Ukraine..

    … Nuland turned Ukraine into a Nazi run cesspool of corruption, blaming Putin the entire time.

    A number of good and thoughtful writers have recently written convincing arguments that the US and NATO need to think about playing with fire lest they get burned. Those writers would include:

    He talks about the Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to shatter Arab neighbors, the "Clean Break…" paper from the American/Israeli Neocons urging even more militant actions against Palestinians and Arab neighbors.

    In America any person can be critical of Obama or Clinton, even the Pope or Buddha or Trump. You can say terrible things about Islam or Mormon or Catholics. You cannot be critical about Israel no matter how outrageous their behavior.

    There is no actual prohibition against criticizing Israel except that which is within our own minds.  (To be sure, coordinated personal attacks by the Hasbara swarm can engender personal discomfort.)  But we are always free to speak the truth as we see it.

    All of my Jewish friends and family are ORANGE Meme and GREEN and higher.  They actually already know that violence begets violence and that killing and beating down others is not effective at creating a stable better world.  They know that though deception (if believed) can offer short term advantage, eventually the lie is uncovered, creating a sense of betrayal and rage.  This approach just doesn't work.  (The conclusion that the Bibilcal RED/BLUE approach doesn't work marks the transition to the ORANGE paradigm and the emergence of an empathetic sense of being sickened at the slaughter of others for power and profit, the transition to GREEN.)

    I pray that the ORANGE, GREEN and higher developmental paradigms will emerge into leadership roles in both Israel and in the US deep state, before it is too late.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 25, 2016 - 4:58pm

    #13

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    Israel should be deeply disturbed by Brexit vote

    Israel should be deeply disturbed by the Brexit vote (Mondoweiss)

    [quote]Finally, it is worth noting that the trends underpinning the Brexit vote should disturb Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, just as they already are troubling the political class in Europe and the US.

    Like the EU, Israel too is vital pillar of the old global order. A “Jewish homeland” emerged under British protection while Britain still ran an empire and saw the Middle East as its playground.

    After the European colonial powers went into abeyance following the Second World War, the role of patron shifted to the new global hegemon in Washington. The US has endlessly indulged Israel, guarded its back at the United Nations, and heavily subsidised Israel’s powerful military industries.

    Whereas the US has propped up Israel diplomatically and militarily, the EU has underwritten Israel’s economic success. It has violated its own constitution to give Israel special trading status and thereby turned Europe into Israel’s largest export market. It has taken decades for Europe to even acknowledge – let alone remedy – the problem that it is also trading with illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

    If the EU starts to unravel, and US neoliberal hegemony weakens, Israel will be in trouble. It will be in desperate need of a new guarantor, one prepared to support a country that polls repeatedly show is mistrusted around the world.

    But more immediately, Israel ought to fear the new climate of polarised, unpredictable politics that is becoming the norm.

    In the US, in particular, a cross-party consensus about Israel is gradually breaking down. Concerns about local national interests – of the kind that exercised the Brexiters  – are gaining traction in the US too, as illustrated last year by the fallout over Israel’s stand-off with the White House over its Iran agreement.

    Distrust of the political class is growing by the day, and Israel is an issue on which US politicians are supremely vulnerable. It is increasingly hard to defend Congress’ historic rock-solid support for Israel as truly in American interests.

    In a world of diminishing resources, where the middle class is forever being required to belt-tighten, questions about why the US is planning to dramatically increase its aid to Israel – one of the few economies that has done well since the 2008 crash – are likely to prove ever-more discomfiting.

    In the long term, none of this bodes well for Israel. Brexit is simply the warning siren.[/quote]

     

    [quote=sand_puppy]I pray that the ORANGE, GREEN and higher developmental paradigms will emerge into leadership roles in both Israel and in the US deep state, before it is too late.[/quote]

     

    This ^^^

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 25, 2016 - 9:24pm

    #14
    Michael Frome

    Michael Frome

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 20 2011

    Posts: 90

    Trident D5

    Funglestrumpet is correct about the D5 missile system (he already knows this).  The system will be used because it can take out hard targets such as in-silo launch systems, C3I, etc.  No SLBM prior to Trident could do that reliably.

     

    It will get used if things get sketchy enough.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 4:20am

    Reply to #11

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    one world government

    SP-

    Isaiah 2:1-4 is taken as a biblically prophesy that in the last days the world would be united in a single world government in peace and prosperity and that this one world empire would be ruled from Jerusalem.  I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.

    I couldn't disagree more.  I believe you are overcomplicating things.  Israel is every Jewish person's go-to-hell plan.  If things turn to shit in their home country for Jews there, Israel will always accept them – even if they are not religious.  It is their one true port in the storm.  That's why there is so much support.

    I imagine myself a Jew.  I check in with myself, and ask: "what part would Isaiah's prophecy play in my desire to support the state of Israel" I get only a small and very theoretical response.  If I asked, "this place is one country that would always accept me if anything got bad" (keeping in mind that, throughout history, things have tended to get bad for Jews – with the event 70 years ago being the biggest) I get a much, much larger internal emotional response.

    The whole thing can be satisfactorily explained by doing "whatever it takes" to make sure the state of Israel survives.  Pre-WW2 there was a Zionist movement, but the whole movement gained a lot more urgency after Hitler tried killing all of them within reach.

    I think if we keep it simple, we'll more closely approximate the truth.  Its about guilt, fear of persecution, and a strong desire that it not happen again.  That's quite enough to explain everything.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 5:23am

    Reply to #11

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    Ok then...

    [quote=davefairtex]

    I couldn't disagree more.  I believe you are overcomplicating things.  

    [/quote]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 6:36am

    Reply to #11

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    one world government?

    TTH-

    This looks like another WTC video.   What does it have to do with Isaiah and one world government?

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 7:38am

    #15

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1873

    Thanks for opening up the topic

    DaveF, I appreciate your being willing to open this topic.  The topic is complex (many faceted) and the limbic system is activated so often and so early.   We all come from different perspectives.  But it is important.

    I would be very interested if some of my Jewish friends could speak to this issue too.

    How about we narrow the issue:  We are discussing the need for Israel as a safe haven from persecution.

    I have two impression:

    1.  persecution, when it occurs repeatedly, has a reason.  The repeated victim is playing some role in the process.  (First time:  "Don't blame the victim."  Fifth, sixth and seventh times:  "It is time to look at how I get myself into this situation over and over.")

    2.  the story of always-being-persecuted can be used to drive specific psychological processes.  Circling the wagons, solidifying intra-group allegiance.  It can also be used to justify violence against out-groups (because we were victimized first and harder).

    I believe that both impressions 1 and 2 are very closely related. They are both the products and the results of BLUE Meme thinking where one's group identification (in vs out) is held as paramount. 

    Paraphrasing Emerson:  "Your in-group / out group status is so central to my thinking that I can't see who you are." 

    Contrast this with a GREEN Meme person, like Bernie Sanders for example, whose kindness and good will includes everyone with little attention of their group identification.  Bernie (I imagine) would be very unlikely to elicit persecution and unwilling to give preference and allegiance to his in-group or commit violence against out-groups.   Can you imagine Bernie bombing Canada to fragment it into French and English sections in order to improve the relative strength of the US?

    Ethnocentrism is very problematic.

    Ken Wilbur suggests first owning and honoring one's group identity.  Then, widening the circle of friendship to include more.

     

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 11:29am

    Reply to #15

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    one world government: again

    SP-

    The issue for me in your description was solely having to do with this "one world government" mind-picture you were painting, based on four lines from Isaiah.  It seemed not only a stretch – but a very, very big stretch to suggest "a one-world government ruled from Jerusalem" was the prime motivator for the depth of support for Israel in America.

    Especially when the competing explanation is based on recent history, survival, and common sense.

    Again, if your Isaiah Theory held water, Zionism would have happened long ago.  It was only after WW2 that Zionism was able to really catch on.  Why might that have been?  Hmm, perhaps it was something that happened immediately prior.

    So if you're backing away from your Isaiah Theory, then I'm good.  We can move on to the "understanding persecution" phase once we put Isaiah to bed.

    But if you still want to hang on to that as…how did you put that…

    I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.

    Yes, right.  This is where you just lose me.

    So you still believe this?  Do you have any evidence that supports your suspicion?  Preferably, from the suspect group themselves?  Presumably this would not be a deep dark secret if it were truly a "central motivating myth" that had general buy-in.  Nazis didn't hide their central motivating myths.  That's because, if it is a secret, it can't be a central motivating myth for many people.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 12:06pm

    #16
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 321

    The NY Times finally recognizes world order collapse:

    A brilliant piece was published this morning by the times recognizing world order collapse.None of this will come as a surprise to regular readers here at the Peak.They did an outsanding job on the timelines.It really is a global revolution.We tend to only pay attention to the big dogs for direction.Just last Friday Italy,France and Spain suffered there worst stock market crashes in recorded history.Not a single mention in any American papers…Looks as if things are just getting started.At least this time we didn't start the fire!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 1:47pm

    Reply to #16

    pinecarr

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2008

    Posts: 1085

    Maybe so...maybe not

    Edwardlinski said:

    At least this time we didn't start the fire!

    Maybe so…maybe not.  I am not so sure after reading this, http://michael-hudson.com/2016/06/us-imperialism-the-brexit-culprit/

    WILPERT: So let’s begin with the political context in which the Brexit vote took place. Aside from the right-wing arguments about immigrants, economic concerns, and about Britain’s ability to control its own economy, what would you say–what do you see as being the main kind of political background in which this vote took place?

    HUDSON: Well, almost all the Europeans know where the immigrants are coming from. And the ones that they’re talking about are from the near East. And they’re aware of the fact that most of the immigrants are coming as a result of the NATO policies promoted by Hillary and by the Obama administration.

    The problem began in Libya. Once Hillary pushed Obama to destroy Libya and wipe out the stable government there, she wiped out the arms–and Libya was a very heavily armed country. She turned over the arms to ISIS, to Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. And Al-Qaeda used these arms under U.S. organization to attack Syria and Iraq. Now, the Syrian population, the Iraqi population, have no choice but to either emigrate or get killed.

    So when people talk about the immigration to Europe, the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they’re all aware of the fact that this is the fact that Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it’s America’s new Cold War against Russia that’s been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that’s spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things.

    So what you’re seeing with the Brexit is the result of the Obama administration’s pro-war, new Cold War policy.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 2:36pm

    Reply to #16
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 321

    Well done Pinecarr

    Point taken..The tentacles are far reaching…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 3:11pm

    Reply to #16

    pinecarr

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2008

    Posts: 1085

    I wish it weren't true Edwardelinski

    I am ashamed of the destructive actions of our so called leaders in the aforementioned countries, and their apparent lack of concern for the negative consequences they have had on others. Brexit is at least a small (?) "silver lining".

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 5:16pm

    #17

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1873

    Support for viewpoint

    DaveF wrote:

    I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.

    ….  Do you have any evidence that supports your suspicion?  Preferably, from the suspect group themselves? 

    Several books offer the supporting thinking behind this impression. (Its not original with me.)  See the reading list at the bottom of my original post.  No quick answers.  I am talking about understanding the world view, motivation and fear and the myths and stories that support those world views.

    • Understanding Jewish Influence
    • 50 years of the Deep State
    • Grand Deceptions
    • The Transparent Cabal
    • Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.
    • The Anna Baltzar Interview on her months in Palestine
    • The many discussions (one here) of the role that Zionist / Single-Issue-Israel-first donors play in American politics.

    Again, most of my Jewish friends are ORANGE, GREEN and YELLOW and are NOT included in this analysis.  I'm talking about the Neocons who are trying to start a war with Russian or bomb some more in the ME.

    I am not trying to give anyone a hard time.  I just want to understand this intensely destructive force at play in the global "Game of Thrones."

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 5:18pm

    #18

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1873

    Brussels = NATO = (Washington + Neocons)

    Thanks Pinecarr and Edwardelinski for these observations.  I'll just add one part to the Michael Hudson quote:

    So when people talk about the immigration to Europe [resulting from NATO bombing the MENA], the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they’re all aware of the fact that this is the fact that Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it’s America’s new Cold War against Russia that’s been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that’s spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things.

    So what you’re seeing with the Brexit is the result of the Obama administration’s pro-war, new Cold War policy.

    The war impetus for bombing the crap out of the MENA region and antipathy against Russia must include the Neocons.  (Remember Wesley Clark and the "7 countries in 5 years" and "nobody knows why.")

    So the above formula should be amended to:

    Washington's War Party = American(Western) MIIC + Israel-First Neocons

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 6:58pm

    Reply to #17

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    Critical research, please.

    [quote=sand_puppy]

    DaveF wrote:

    I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.

    ….  Do you have any evidence that supports your suspicion?  Preferably, from the suspect group themselves? 

    Several books offer the supporting thinking behind this impression. (Its not original with me.)  See the reading list at the bottom of my original post.  No quick answers.  I am talking about understanding the world view, motivation and fear and the myths and stories that support those world views.

    • Understanding Jewish Influence
    • 50 years of the Deep State
    • Grand Deceptions
    • The Transparent Cabal
    • Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.
    • The Anna Baltzar Interview on her months in Palestine
    • The many discussions (one here) of the role that Zionist / Single-Issue-Israel-first donors play in American politics.

    Again, most of my Jewish friends are ORANGE, GREEN and YELLOW and are NOT included in this analysis.  I'm talking about the Neocons who are trying to start a war with Russian or bomb some more in the ME.

    I am not trying to give anyone a hard time.  I just want to understand this intensely destructive force at play in the global "Game of Thrones."

    [/quote]

    Hi Sandpuppy,

    While you seem to have dismissed me for some reason, my question remains the same: How do you deal with the fact that some of your most important sources are not only clearly bigoted but also not based on facts, but rather are full of opinion based declarative statements?  

    And in my first post on this, I also did not word my question correctly, so sorry for that.  In other words, I don't think that you are anti-Semitic, but I do think that you have bought into an anti-semitic body of so-called scholarship.  And, to be clear, this does not mean that I think that the Neocons or that certain elements of the Israeli state (e.g. Likudniks, maybe Mossaad) had no role in 9/11.  They may well have had such a role, along with some American leaders and organizations including, quite possibly, Dick Cheney, certain elements of the US defense/intelligence establishment, and certain US corporations.  So I'm in no way – nor have I ever been – denying that there is no value to any part of Guyenot's thesis.

    Nonetheless, it seems fairly clear that both Kevin MacDonald and Lauren Guyenot are both also anti-semitic in the traditional meaning of the word, which means, more or less, hostile or prejudicial towards Jews.  Because of your posts, I have read Understanding Jewish Influence (MacDonald) and JFK-911: 50 Years of the Deep State (Guyenot), and also bothered to learn a little bit about both of these guys.

    MacDonald's work is clearly prejudicial – really hateful – towards Jews.  Do you dispute this?  How do you reconcile the fact that you have lifted qualitative judgments from his work – such as the claim that American Jews as a whole attain a level of income and wealth far out of proportion to their percentage of the US population due to, in your words, Jewish "tribal loyalty and cooperation"?  This sort of claim – wholly qualitative and almost impossible to prove one way or the other – has almost nothing to do with the Deep State or 9/11.  It's just a unbacked claim, unsupported in the work of the overtly bigoted MacDonald, and repeated, in a slightly different form, by you.  And, you don't even need to make this sort of claim to pursue Guyenot's 9/11 thesis, yet you choose to do so for some reason.  Why is that?

    So Jim, and all, this is what I mean when I say SP has stumbled into a sort of theoretical anti-semitism.  I'm sure you're nice to Jewish friends and neighbors, SP, but you make claims that I see as clearly anti-semitic, without having the intent to do so, I trust. 

    I have already posted on MacDonald's position towards Jews and blacks.  Have those of you who find SP's posts compelling forgotten what I posted on MacDonald?  Are you aware, due to your own research of MacDonald's political and racial/ethnic views?  Why is this not relevant?  

    SP and others here who agree with his posts on this topic, did you read the part of Guyenot's work that discusses Machiavelli's origins?  If you don't know what I'm talking about, it suggests that you haven't read the work closely and may be doing what I think SP may be doing, which is to swallow a line of thinking whole that actually needs very critical and careful dissection, due to many unsound sections.  PPers are supposed to be critical readers, and not to fall for propaganda or unbacked claims.

    What about the fact that Guyenot saw it necessary to publish an essay on the role of Jews in the death Jesus on an anti-semitic French website, led by the openly bigoted Alain Soral?  When you have made many qualitative claims about both Israel and the Jewish people/culture, why is it not legitimate for me to point to the fact that your sources have anti-semitic agendas that make them less reliable, if not totally unreliable?

    This has nothing to do with being PC.  These are not knee-jerk reactions on my part.  I read the stuff you've cited, SP, and, at least in the case of Guyenot and MacDonald, we are dealing with people who are bigoted and therefore less reliable.  Yet you have not made any effort to separate their bigotry from any legitimate claims that they may make nor to address my concerns about this.

    Making broad, negative claims that cannot be proven and are in many cases simply opinion based about whole groups of people is at the heart of bigotry.  Why is it that these sources are so high on your list?  

    I really shouldn't have to do anyone's homework for them.  If you are really only interested in a better understanding of the role of the Deep State in 9/11 – or current political events – why haven't you read these works more critically? Why have you not bothered to differentiate between reliable and unreliable (and slanderous) claims by these authors?

    Breaking a few eggs to make an omelet is exactly what Machiavelli justified, and in my view, SP, your discourse to this point has been sufficiently unconcerned with the harm it might cause to qualify as having a somewhat Machiavellian focus on "finding the truth" irrespective of the many falsehoods and harm that it can do by spreading prejudice.  This lack of concern with messy  – arguably unethical – means towards achieving a desired end is another example of how I think the PP community mucks up our local political behavior, making us less qualified to hold forth on national or geopolitics.  And when limits to growth really start to bite, a lot more politics is going to be local, so we ought to be willing to more more nuanced in our discourse and more accountable for our claims.

    If there is a diamond of truth among all of the other stuff in the work of MacDonald and Guyenot, then please differentiate for us and focus your research and your claims, as right now the brush you are using is far far too broad.

    As far as other reading goes, again, I shouldn't have to do everyone's homework here for them. This is not my burning issue.  I'm all about the three E's and constructive responses and have been since I first got here.  I come from a political background, and I'm pretty tired of all of the emotion-based, unexamined beliefs found in political discussions both in my family, among friends, and here.  But, the nature of some of the statements that you, SP, have made seem both to be untrue and potentially harmful enough to get me to respond, because this is still my chosen community of discourse.

    Anyone interested in learning about the nature of the American deep state should be citing other books that don't focus so much on the Jewish role, and should be able to cite other hypotheses.  I have found and read some of these works.  Who else has?  Can you name them?  

    Right now the narrow, Israel/Jewish line of research with regards to the Deep State reminds me of a senior essay I read on the extent to which Reagan's arms buildup was responsible for the end of the USSR.  The student cited Rush Limbaugh as if he were a credible source for a history paper and did not mention, much less consider any alternative hypotheses.  It was very obviously narrow, limited, and clearly biased research full of unbacked assertions. There are many other compelling hypotheses for the Soviet Union's collapse, but this students rather uninterested in arriving closer to the truth and allowed in her thoughts to congeal around one belief.

    I'd be up for other viewpoints on the deep state, but it seems that there is little or no interest in alternative hypothesis.  Are you guys really intrepidly following Alice deep into the rabbit hole, or did you get stuck in just one just one door in the great hallway, and have neglected to consider the many others?  Does this maybe have to do with the fact that, as Dan Ariely has attested, people like to put a face on their problems, because it's cognitively easier to do so?  So let's hear it.  Who can name – and has read – other deep state books with a different emphasis or focus?  I can and have, but I'd like to see who else has is genuinely curious enough about the nature of this phenomenon to do that.

    And, for the record, I'd rather be gardening.  In fact, after spending the first three days of my spring break back in March carefully reading and researching SP's claims, punctuated with that unpleasant interchange with Jim (who I like too!) I threw my hands up, went outside and started a school garden project – the first at my school – and it turned out to be super-successful this spring, at least in terms of student participation and learning.  The slugs have gotten the better of a lot of our produce and I'm most definitely one rank amateur of a gardener.  It doesn't look anything like the magnificent spread that Chris shared with us yesterday, and I'm too ashamed of it so far to show any pictures. But the sweat equity is paying off and the hours I've spent in the garden have been wonderful in terms of being outside and keeping things simple and satisfying.  And, SP, we did a hugel, although it seems that something ate the little lupin starts I planted in it, which we started indoors from seed.  Some peas are coming up, but overall, I still have a LOT to learn. 🙂

    Cheers,

    Hugh

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 7:21pm

    #19

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    Looks like Bob Moriarty did some research HughK...

    http://www.321gold.com/editorials/moriarty/moriarty062416.html

    ………We all know intuitively that if you can’t identify the source of a problem, you can’t solve that problem. So we mumble about Nato and Ukraine and Iraq and Syria but never ask just who is behind all the chaos. Who actually initiated the events that led to the greatest number of refugees in world history?

    The answer will surprise you but the evidence has been in writing right in front of your eyes. You have to read it and think about it and ask yourself if the events of the past thirty-four years resemble what the writer suggested?

    In the Oden Yinon Plan written in 1982 the author quotes,

    “Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.

    The entire Arabian Peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure.”

    This was followed up with a derivative of the Yinon Plan written for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 called, "A Clean Break..." In this paper written by a number of Jewish citizens, they clearly made their allegiance to Israel known. The writers included Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser and Douglas Feith.

    Two of the three new policies outlined in the position paper suggested,

    1. Rather than pursuing a "comprehensive peace" with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to "contain, destabilize, and roll-back" those entities that are threats to all three.

    2. Changing the nature of relations with the Palestinians, specifically reserving the right of "hot pursuit" anywhere within Palestinian territory as well as attempting to promote alternatives to Arafat's leadership.

    In an interesting aside, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the position paper as being too extreme. If what the writers suggested sounds familiar, it may be because it is a carbon copy of the events of the last thirteen years. The idea that somehow a civil war began in 2011 in Syria is utter rubbish and everyone claiming it knows that it is rubbish. Those same Jewish citizens also hold US passports and would later lie the Bush administration into war in Iraq that continues today.……..

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 7:51pm

    #20

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 284

    I posted a similar question

    I posted a similar question in the Brexit thread but what is everyone's opinion of the very unlikely occurrences of 7 and other references in recent events? Over the last several decades, market crashes have occurred every 7 years. The last one was Sept. 28, 2008. Many people were predicting the next crash 7 years later in Sept 2015. It didn't happen, but then 7 years, 7 months, 7 weeks and 7 days later, on June 23, 2016, it did happen. Cameron inexplicably bumped up the date of the Brexit referendum to coincide with this.

    Why, in the movie The Matrix, was there a reference to Thomas Anderson's passport expiring on Sept. 11, 2001? That was revealed in the interview scene in which Thomas naively points out his right to see his lawyer. The agents laugh and glue his mouth shut. On that date everyone's civil rights ended. After taking the red pill, Anderson became Neo and was relentlessly persecuted. Is "NEO" a metaphor for "NWO"?

    Why is the "rebel humans' last refuge in the real world" called Zion?

    One could write all these off as coincidence but any statistical analysis would prove otherwise. These things would seem to go very "Deep State". These people are secretive and devious, so how do we find reliable information?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 7:58pm

    #21

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1873

    Lets look at the content of the position.

    Simply declaring that a certain writer is bigoted so they should be dismissed in toto, is not the same as addressing the content of their discussion.  I found Guyenot and MacDonald to make reasoned arguments that seemed to me to be well researched (bibliographies in the hundreds).  Same with The Saker and several others listed.  The Zionism-critical body of literature is real.

    I believe that GREEN Meme and higher who examine the practices of Zionism are outraged and incensed by their inhumanity.  This includes Jewish GREEN and YELLOW writers.  Therefore it is NOT anti-Semitism.

    Please watch the youtube talk by Anna Baltzar on her experiences in Palestine and ask, what is the mindset of the people running this system?

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 10:56pm

    #22

    AKGrannyWGrit

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2011

    Posts: 453

    Critical Research?

    PPers are supposed to be critical readers, and not to fall for propaganda or unbacked claims.

    I must have missed the section that provides what PPers are "supposed" to be.  Please advise as I am positive that I and thousands of others like me wouldn't qualify for membership.  From years of being a member though I can attest that there is a group think on this site and those people who dare think differently or have opinions that are not mainstream are often targeted and attacked.  Opposing and diverse opinions can prompt people to become critical readers and researchers so why not let people have diverse opinions, respectfully, of course.  Not sure why there is an absolute obsession to prove people wrong.  Rather I like to discover how different people see the world from their frame of reference such as the woman in the video above. 

    Perhaps there isn't a "right" way to view the Jewish/Palestinian predicament but rather from diverse frames of reference. 

    AK GrannyWGrit

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 11:32pm

    #23

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    From two different perspectives

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etXAm-OylQQ

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 27, 2016 - 3:55am

    Reply to #17

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    one world government - from Jerusalem

    So the only link you provided (I'm not in a position to read a number of books just to discover the alleged basis for the "one world ruled from Jerusalem" theory) had a single quote that I found edifying:

    Haim Saban discussed his views on the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in great detail in a 2006 interview with Haaretz. Particularly notable were his comments regarding Iran: “When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger.”

    So to this guy, existential threats to Israel are bad.  He wasn't talking about the desire for a one world government ruling from Jerusalem, it was all about "bad guys threatening Israel."  This perfectly fits my model of what motivates these people.

    SP, many of your arguments make a great deal of sense.  I'd be happy to talk with you about them.  But one world government as a central motivator – I just don't buy it.  And to date, you've provided not one shred of evidence on this matter.  In fact, all the evidence points in another direction entirely.

    I cannot have an evidence-based discussion with you if, under the covers, you are actually driven by superstition, myth, and unsupported opinion from people who clearly don't like the neocons.  If you find the myths written by these people compelling, I know going in there's no point in discussing things since you cannot be convinced by evidence – that you will find your own myths more attractive, and so there is no point in me spending my time and energy.

    To me, that "Clinton Email" was the gold standard of evidence – it painted a very clear picture about the extent of neocon influence from Sec State herself.  That email could have been written by an Israeli.

    Go find me something similar – preferably a whole collection of examples – written by a neocon, that supports this claim of yours that their central motivating myth is a one-world government ruling the world from Jerusalem.

    If you can't find examples of this, I suggest you might consider revisiting your enthusiasm for this claim.

    Again, if this their central motivating myth, there should be a metric shitload of examples.  In the real world, people do not hide their central motivating myths!  They must be shared in order to be central and motivating!  As a result, they must be out there for everyone to see.

    My goal is to separate fact from fiction.  To do this, I rely on evidence.  its a process that works for me.  What does the evidence tell me about what motivates the neocons?  "Israel must survive at all costs."  That is their central motivating myth.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 27, 2016 - 11:27am

    Reply to #16

    pinecarr

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2008

    Posts: 1085

    Here's another perspective

    …on the motivation for BREXIT, from  King World News reader:

    "Please, please, please, do not listen to the distorted views of the mainstream media. Yes, immigration is a major problem. But not THE REASON why the we voted to leave the EU. We as a people have demanded our country back from the unelected elites which have become our masters. An unelected EU government with no opposition, with the power to make our laws and determine how we live our lives. Immigration is a secondary topic, the economy is secondary, if we are worse off we will live with our decision. If we suffer, so be it. Our freedom and the freedom of our children is much more important. People have died in the millions to fight for this basic right. We have given a shining example of democracy to the world. We have put our country and our future above our individual interests. The British lion has awakened from a long sleep. Today I have never been more proud of the silent, decent Briton who stood up to be counted.

    — From a King World News reader in Yorkshire

    http://kingworldnews.com/a-stunning-email-about-brexit-vote-as-elites-panic-and-global-collapse-edges-closer/

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 27, 2016 - 2:27pm

    #24

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    Follow the "money"

    Some questions to ponder:

    • Whom has really owned/operated the Federal Reserve System since it's inception in 1913?
    • Where do their allegiances reside?
    • If some were so inclined to run a "global conquest project" (probably not cheap), how might they fund it?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 27, 2016 - 6:20pm

    Reply to #24

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    no evidence yet

    TTH-

    Your post did not address supplying evidence supporting the claim that the neocons are primarily driven by forming "a one world government ruled from Jerusalem."  I can only assume that's because you don't have any such evidence.

    All you supply is a constant stream of innuendo, and I just don't find that stuff to be compelling.  It reminds me of Nixon's 11th hour campaign phone calls when he was running for Congress: "Did you know that Helen Gahagan Douglas is a Communist?" <click>

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 27, 2016 - 6:36pm

    Reply to #21

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    You have repeated some of MacDonald's bigoted statements

    Hi SP,

    You have repeated some of MacDonald's bigoted statements, including the wealth distribution example I gave above.  You have also suggested that, in effect, Jews control the media.  You didn't say red meme Jews, you just said Jews.  I am trying to keep my time on this short, so I'm not going back to check.  If this is not an accurate depiction of your view on that, please let me know.

    This is in spite of the fact that you do not need these types of positions to forward your thesis that the Neocons and some elements of the Israeli gov't had a role in in 9/11.  Now, if your new thesis is one world government from Jerusalem, I don't know what to say.

    Here is the paraphrased core of from MacDonald's Understanding Jewish Influence. Note that he did not say Zionist influence, but rather Jewish influence.  MacDonald is most definitely treating Jews as a group.

    Jews are ethnocentric

    Jews have an above average intelligence

    Jews are psychologically intense

    Jews are aggressive

    You could easily say that the American white majority or the Han Chinese or Russians are also ethnocentric and aggressive as well.  These are qualitative statements that are almost impossible to prove one way or the other.  Yes, MacDonald cites a lot of sources to support his view.  But I could cite a whole bunch of sources that made blanket statements about the Chinese, the Russians, the Arabs, or the Americans.  Doesn't make them true, and even if some elements of these blanket statements are true, they don't mean that the Chinese, the Americans, or the Jews perpetrated this or that historical crime.

    And just to be clear that MacDonald is acting in bad faith, he helped to found and continuous the American Freedom Party, which is a clearly white supremacist party.  He seems to be a guy who sits somewhere between the red and blue meme.

    I have already asked you to differentiate the parts of MacDonald upon which you are drawing and  which you are rejecting.  In light of the statements that MacDonald has made above this seems like a reasonable request.  Which parts of Understanding Jewish Influence did you need in order to develop your current viewpoint?  Why do you trust someone who sees white people in the same way that you claim that Jews see themselves?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 27, 2016 - 6:42pm

    Reply to #23

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    Israel & Palestine v. Russia and Chechnya

    Hi T2H,

    I have agreed for many years that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is a bloody violation of human rights.

    But why the focus on Israel & the Jews?  How many Chechen civilians were killed by Putin in the 2nd Chechen War and how many Palestinians have been killed by Israelis since the time of the Chechen war, which was around 1998?  

    The same crowd here at PP who has spent a lot of time decrying Israel & the Jews has shown a remarkable tolerance, sometimes even affinity, for Putin.  Why do you think that is?  

    Is Putin not a bloody Machiavellian?  The fact that many here let him off the hook so easily suggest that the focus on Israel is becoming singular obsession, whereas other oppressive regimes, including Russia's, have been given a free pass or in many cases praised.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 27, 2016 - 6:49pm

    #25

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    Hughk

    You said,

    The same crowd here at PP who has spent a lot of time decrying Israel & the Jews has shown a remarkable tolerance, sometimes even affinity, for Putin.  Why do you think that is?

    Ummm.. because Putin has not captured the machinery of my government and Corp. mass media, and the Zionist/Neocon arm of Israel has?  Could it be that?  Possibly?    

    And, BTW.. I don't, "decry" Israel or Jews in general.. and I don't think anyone else from the, "crowd" here at PP.com does either.  Those are your words, meant to create the impression of something that isn't.   

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 27, 2016 - 7:33pm

    Reply to #23

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 284

    HughK wrote:Hi T2H, I have

    [quote=HughK]

    Hi T2H,

    I have agreed for many years that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is a bloody violation of human rights.

    But why the focus on Israel & the Jews?  How many Chechen civilians were killed by Putin in the 2nd Chechen War and how many Palestinians have been killed by Israelis since the time of the Chechen war, which was around 1998?  

    The same crowd here at PP who has spent a lot of time decrying Israel & the Jews has shown a remarkable tolerance, sometimes even affinity, for Putin.  Why do you think that is?  

    Is Putin not a bloody Machiavellian?  The fact that many here let him off the hook so easily suggest that the focus on Israel is becoming singular obsession, whereas other oppressive regimes, including Russia's, have been given a free pass or in many cases praised.

    [/quote]

    as far as I am aware there is no evidence that Putin was involved in the take down of the twin towers. Putin or Russians do not own the vast majority of the us media. I think the fact that Israel has footprints all over this justifies Americans' inquiring minds. It took me a long time to be able to begin looking at the Israeli connections without the anti-Semitic stigma.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 27, 2016 - 11:06pm

    #26

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1873

    Evaluating MacDonald's Writings

    For $2.99, anyone can download the Kindle version of "Understanding Jewish Influence" and spend a few hours perusing the small book.  (Down load the free Kindle reader for you computer if you don't have one.)

    Only 0.5% of the world population is Jewish and only 3% of the US.  Yet this group holds 40% of the Forbes Fortune 400 list and is far disproportionately represented in banking, science, politics, university affiliation and media.

    The explanation that this is coincidental (they "just happen to be Jewish") seems far fetched to me.

    It is OK to want to understand the dynamics of this remarkable group.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 28, 2016 - 12:36am

    Reply to #26

    Rector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 323

    I Know You Won't Believe This But. . .

    God (He exists) through His sovereign will and plan has chosen this group of people.  They have been blessed more than any other people and in response they have rebelled against Him.  He describes the situation in Deuteronomy.

    “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the Lord loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

    “Therefore know that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments; 10 and He repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy them. He will not be slack with him who hates Him; He will repay him to his face. 11 Therefore you shall keep the commandment, the statutes, and the judgments which I command you today, to observe them.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 28, 2016 - 1:56am

    Reply to #26

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 844

    Rector, I do believe it,but that's not all.

    I’ve been talking with some about a superstitious factoring of sevens into the reporting of events.
    But there’s an even wilder coincidence, if you will, relating to Leviticus 26.

    http://www.waitingforjesus.com/1948prophecyfulfilled.html

    Basically, from the time of the fall of Jerusalem to the reestablishment of Israel as a kingdom by international acclaim in May 1948, is the length of time proclaimed in Leviticus 26.

    It took a heretic Jehovah’s Witness to notice this, and you may think what you will about it. But if this IS true, then … messing with Israel, you mess with their Dad.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 28, 2016 - 2:20am

    Reply to #23

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    Israel vs. all Jews

    [quote=Mark_BC]

    [quote=HughK]

    Hi T2H,

    I have agreed for many years that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is a bloody violation of human rights.

    But why the focus on Israel & the Jews?  How many Chechen civilians were killed by Putin in the 2nd Chechen War and how many Palestinians have been killed by Israelis since the time of the Chechen war, which was around 1998?  

    The same crowd here at PP who has spent a lot of time decrying Israel & the Jews has shown a remarkable tolerance, sometimes even affinity, for Putin.  Why do you think that is?  

    Is Putin not a bloody Machiavellian?  The fact that many here let him off the hook so easily suggest that the focus on Israel is becoming singular obsession, whereas other oppressive regimes, including Russia's, have been given a free pass or in many cases praised.

    [/quote]

    as far as I am aware there is no evidence that Putin was involved in the take down of the twin towers. Putin or Russians do not own the vast majority of the us media. I think the fact that Israel has footprints all over this justifies Americans' inquiring minds. It took me a long time to be able to begin looking at the Israeli connections without the anti-Semitic stigma.

    [/quote]

     

    Hi Mark,

    Yes, I agree that it's totally legit. to look at the trail of evidence of 9/11.  My point there was that Israel is not the only country that violates human rights in a big way and was in specific response to the videos about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.  China, Russia, and the US all do so as well, in different ways.  It also seems fair to ask why the focus here on the Deep State 9/11 for the last six months or so trail has been almost solely on Israel and the Jewish people, and not on other aspects of the American Deep State.  

    Also, while it it true that 9/11 was a harm against American, and Chechnya was not, if we at PP care about human rights in general, then it's pretty surprising that many of the same people who are currently focused on the Jews and/or Israel have been so quick to overlook Putin's war crimes and be supportive of the Russian state's position.

    My view is that any government, once it becomes big enough, abuses its power and that currently we have a lot of governments that are bad actors in the world.  The best response to this, in my view, is to focus on the three E's and resilient responses, because if you try to identify which government is causing the worst problem here or there, you're going to be very very busy and distracted from what matters.

    I have yet to hear anyone name a work on the Deep State that doesn't blame Israel and the Jews, yet they are out there.  I am not sure of the reason why no one is interested in looking at these other theories, readily available.  Like I said earlier, it seems to me that a group of people decided to go down the Rabbit Hole, but then fixated at only one door in the Hall of Doors, when there are many others.  It is worth contemplating why this is.

    Finally, Israel does not control the US media.  There are certainly a disproportionate number of Jews in the American news media, but when you say "vast majority" what do you mean? 55%?  80%  95%  I have yet to see data on this.  

    Assuming that they all work together to forward the same agenda, or that Israel controls the US media because there are a lot of American Jews there, seems to me to be an example of assuming that almost Jews do the same thing and that they are all working for the Israelis government.  If you're going to make that claim, then it would be good to supply some evidence, as assuming that a certain group of people almost all act the same way seems to me to be bigotry.

    The current conception here of the 9/11 attacks and the Deep State has become very narrowly focused.  It would be great to see the crowd that casts blame for this on the Jews, the Zionists, Israel, or the Neocons – and all of these groups have been blamed in different ways in different posts – to at least acknowledge that there are other aspects to the Deep State, and maybe even to contemplate their role.  Again, it would be instructional to understand why this hasn't happened yet.

    Cheers,

    Hugh

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 28, 2016 - 2:35am

    Reply to #26

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    So you are making generalizations about Jews

    [quote=sand_puppy]

    For $2.99, anyone can download the Kindle version of "Understanding Jewish Influence" and spend a few hours perusing the small book.  (Down load the free Kindle reader for you computer if you don't have one.)

    Only 0.5% of the world population is Jewish and only 3% of the US.  Yet this group holds 40% of the Forbes Fortune 400 list and is far disproportionately represented in banking, science, politics, university affiliation and media.

    The explanation that this is coincidental (they "just happen to be Jewish") seems far fetched to me.

    It is OK to want to understand the dynamics of this remarkable group.

    [/quote]

    Hi SP,

    OK, so, first, you admit that you are making generalizations about Jews as a whole, not just red and blue meme Jews. 

    Second, you haven't explained why you trust MacDonald to make the qualitative judgment calls that he makes in Understanding Jewish Influence, when he is has openly advocated for white supremacy in a number of ways.

    And I read the book, just as I read Guyenot's book that you cited.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 28, 2016 - 2:41am

    Reply to #26

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 844

    duplicate

    duplicate post

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 28, 2016 - 3:32am

    Reply to #26

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    I'm a little slow

    SP-

    I'm a little slow, but I finally figured it out.

    The neocons don't have a central motivating myth about the one-world rule from Jerusalem.

    Instead, it is YOU that have this myth.  This is YOUR central motivating myth, your lens through which you view the world, and this myth of yours is shared by others here, as well as (now I'm guessing) the writers that you rely upon for your information.  You project this myth of yours onto your target group, and all facts and events in the world are filtered through the myth of yours.

    I'm happy to discuss the outsized influence of the neocons on US foreign policy and whether or not this is something we would like to continue.  There is good solid evidence for the strength of this influence (they clearly write policy docs for Sec State!), and the path they seem to be taking us down does not appear to be one with a happy ending – not for us, and not for Israel too.  It appears to be a stupid, short-sighted policy with no winners, and a lot of losers.

    As for your your larger conspiracy ("they" want to rule us all from Jerusalem), I find this to be an evidence-free claim – it is just your own myth, no more and no less.

    Saying "some Jews have a lot of money" is not evidence that "Jews want to rule us all from Jerusalem."  It does prove that some Jews are rich, and if you link donations they make to particular politicians, then that makes a good case that these rich people have influence over policy – and likely that's the source of neocon influence.

    That still doesn't prove that "they" want to rule us all from Jerusalem.

    Are there more rich Jews than rich other-people?  I don't know, I haven't looked into it.  Let's assume it is true – it STILL doesn't prove that "they" want to rule us all from Jerusalem.

    In short, if we stick to the subject of neocons and their effect on US policy, you'll have my attention.  If you wander off into the various myths you have about one-world governments, Jews, and Jerusalem, you'll lose me.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 28, 2016 - 3:40am

    #27

    blackeagle

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 16 2013

    Posts: 221

    my 2 cents...

    Why if what is happening is much simpler than the idea that Jews wants a world government from Jerusalem? if that was the case, I agree with Dave that this goal would be written on every wall AND at the same time the Jews would be the target of every non-jew on this planet. Given their very little number, I won't bet a penny on their success… whatever armed they are. People die for their religion or against the other.

    What makes sense to me is the combination of several things that combines to give the situation where we are. 

    1) The pie is shrinking. So, the different groups that used to take their part, are now not only fighting to keep it, but also doing all what they could to kick-out their opponents. By groups i mean the usual powers behind curtains that vacuum financial wealth.

    2) These same financial powers, wants control of the entire planet (if fact, the resources, and the money), but they want to stay in their secretive shadow. They will continue to use governments as proxies. When things get sour then the "guilty" government is wiped out and replaced by a fresh scapegoat and the cycle repeats.

    3) WW2 was a real trauma for the Jews. They decided that they won't be caught a second time at any cost. The Rothschild family helped a lot in the creation of Israel by taking advantage of the sentiment of guilt that was prevalent after WW2. The issue with Israel is that this is a war government. For half the world this is Israel's fault, and for the other half this is arab's fault. And because religions are implicated, the fighting sides won't back-up. Things will stop once one of the sides is annihilated.

    4)-a) The church did not promote the idea to be rich. People were in general kept poor and the wealth was reserved for a very tiny elite (kings, church, mainly).

    4)-b) The Islam religion do not promote interests (lending).

    4)-a) and 4)-b) excluded for a very long time Christians and Muslims from the finance world. We know that Jews were the bankers of Christians and Muslims since the middle age. If we see that Jews are disproportionately represented in the financial world today, this could be because they were given this niche market for a very long time. Can we blame them for that?

    5) If some neocons names sound jewish, not all of them are. May be their raison d'etre is to control world resources and as a consequence the money and have power. 

    6) Putin is a serious roadblock straight in the path of the ones that wants the resources for them. He is then a target.

    I am sure I am missing a bunch of dots, but these few points tells me that we are in the middle of a multiplayer game for money. I think Jerusalem is not important to them (or not as much as we want to think). May be nothing more than a distraction to help miss the real issues?  Who knows?

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 28, 2016 - 3:52am

    Reply to #26

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Commandments

    Rejecting the Three Semitic Death Cults implies neither hatred nor Atheism.

    Death Cults? Christianity was offered to us on the end of a sword by Charlemagne. He forcefully baptised 1000 Saxons 1200  years ago. And then slaughtered them all while they stood naked in the river. The Viking raids were pre-emptive strikes against Charlemagne's obvious insanity.

    It was during your watch that the Great War happened. The religion of peace stood by and did Nothing. You have consistently done nothing throughout your hold on my people. Your religion has consistently offered peace and delivered war. 

    The time for excuses is over.

    It is time to return to the faith of our forefathers, Asatru. Asatru does not Command, it advises. Asatru served us well for 40 000 years. Conflict was in the main, confined to prescribed bloody family feuds, thus releasing tension within the tribe and eliminating the unfit. 

    Christianity has failed to preserve the foundation stone of my people,  the sacred family unit. 

    And now one Semitic cult is pitting the other two against each other on my sacred land? Using my people as pawns and cannon fodder?

    I urge all with ears to hear, consider the ways of your ancestors. You have a lot to re-learn.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 28, 2016 - 5:47pm

    Reply to #26

    Rector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 323

    Interesting

    I haven't run the numbers on the dates to confirm, so I don't know if what's claimed here is true.  I can (with confidence) say that I wouldn't be surprised.  Truth has a way of self-validating.  One day everyone will be in full agreement as to the facts.  Just wait.

    Rector

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 28, 2016 - 5:59pm

    #28

    LogansRun

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 18 2009

    Posts: 304

    Wow

    The outright willful blindness of a few here at PP (always the same people), replicates what the masses of western citizens are thinking/doing on a daily basis.  Because of this "Willful Blindness", the Zionists control/grip tightens by the day.  Wake up.

    On another note, for anyone that's ever traveled to Russia, or other former communist states, and had discussions with the citizens of them…the idea that the Zionist Israeli Faction is in control of the Western Governments, Media, Financial sector, etc…is not just an "Idea", but the TRUTH to them.  Why is it so easy for them to understand reality, but for 99% of the Western Citizens to not?…..

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 28, 2016 - 10:05pm

    Reply to #28

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 844

    Wow, I agree.

    Leading only to the open question of WHO are the people who are so continually willfully blind.
    I’d argue that it is definitely the “THEM” group, and not the “US” group.

    Fortunately, I have a sense of humor to deal with the vagaries of this universe.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 29, 2016 - 12:43am

    Reply to #28

    Tycer

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 26 2009

    Posts: 206

    LogansRun wrote:Why is it so

    [quote=LogansRun]

     Why is it so easy for them to understand reality, but for 99% of the Western Citizens to not?…..

    [/quote]Edward Louis James Bernays and his ilk have succeeded for several generations in spoon feeding the masses their ideas and ieals.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 29, 2016 - 6:24am

    #29

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    Useful tools

    • Shame.
    • Guilt.
    • Stigma.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 29, 2016 - 3:22pm

    Reply to #29

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    Useful tools - yes we need them

    [quote=Time2help]

    • Shame.
    • Guilt.
    • Stigma.

    [/quote]

    Hi Time 2 Help,

    There's nothing that I would love more than to establish better practices of communication and moderation here at PP.  It would be good community building practice, and I am more than willing to recognize my own errors and move forward with others willing to do the same and evolve together towards a higher level of interactions, based on open-mindedness, humility, mutual respect, accountability, evenly-applied standards, and a willingness to admit error.

    I don't say that in any sort of confrontational way.  It's really what I would love to see and I am more than willing to compromise and to take the time and effort to do that.

    Cheers,

    Hugh

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 29, 2016 - 3:46pm

    Reply to #29

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    Hughk

    You are the most profoundly passive-aggressive being I have ever encountered.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 29, 2016 - 3:53pm

    Reply to #29

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    I've been direct from day 1.

    I've been very direct from the beginning here, T2H.  I've said clearly what problems I have had with your posts and others.  There's nothing passive about it.  

    However, I am always open to reconciliation and compromise.  Anyone frustrated about the global political order should be able to find common grown and move forward with other limits to growthers, T2H.  It really isn't that hard.

    I don't define you by your comments, even though sometimes, like today, your attacks make it tempting to write you off.  But that's not how I work.  I see each person as having potential for evolution and growth.

    That's real and it's direct.

    -Hugh

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 29, 2016 - 4:12pm

    #30

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    You misunderstand

    My statement was not intended as an attack, but rather as an observation.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 29, 2016 - 5:59pm

    #31

    newsbuoy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 95

    Russia's attack on U.S.-backed rebels in Syria

    http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/06/23/why-did-russia-bomb-american-backed-syria-rebels/86289354/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 29, 2016 - 6:46pm

    Reply to #30

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    Reproducing today's world

    T2H, you now have produced your list of internal enemies (Doug, me, Yoxa, Darbikrash, mark reis, Windlord…) and your external enemy (the Zionists).  You and some others here are one step closer to creating a microcosm of the world like the one we live in now.  

    It doesn't have to be this way, but it does take accountability, compromise, and a consistent standard if we want it to be worth inheriting.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 29, 2016 - 6:49pm

    Reply to #30

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    No

    [quote=HughK]

    T2H, you now have produced your list of internal enemies (Doug, me, Yoxa, Darbikrash, mark reis, Windlord…) and your external enemy (the Zionists).  You and some others here are one step closer to creating a microcosm of the world like the one we live in now.  

    It doesn't have to be this way, but it does take accountability, compromise, and a consistent standard.

     

    [/quote]

    In your mind I have done these things Hugh. The thoughts you are projecting are a reflection of your own. I don’t care for enemies or the negative spiritual baggage they require. I do care for the objective truth.

    I’d recommend you stand in front of a mirror for a good while and think deeply on this.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 29, 2016 - 8:19pm

    Reply to #30

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    One other point...

    Hughk said,

    It doesn't have to be this way, but it does take accountability, compromise, and a consistent standard if we want it to be worth inheriting.

    Your post would suggest that we could engage the true enemies of freedom (whomever they are) .. the elites who are behind evil and murderous false flags like 9/11, our loss of freedoms and Constitutional protections in the US, and our loss of equal application of the law (see:  

    The Veneer of Justice in a Kingdom of Crime by John Titus, on youtube.)

    can be managed through, as you say, compromise.  No way.  It must be faced head-on, by an awake populace.  From G. Edward Griffin's Freedom Force website;

    https://www.freedomforceinternational.org/

    Too many people are like cats. They are rightly concerned about their loss of security, freedom, and privacy, but they do little more than hiss and wail without knowing why these things are happening. In Freedom Force, however, we focus on the cause and then work to eliminate it.

    The decline of civilization is not the result of blind forces of history operating beyond compre-hension or control. It is caused by a small but well defined group of people who believe this decline is necessary for what they fondly call The New World Order but which we recognize as modern, high-tech feudalism.

    The identities of these elitists are known. They have names. They belong to organizations. They meet together to create strategies and they work jointly to implement them. Since they now dominate the power centers of society, our response is clear. They must be removed from their positions of power. Any other plan is doomed to failure.

    That, however, is not enough. If we focus solely on the identities and personalities of those who are promoting the decline of liberty, we will be stumped by the fact that, even if we should succeed in removing them from office, there are many more just like them waiting to take their places.

    It’s not the identities or party affiliations of these people that matters. It’s what they believe, what ideology they hold.

    Their ideology has a name. It’s called collectivism, a concept that government is master and people must obey because it’s for their own good. It’s pointless to get rid of one collectivist only to be replaced by another.

    It is time to stop acting like cats, stop being fascinated by the personalities and deeds of our leaders. We must be like dogs and focus on their ideology, because that is the cause of their deeds.

    The solution is simple. It is to reclaim control of the power centers of society, one-by-one, just the way collectivists captured them in the first place. Replace them with individualists, people who have no personal agendas except to defend freedom. 

    This will unleash the vast human potential for prosperity and

    happiness that can be realized only in the absence of coercion and oppression by the state.

    To reach that goal, however, those who cherish freedom must do more than complain.  They must reach for power. That is the meaning of the Freedom Force motto: Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt, which is Latin for:

    Those without power
    cannot defend freedom.

    The strategy can be further summarized as:

    Don’t fight city hall when you can BE city hall.

    It's going to take a movement….. not compromise.

     

       

     

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 29, 2016 - 9:46pm

    Reply to #30

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    Objective truth and accountability

    [quote=Time2help][quote=HughK]

    T2H, you now have produced your list of internal enemies (Doug, me, Yoxa, Darbikrash, mark reis, Windlord…) and your external enemy (the Zionists).  You and some others here are one step closer to creating a microcosm of the world like the one we live in now.  

    It doesn't have to be this way, but it does take accountability, compromise, and a consistent standard.

    [/quote] In your mind I have done these things Hugh. The thoughts you are projecting are a reflection of your own. I don't care for enemies or the negative spiritual baggage they require. I do care for the objective truth. I'd recommend you stand in front of a mirror for a good while and think deeply on this.[/quote]

    T2H,

    I'm far from perfect, and I do look in the mirror. 

    I am also all for trying to find objective truth, so we have that in common.  

    You accused several of us (see screenshots below) of being government disinformation agents, and included images from a GCHQ presentation titled Gambits for Deception.  These were clear ad hominem attacks with the intent of giving the impression that we were government agents.  I found posts you did for Wildlife Tracker (who has met some of people here at Rowe, so I'd think that one of you would have at least stood up for him), mark reis, Windlord, me, and Mikey R.  I recall you also doing the same thing for Doug and Yoxa, but I couldn't find the page for that right now.  I also recall you doing the same thing for Darbikrash, but I think I was wrong about that, so I'll retract that claim.

    When you call us disinformation agents for a regime that you – and most of the rest of us – clearly think of as a violator of rights and more, then it's an ad hom. attack, because you are not attacking our words, but you are attacking us.

    My last post was not about projections.  It was about your actions and your decisions to attack other people here in the community as government disinformation agents.  And for whatever reason, Chris never saw it fit to step in with you and say something publicly, as he has with some of the rest of us for much less. 

    This is all objectively true and and here to see, just as someone could have easily debunked the Schulz attribution yesterday if they had cared to look carefully past their own beliefs – as we are encouraged to do here at PP, and for good reason –  and try to learn the truth.

    Cheers,

    Hugh

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 30, 2016 - 12:04am

    Reply to #30
    Yoxa

    Yoxa

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 20 2011

    Posts: 286

    That's not how you come across

    [quote]  I do care for the objective truth. [/quote]

    That's not always how you come across.

    [quote] 

    • Shame.
    • Guilt.
    • Stigma

    [/quote]

    If you think those things ought not to be used as weapons, make sure you don't dish them out yourself.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 30, 2016 - 4:16am

    Reply to #30

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    Use your words

    [quote=HughK]T2H, you now have produced your list of internal enemies (Doug, me, Yoxa, Darbikrash, mark reis, Windlord…) and your external enemy (the Zionists).[/quote]

    Your words Bud. Not mine. Calling someone out on bullshit is just that. Doesn't mean you hate them.

    [quote=HughK]It doesn't have to be this way, but it does take accountability, compromise, and a consistent standard.[/quote]

    To whom should we be accountable? What else, exactly, should we compromise on? What standard do you feel we should we be held to? Do you feel that you are being treated unfairly?

    [quote=HughK]I am also all for trying to find objective truth, so we have that in common.[/quote]

    Objective?

    [quote=HughK]My last post was not about projections.  It was about your actions and your decisions to attack other people here in the community as government disinformation agents.  And for whatever reason, Chris never saw it fit to step in with you and say something publicly, as he has with some of the rest of us for much less.[/quote]

    Perhaps your last post was not about projections. Perhaps it was about doing whatever you can to derail the topic at hand. Perhaps it was simply trying to persuade others to censor a frank discussion of one topic of many which just happened to swerve too close to material you prefer to be "off limits".

    [quote=HughK]You and some others here are one step closer to creating a microcosm of the world like the one we live in now.[/quote]

    I didn't create that world Hugh. We were all born in to it. We all want to make it better, and many of us are doing our damnedest, thought some would most certainly differ on what that means. I believe that to do so requires honest reflection upon ourselves and on others. This means confronting unpleasant truths at times. And calling things as they are.

    Example: "Collapsed due to fires caused by normal office furnishings".

    Bullshit.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 30, 2016 - 5:10am

    Reply to #30

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    Let's keep the discussion "safe" then?

    [quote=Yoxa]

    [quote]I do care for the objective truth.[/quote]

    That's not always how you come across.

    [/quote]

    Perhaps we should all consider putting on one of these whilst the planet burns?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 30, 2016 - 5:22am

    Reply to #30

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    Agreed

    [quote=Time2help]

    I didn't create that world Hugh. We were all born in to it. We all want to make it better, and many of us are doing our damnedest, thought some would most certainly differ on what that means. I believe that to do so requires honest reflection upon ourselves and on others. This means confronting unpleasant truths at times. And calling things as they are.

    [/quote]

    We agree on this part, and I'll leave it at that.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 30, 2016 - 7:44am

    Reply to #30

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    wanting it both ways

    TTH-

    I've noticed that when you are confronted with someone else that you feel is attempting to shame you for some opinion or action, you reject these attempts and react negatively.

    And then you post this "man-with-box-head" photo wherein you seem to be ridiculing those who don't like being shamed.

    Was the irony deliberate, or was it accidental?

    If it was conscious and deliberate – man, my hat is off to you.  🙂

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 01, 2016 - 12:19am

    #32

    blackeagle

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 16 2013

    Posts: 221

    Human's stupidity

    OTTAWA – Canada will be at the head of one of the four battalions formed by NATO in Eastern Europe to strengthen defenses to face Russia, announces Canadian defense minister, Harjit Sajjan.
     
    Mr. Sajjan told The Canadian Press that the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will reveal the extent of Canadian participation in the NATO summit in Warsaw next week.
     
    He says that this decision serves to demonstrate the solidarity of Canada to NATO's resistance to Russia.
     
    NATO strengthens its presence on the Polish and Baltic soil to deter Moscow attempting any aggression. Recall that Russia annexed the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea in 2014 and supports the separatist rebels of the east.
     
    The Minister Sajjan maintains that the ultimate goal is to revive the dialog between the alliance of 28 nations and Russia to appease what is described as the worst conflict between the West and the Kremlin since the end of the Cold War.
     
    On the occasion of his speech in the Commons on Wednesday, US President Barack Obama had urged Canada to provide a greater contribution to NATO. He argued that the alliance is more secure when each member country, including Canada, brings his "full contribution."
    (Source) (Emphasis mine)
     
     
    heuh?  NATO's resistance????? Are we invaded?
     
    Looks like the west is full of proud men fighting the evil tyranny that assaults us every day.
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 01, 2016 - 10:05pm

    Reply to #32
    Cornelius999

    Cornelius999

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 17 2008

    Posts: 362

    Yes Blackeagle, you have to

    Yes Blackeagle, you have to be really highly trained to spot that when Putin is trying his best to be non-threatning, you see that's when he's at his most dangerous. But maybe you and I had better leave all that in the hands of smarter people than ourselves. And they're probably people who understand the value of money better too.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 04, 2016 - 5:59pm

    #33

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1873

    Siege Mentality in Israel

    I came across this paper written by two Jewish University psychology professors on the “Siege Mentality in Israel.”  Very strongly recommended.  For anyone interested in how this works, please download the original paper.

    It is widely considered a violation of social norms for an outsider to critically analyze another’s religion. 

    I also understand that ethnocentric identification runs very, very deep in the Jewish culture, and ANY criticism of ANY aspect of Judaism might be experienced as “a knife in the heart.”  It is also painful to me personally to be viewed as an enemy by my Jewish friends and to have my honest attempts to understand the Jewish culture immediately characterized as bigotry.  But, this is the very heart of that needs to be examined.

    The RED/BLUE faction of Judaism (militant fundamentalist) is causing great harm in the world right now and I feel a deep moral imperative to evaluate it critically.

     

     

    Daniel Bar-Tal and Dikla Antebi, two psychology professors at Tel-Aviv University, Israel, define  siege mentality as a central belief held by a majority of a population with high confidence of certainty that “out-groups hold the intention to do wrong or inflict harm upon the in-group.”

    “The beliefs that people have about the world, determine their reactions.  People act and react to the world they believe exists.  Therefore, an attempt to determine whether the world is actually hostile toward the particular in-group is irrelevant for the understanding of this group behavior.  When group members believe that the rest of the world has negative behavior intentions toward them, they react accordingly.”

    Current Israeli culture includes the belief of perpetual and universal persecution (also sometimes called the perma-victim status).  One example:  Polls of young adult Israeli’s found broad agreement that “The Holocaust was not a one time event, it could happen again at anytime.”  Many, many other examples are given from current Israeli culture.

     

    Persecution woven into the fabric of the Jewish tradition

    What was most important (and new) to me was that anti-Semitism is woven into the fabric the Jewish tradition dating from centuries before the Holocaust.

    “Jewish tradition finds anti-Semitism to be the norm, the natural response of the non-Jew…  Persecution is not simply a tragic consequence of being a Jew in a hostile world; rather it is build into the fabric of the Jewish covenant with history… integrated into the national ethos.” 

    Jewish religious tradition differentiates between Israel and all the other nations.  Every Saturday night a Jew recites the blessing saying,

    “He who distinguishes between holy and secular, between light and darkness, between Israel and all other peoples.”  

    In addition to the belief in Israel’s isolated status among the nations of the world, the Jewish tradition contains a deeply rooted belief in the other nation’s hatred of Israel and their intentions to hurt it.   One example from the Passover Haggadah:

    “For more than once they (other nations) have risen against us to destroy us; in every generation they rise against us and seek our destruction. But the Holy One, blessed be he, saves us from their hands.”

    “Pour out Thy wrath upon the nations that know Thee not; and upon Kingdoms that call not upon Thy names; for they have consumed Jacob [the Jews] and laid waste his habitation.”

    The Midrash (homiletic interpretation of the Scriptures) directly states that “all nations hate Israel”  (Bereishit Rabbah, 63:7).  As a commentary to this view Rabbi Shimon, one of the Tanna who lived in the 2nd century, suggested that the hatred of Israel is as a “rule,” meaning that the hatred of Israel is imprinted “in the Peoples of Esau [non-Jews] and cannot be uprooted.”

    “Peretz Smolenskin, the father of Spiritual Zionism, posited that anti-Semitism is an emotion rooted in the hearts of the other nations, which is handed down from one generation to the next.”

    “All of humanity among whom Jews live, is infected to the depths of their soul with the poison of anti-Semitism, from the illiterate farmer to the outstanding personalities of the current generation.  (Briman, 1951, p.6).”

    Theodor Herzl, the father of Political Zionism wrote in 1896

    “Whenever they [Jews] live in perceptible numbers, they are more or less persecuted…..  The nations in whose midst Jews live are all, either covertly or openly anti-Semitic.”

    This paper surprised me by explaining that two Jewish academics understand that the belief that Jews are always persecuted is woven into the very fabric of the (RED/BLUE) Jewish culture and has been for thousands of years. 

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 04, 2016 - 8:23pm

    Reply to #33

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    its not about religion

    Two issues:

    1) Jewish culture is not this uniform thing.  There are many different types of Jews, just as there are many types of Christians.  The reform Jews are not RED/BLUE, no more than modern-day Christians are RED/BLUE.  I'd encourage you to go read about the different flavors so you can get a sense of the diversity.

    2) Israelis are in a class all by themselves.  They are culturally vastly different from (say) American Jews. I've worked with both.  Many more Israelis are RED/BLUE – but I believe it is about the environment there on the ground.  Four wars in recent memory and an infinite number of skirmishes has that effect.  And the latest: there is a knife-attack there almost every day.  The following article suggested 100 attacks over a 3 month period.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-calls-palestinian-knife-attacks-a-new-kind-of-terrorism-a6787036.html

    I once asked an Israeli co-worker – are you religious?  He laughed, and said, "simply living in Israel was Jewish enough for me."  And the technical discussions?  It always felt to me like someone would end up shot.  It would always lead off with, "excuse me, we need to have this part in Hebrew."  (Five minutes of shouting).  "OK, it has been decided."

    Grandfather may have been a zealot – or maybe was fleeing Russia, or Iran, or somewhere else and needed a place to go.  The grandson today – he's just trying to survive.

    Seriously.  Go to Israel and see for yourself.  I do not think it has anything to do with religion – except for the guys who (literally) wear the black hats – who are resented by their more secular countrymen because they don't work, they have a lot of babies, and often happen to be the swing vote in Parliament between Likud and Labor.

    Siege mentality though – perfectly accurate.  Doing everyday things in Israel is far more of a struggle than it is in other places.  And my contract job there was only three months – and at a very peaceful time.  No way you could get me there today, not for anything.

    I was single, traveling alone on a one-way ticket.  Leaving the country?  A one hour interview at the airport.  And that's with my Israeli boss by my side vouching for me.  Everything there was difficult, in ways its hard to describe unless you've been through it.  Armed guards at the malls searching everyone.  I can only imagine how much more annoying it is today.

    Here's a thought.  Put a bunch of Christians in that same situation – I suspect you'd get the identical behavior.  Like Blackeagle's poor city-dwelling Muslims: environment trumps everything.  Its hard to turn the other cheek when the out-group are suicide-stabbing the in-group at random every day.  Anyone drops into RED/BLUE in that environment, no matter where they started.  (And of course the out-group is totally outgunned; stabbing a nearby target with your kitchen knife is about all that's left open to them).

    US troops in Falluja responded to the four dead contractors back in 2004 with a massive military crackdown – which resulted in the creation of more terrorists.  Did those American soldiers come from a RED/BLUE culture?  Perhaps we should look to the bible for the source of the problem?  Maybe there is some secret Christian plot to rule the world from…oh wait, we do that already.  And its not all that secret.

    I really think you're looking in the wrong place for the answer, when common sense and all the evidence points to something else.  And – just perhaps – that's why your Jewish friends grow annoyed with you.  🙂

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 04, 2016 - 9:59pm

    Reply to #33
    Luke Moffat

    Luke Moffat

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 25 2014

    Posts: 365

    Epigenetics

    Dave,

    Largely in agreement. Has anyone looked into the field of epigenetics? Fascinating stuff. I'm currently ploughing my way through Robert Sapolsky's Stanford lectures and about halfway through. It's seriously worth your time if you can spare 40+ hours for his 25 lectures.

    The concept is really simple when you come to think about it; genes don't decide anything by themselves, nor does environment decide anything by itself – it's the interaction between genes and environment which is important. i.e. genes select for the environment that they are exposed to. For example, there is no 'submission gene'. They realised this by studying birds – if a chick were born with different colour feathers to the rest of the flock it attracted unwanted attention. The other chicks would peck away at their discoloured sibling until it developed social regression and viola! You have a submissive bird based purely on the set of feathers it received at birth in combination with an unforgiving environment! What would have happened if the chick were born into a more forgiving environment? I'm guessing any male chick subjected to this treatment would have his breeding opportunities, and thus his ability to pass on 'defective' feather patterns, severely diminished.

    Siege mentally is a rather extreme environmental condition and highly likely to select a different set of genes to prosper than those exposed to tranquil lands and starry nights. Perhaps 2 – 3 Israeli generations isn't a large enough data set to conclude anything meaningful at the minute. Dare I say, 'watch this space?' 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 05, 2016 - 4:33am

    Reply to #33

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    Characterizations of bigotry

    [quote=sand_puppy]

    I also understand that ethnocentric identification runs very, very deep in the Jewish culture, and ANY criticism of ANY aspect of Judaism might be experienced as “a knife in the heart.”  It is also painful to me personally to be viewed as an enemy by my Jewish friends and to have my honest attempts to understand the Jewish culture immediately characterized as bigotry.  But, this is the very heart of that needs to be examined.

    [/quote]

     

    Sandpuppy,

    I've been specific about why I think your attempts to understand have turned into bigotry.  It's not a characterization.  There is plenty of evidence that many of your posts have crossed over into bigotry, even if you don't intend this.

    Here is some evidence that you have, for whatever reason, come to the point where you make bigoted claims, such as that the American media is controlled by Jews and therefore they forward the Neocon agenda.  The implication there being that all – or almost all –  Jews think alike.

    -you say that Jews themselves can't speak against Israel for reasons that you cannot go into further.

    -you say that the Jewish culture is fiercely ethnocentric.  Is it more ethnocentric than American culture?  Chinese culture?  Russian culture?  I can point to a lot of examples of how these cultures are also very ethnocentric and that their governments have manipulated weaker countries for centuries.  Why the fixation on Jewish culture?  This fixation is one aspect of the bigoted nature of your posts.

    -you say that the end goal is one world government, based in Jerusalem.

    I've asked you about the anti-semitic currents in Guyenot, and you've refused to address those.  Why is it, for example, that Guyenot finds it necessary to speculate that Machiavelli's lineage may have been Jewish?  Why does he post articles about how it really was the Jews who killed Jesus on anti-semitic French nationalist websites?  This fixation on Jews suggests that far from simply trying to understand 9/11, anti-semitism motivates at least some aspects of his work.  Even though it's plain to see, you never bothered to point any of this out in your book review.  Discerning reviewers separate a book's wheat from its chaff.  Did you believe and accept everything he wrote?

    The fact that you trust the conclusions of openly white supremacist Kevin MacDonald  – and are not even willing to explain how you distinguish which parts of MacDonald's work are reliable and which parts are not – is another example.

    These are not immediate characterizations.  The claim that your posts have become bigoted are borne out over months of evidence.

    The reason that you have claimed that this is all so important, and that you – and the rest of us – really need to understand this issue – stems from your interest in the nature of the deep state, an interest that many of us probably share, although I don't think there's much I can do about it, and so have turned my energy towards more productive lines of inquiry.

    But, if  you really do see understanding 9/11 and the deep state as a pressing need, then why, so far, have you not mentioned any other accounts of the deep state?  Why almost no time and energy looking into other elements of it, such as white nativism, American corporations, the military-industrial-intelligence complex, American imperialism?  Why are you so fixated on the Jews?

    My speculation is that some part of your psyche is attracted to narratives with clear good guys and clear bad guys, and that this desire to simplify is shared by some others sympathetic to your work.  However, that may be wrong; I don't know.  That would certainly fit with Dan Ariely's analysis, where people are more motivated and energized by threats that have a face than by threats that do not.

    What is clear is that some people here continue to to be lured into assigning blame for this or that.  But a better way forward is to acknowledge that our most pressing predicaments are not caused by any one person, ethnic group, political party, or cabal.  

    Even if everything you claimed were true – and it's not – it wouldn't account for our civilization's dependence on depleting fossil fuels or the fact that we face climate change and other environmental limits to growth.

    These big-picture problems are far more threatening than anything you're talking about, and yet, because they are the consequences of a unsustainable civilization, i.e. faceless threats, they don't appeal to most people's emotions.  This is why people here are essentially distracted when talking about Clinton, Trump and Obama, or about Putin, Janukovitch, Xi, and Netanyahu.  

    This desire to assign blame and designate evil – whether it's the Jews as a whole or the just the bankers – are distractions from the fact that this civilization – and all of the political regimes within it – is unsustainable and prone to contraction or collapse.   The way forward is simple, and involves building local communities and resilient homesteads, neighborhoods and local economies.  

    This is something we all agree on, and there is a lot of work to be done on that front.  But even here, people sometimes prefer the circus to plowing their own fields.

    Hugh

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 05, 2016 - 6:33am

    Reply to #33

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    understanding sources

    During my training in history as an undergrad, I was always told to "understand the source" when reading some bit of material.  Who was the source and what motivated him?  If you just read the document without the writer's back story, you couldn't adjust for the biases and you might be tempted to take it all at face value.

    Lectures from the best professors always included the backstory of the writer of a given document we were reviewing.  It was my first introduction to thinking critically about history.

    And so Hugh brings up a great point.  If one of your writers posts on white supremacist sites, it is at least possible that's where some of his sympathies lie.

    And of course, constructing a fake backstory for someone else ("you work for the bankers", "you're employed by the state of Israel") is an attempt to discredit what someone else is saying through fraud, without addressing them directly.  But nobody here would do this.  🙂

    The amount of weight a particular writer puts on a specific factor depends largely on his underlying philosophy.  How much does an underlying religion account for a given action?  Well if you hate people of the Muslim faith for whatever reason, you are likely to assign a larger percentage of "blame" to the religion and less of a percent to environment.  And if the work is not grounded in data, its much easier to do this.

    Tom and I have had this with Islam certainly.  Not saying he hates or anything – but he's convinced that Islam in and of itself is bad – and furthermore, may be the weightiest factor in assessing danger.  I think environment is the weightier factor, but I'm definitely willing to agree that the concepts of Jihad and getting into paradise by killing people is definitely problematic.

    Certainly the recent event in Bangladesh where a group of rich kids killed a bunch of foreigners at a bread shop shouting You-Know-What suggests a certain flaw in the design of Islam that can end up in violence – points for Tom.  There was no personal environment-o-poverty to motivate these kids.  But what then about the dad's horror over what his son has done?  Same religious background, wildly different response.

    In the US plenty of kids were radicalized in the 60s and 70s – and not just the poor ones.  Was that about Christianity?  Or just a phase sweeping through the culture?  Anyone remember the Symbionese Liberation Army?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army

    Luke- Epigenetics is fascinating stuff.  I haven't gone through these lectures, but I was introduced to the material by another lecturer.  I'd be willing to bet there is an effect here.  If a depression can have such an effect, certainly a siege could as well.  Then let's add in surviving the camps.  What does that experience end up passing down to the kids and grandkids?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 05, 2016 - 7:26am

    #34

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    Shifted

    Found a better place for the post.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 05, 2016 - 8:03am

    #35

    Bankers Slave

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2012

    Posts: 513

    In defense of Sand Puppy and the excellent

    information that he has posted over many months, I have placed HK on my ignore list.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 05, 2016 - 2:28pm

    Reply to #35

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    The web's 'echo chamber' leaves us none the wiser

    [quote=Bankers Slave]

    information that he has posted over many months, I have placed HK on my ignore list.

    [/quote]

    The web's 'echo chamber' leaves us none the wiser (Wired – May 2013)

    By rights, the internet should be doing more than anything else to open our eyes to new perspectives and experiences. We're moving away from that: as the web becomes increasingly tailored to the individual, we're more likely than ever to be served personalised content that makes us happy and keeps us clicking. That happy content is seldom anything that challenges our viewpoint, and there's a risk that this distorts our view of the wider world outside our browser.

    We have reached the stage where someone offering a contrasting opinion is viewed as deliberately trying to wind up others. Ironically, highlighting a dissenting voice as "trolling" is another possible example of the echo-chamber effect in action: it's assumed that this voice is so outrageous that it can't be genuine, and the orthodoxy of the community continues unchallenged.

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 05, 2016 - 6:35pm

    #36

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1873

    Request for alternative explanations

    One of the great challenges in debating a contentious topic with people of very different viewpoints is to not move away from the main issues. 

    Lets return to the central issues.   For me, these are:

    1.  Is it true that the Neocon faction that faked the WMD and “close ties to Al Qaeda” lies and engineered and sold the Iraq invasion were Zionists working for the militant vision of “what is good for Israel?”

    2.  That the Iraq invasion fits with the long-standing military goals of Israel such as articulated in the Oded Yinon plan.

    3.  That the “War on Terror” motif seems to have been launched from Tel-Aviv by the Netanyahu Institute.

    4.  That 9/11, with its novel building collapse patterns and unusual airplane crashes, came along just in time to enable the Neocon dominated white house and pentagon to sell of the GWOT story to America and the world.  This resulted in widespread destruction of MENA countries in patterns that match the Zionist/Israeli goals laid out in the decades before.

    5.  That most of the American people do NOT KNOW that the Neocons are Zionist-loyal even when they hold high level American government positions, and that the ME wars that they launch match the long-term Zionist military objectives.  This information has not made it into widespread public awareness.  Why?

    6.  That most of the American people do NOT KNOW that kerosene fires do not melt steel and cause buildings to fly apart in their entirety from top to bottom.  Americans believe that only crazy people doubt this story, despite 2,500 + Architects and Engineers and 400+ Professors who have said that this could not possibly happen.  How is the information flow to the public controlled?  How is such an inaccurate opinion perpetuated?

    7.    What is the thought process, the morality and the structure of the thinking of those would do this?  Particularly poignant to me is one example:  Michael Chertoff, son of a rabbi and a Mossad agent, and brilliant legal scholar, who was pivotal in overseeing the implementation of the police state in America.  What is his moral framework?  Is his primary loyalty “to God” and “to Israel?”   How does the American police state fit with the Zionist vision?

    Each person is invited to offer alternative explanations of how this works.

    So far, I am hearing mostly destructive comments – that is finding fault with the views I have posted.  What I am requesting now, are positive alternative explanations of these 7 issues.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 05, 2016 - 8:50pm

    Reply to #36

    Mots

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 18 2012

    Posts: 67

    primary loyalty “to God”

    Sand Puppy, I appreciate your focus on this topic.  I want to point out an additional (somewhat complicating) factor regarding your point 4 since a different "primary loyalty to God" wacko religion was involved with that.  There are at least two wacko "primary loyalty to God” forces acting here.  The Saudi Sunni "primary loyalty to God" wackos have all the money and control politicians such as Hillary and many others with their money and coverup of the 9/11 story.  The Saudi Sunni wackos spent and spend much energy and money to go after their brand of nonbelievers and clearly are the force behind the 9/11 hijackers and US government coverup of those Saudi actors.  The airplane side of the 9/11 event is purely a  Sunni "primary loyalty to God" event.  If you listen to the story from the CIA interpreter who was the go-between between the US government and Iraq at the time (the US tried to send her to a mental hospital for permanent alteration when she decided to speak out but was interrupted by a judge, and she waited 10 years to get her story out) you will see that the other "primary loyalty to God" forces (or maybe "primary loyalty to money" individuals in the US) took advantage of the Sunni Saudis arranged 9/11 airplane flying event to finish off the buildings in a more complete way, and to launch their opportunistic adventure subsequently.  In fact, the US actors (with primary loyalty to money-God) were waiting impatiently day by day for the Saudi hijackers to do their part so that they could execute their parts.  The Sunni (primarly Saudi because their money rules) religious wackos are (and continue to be) an important force particularly in Syria, but that is another story.  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jul 06, 2016 - 3:28am

    Reply to #33

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 284

    HughK wrote:... The reason

    [quote=HughK]

    The reason that you have claimed that this is all so important, and that you – and the rest of us – really need to understand this issue – stems from your interest in the nature of the deep state, an interest that many of us probably share, although I don't think there's much I can do about it, and so have turned my energy towards more productive lines of inquiry.

    But, if  you really do see understanding 9/11 and the deep state as a pressing need, then why, so far, have you not mentioned any other accounts of the deep state?  Why almost no time and energy looking into other elements of it, such as white nativism, American corporations, the military-industrial-intelligence complex, American imperialism?  Why are you so fixated on the Jews?

    My speculation is that some part of your psyche is attracted to narratives with clear good guys and clear bad guys, and that this desire to simplify is shared by some others sympathetic to your work.  However, that may be wrong; I don't know.  That would certainly fit with Dan Ariely's analysis, where people are more motivated and energized by threats that have a face than by threats that do not.

    What is clear is that some people here continue to to be lured into assigning blame for this or that.  But a better way forward is to acknowledge that our most pressing predicaments are not caused by any one person, ethnic group, political party, or cabal.  

    Even if everything you claimed were true – and it's not – it wouldn't account for our civilization's dependence on depleting fossil fuels or the fact that we face climate change and other environmental limits to growth.

    These big-picture problems are far more threatening than anything you're talking about, and yet, because they are the consequences of a unsustainable civilization, i.e. faceless threats, they don't appeal to most people's emotions.  This is why people here are essentially distracted when talking about Clinton, Trump and Obama, or about Putin, Janukovitch, Xi, and Netanyahu.  

    This desire to assign blame and designate evil – whether it's the Jews as a whole or the just the bankers – are distractions from the fact that this civilization – and all of the political regimes within it – is unsustainable and prone to contraction or collapse.   The way forward is simple, and involves building local communities and resilient homesteads, neighborhoods and local economies.  

    This is something we all agree on, and there is a lot of work to be done on that front.  But even here, people sometimes prefer the circus to plowing their own fields.

    Hugh

    [/quote]

    I'm not speaking for Sand Puppy but I am almost in disbelief at what I am reading. You seem to be suggesting that we should be giving up and burying our heads in our gardens because, shucks, there's just nothing we can do aboot it! And that the machinations of the Deep State are just some kind of interesting diversion that don't really have much relevance to our lives and that we are only pursuing it because we alas feel a "pressing need" to do so to satisfy some blame for 9/11. Well, uh, yeah… Do you not understand where Deep State is taking us? Am I misinterpreting your writings if I summarize you as suggesting that we should, "Don't Worry, Be Happy and Focus on Our Gardens"?

    Firstly, I don't understand why we cannot pursue both the 3 E's as well as vigilantly investigating the Deep State. Are they mutually exclusive?

    Secondly, have you no knowledge from history of what happens to societies when aggressive dictatorships (which I would classify the US state as) gain full control? The 3 P's will likely be your last concern in that scenario and based on the speed with which it is moving I think we will each be encountering limits from the Deep State far sooner than from the 3 E's.

    Thirdly, I am a little aghast at how you could be suggesting that Americans should be regarding the Deep State and 9/11 as little more than an interesting diversion that we should only pursue if we feel the "pressing need" to create narratives of good guys vs. bad guys. DUDE! 9/11 was a criminal act perpetrated by "bad guys". If they weren't Muslims, which the evidence clearly reveals, then who were they??? Were they "good guys" who murdered 3000 Americans? Were they kind-of bad guys, but not truly evil, just on the slightly bad side of average, but generally overall good people who just didn't get the proper nurturing from their mommies?? DUDE! Your country was aggressively attacked! By BAD GUYS!!!!! Good guys don't blow up buildings and murder thousands of people. You think this isn't going to happen again???? You think you can just go hide in your garden? 9/11 was probably the most important event in US history since its birth. Your constitutional rights were snuffed out shortly after when the Homeland Security Act was swiftly brought in.

    [quote=HughK]

    Also, while it it true that 9/11 was a harm against American, and Chechnya was not, if we at PP care about human rights in general, then it's pretty surprising that many of the same people who are currently focused on the Jews and/or Israel have been so quick to overlook Putin's war crimes and be supportive of the Russian state's position.

    [/quote]

    If you are so worried about searching out all human rights abuses from the far corners of the world and treating them with an even hand, then what are you doing to clear the name of Muslims being falsely accused for 9/11 and other hoaxes, since that seems to me to be about the most widespread racist bigotry I see in N America and not only is it tolerated within reason, it is actually promoted by the media to discuss Islam as a source of domestic terrorism when the evidence clearly shows that Muslims are not responsible. I guess at this point, you'll revert to the default argument that gardening is a more productive endeavour…

    [quote=HughK]

    Finally, Israel does not control the US media.  There are certainly a disproportionate number of Jews in the American news media, but when you say "vast majority" what do you mean? 55%?  80%  95%  I have yet to see data on this.

    [/quote]

    I would disagree. I spent a small amount of time looking into this and of all the main US media outlets I searched, they all had Jewish CEO's, all except for Fox News which has Rupert Murdock. If anyone can make a list that would be great, but I would estimate that 80% of US media is headed by Jews. Not that there's anything wrong with Jews, but when Jews represent 3% of the population but own the vast majority of the media… and the media blatantly lies to us that Muslims did 9/11 and other "terrorist attacks"… but the real evidence behind 9/11 involves Israel in a meaningful way… and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world… and the US response to 9/11 was to attack Middle Eastern Muslim states… those same Muslim states Israel also has deep frictions with… well you don't need to be Inspector Clouseau to connect the dots to realize that there is something there.

    Is that bigoted? No, it is observing facts. Am I anti-Semitic? Far from it; I actually hope that this Deep State can be stopped before it destroys the world, for the sake of the 99.99% of the Jews out there who have nothing to do with it, since Jews are a varied group just like any other religion.

    Why the focus on Jews? Because clearly Israel is an outside influence that has significant control over the US. You lament how this energy should also be spent exposing domestic mega-corporations and the military industrial complex. But I believe it already has. We have already exposed how corrupt American corporations are and I don't think many people out there would deny this. How many times do we need to learn about Monsanto or Haliburton or Walmart? There's really nothing new there, no major cognitive dissonance denial in the minds of the public

    You can keep gardening; that's your choice. And I can observe the Israeli influence in the Deep State and pursue investigation of that. Neither of those choices makes either of us bigoted as your veiled insult suggested.

    You talk of the "Big Picture"; well the Deep State is an integral part of that Big Picture because it is the Deep State that steals from every middle class person and creates artificial banker-contrived scarcity, thus fueling an unending requirement for perpetual exponential economic growth to keep the middle class fed. It is the debt-based ponzi scheme financial system that we are all enslaved to which is destroying the world (one that was set up in 1913 when the Federal Reserve and the Rothschilds gained power), and until it is dismantled there is no hope for the 3 E's in the long run. This requires dismantling of the Deep State. Either the Deep State is dismantled while we still have the 3 E's left to continue with afterwards, or we ignore it and the Deep State pushes us all to collapse.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jul 06, 2016 - 5:10am

    Reply to #36

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    Thanks, Sand Puppy

    [quote=sand_puppy]

    One of the great challenges in debating a contentious topic with people of very different viewpoints is to not move away from the main issues. 

    Lets return to the central issues.   For me, these are:

    1.  Is it true that the Neocon faction that faked the WMD and “close ties to Al Qaeda” lies and engineered and sold the Iraq invasion were Zionists working for the militant vision of “what is good for Israel?”

    2.  That the Iraq invasion fits with the long-standing military goals of Israel such as articulated in the Oded Yinon plan.

    3.  That the “War on Terror” motif seems to have been launched from Tel-Aviv by the Netanyahu Institute.

    4.  That 9/11, with its novel building collapse patterns and unusual airplane crashes, came along just in time to enable the Neocon dominated white house and pentagon to sell of the GWOT story to America and the world.  This resulted in widespread destruction of MENA countries in patterns that match the Zionist/Israeli goals laid out in the decades before.

    5.  That most of the American people do NOT KNOW that the Neocons are Zionist-loyal even when they hold high level American government positions, and that the ME wars that they launch match the long-term Zionist military objectives.  This information has not made it into widespread public awareness.  Why?

    6.  That most of the American people do NOT KNOW that kerosene fires do not melt steel and cause buildings to fly apart in their entirety from top to bottom.  Americans believe that only crazy people doubt this story, despite 2,500 + Architects and Engineers and 400+ Professors who have said that this could not possibly happen.  How is the information flow to the public controlled?  How is such an inaccurate opinion perpetuated?

    7.    What is the thought process, the morality and the structure of the thinking of those would do this?  Particularly poignant to me is one example:  Michael Chertoff, son of a rabbi and a Mossad agent, and brilliant legal scholar, who was pivotal in overseeing the implementation of the police state in America.  What is his moral framework?  Is his primary loyalty “to God” and “to Israel?”   How does the American police state fit with the Zionist vision?

    Each person is invited to offer alternative explanations of how this works.

    So far, I am hearing mostly destructive comments – that is finding fault with the views I have posted.  What I am requesting now, are positive alternative explanations of these 7 issues.

    [/quote]

    Sandpuppy,

    I really appreciate this post.  While I don't think developing resilient responses to limits to growth is aided very much by trying understand the particulars of the American Deep State – and indeed, our discussion of these topics on a public forum may endanger us in the medium to longer run – you are right that the primary issues here are the Deep State, 9/11 and the wars in the Middle East.

    For me, it would have been easier to focus on these main issue if you had not made as many untenable – or at least very hard to prove – claims about the nature of the Jewish people/culture, but in any case, here is my first reply regarding these main issues.  Also, it is the middle of a busy work week for me, but I will answer as I have time for now, and try to give more explanation later.  My reliance on a big quote, instead of my own explanation, is partly due to my time constraints.

    First, here are two questions, I think, that might underlie differences of how we might see the Deep State:

    1.  Was the Deep State designed by a specific group of people or has its development been mostly an unconscious process, sort of a drift of institutions?

    2.  To the extent that specific people or groups developed certain aspects of consciously, were these people/groups unified by a particular ethnicity or religion?

    In my view, the answer to number one is that many aspects of the Deep State evolved unconsciously, but that there are certain people, events, and pieces of legislation that can be identified as key to its development.  

    Here is Mike Lofgren on the unconscious nature of this process, from chapter 2 of his book The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government.

    A warning, for those sensitive to being labeled as conspiracy theorists: Lofgren states that he is not convinced by conspiracy explanations.  While I disagree with some aspects of his quote – whatever conspiracy executed 9/11 has been successfully hidden in plain sight from the broad mass of people – his main point regarding unconscious evolution is still compelling, and has been, for the most part, missing from our discussions of the Deep State at PP thus far.

    An Evolution, Not a Conspiracy

    Yes, there is another government concealed beneath the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, tethered to but only intermittently controlled by the visible state whose leaders we nominally choose. Those who seek a grand conspiracy theory to explain the phenomenon will be disappointed. My analysis of the Deep State is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal. Logic, facts, and experience do not sustain belief in overarching conspiracies and expertly organized cover-ups that keep those conspiracies successfully hidden for decades.

    Belief in conspiracy as a systematic explanation for the functioning of a complex society is like belief in intelligent design, a pseudoscience which imagines that wisdom teeth, tonsils, and appendixes came about as the intentional result of a grand designer's infallible master plan. Mountains of empirical evidence teach us that those features arose by tiny degrees over eons as random adaptations to chance and necessity – and they are not always optimal designs: our eyes possess blind spots because they are wired backward. In the same way, mechanisms of social control evolved through historical circumstances, chance, and the peculiarities of human psychology. The Deep State, like a set of infected tonsils, is hardly an optimal design, but it became ascendant over our traditional representative democracy as a result of the gradual accumulation of historical circumstances.

    [Lofgren continues by saying that both parties look similar when in office partly because of the institutional inertia and entrenched bureaucracies of the Deep State.]

    This slow evolution into the Deep State is probably along the lines of what would have been expected by any observer of governmental change: the framers of the American constitution designed a constitutional republic – a government of, by, and for the people – but over time some aspects of our government have become much less democratic and accountable, even as the franchise as well as the concept of rights have both expanded.

    On the other hand, there clearly are some specific people and laws that had a role in creating the Deep State.  Peter Dale Scott is the best source that I know of on this side.  He sees the Doomsday Project, also referred to as continuity of government (COG)  – originally a plan for governance in the event of a nuclear attack in which the president was killed and/or Congress was debilitated – as key in the development of the deep state.  Here is a link to an essay that Scott wrote on this.  I have not yet had time to read that essay, as my understanding of this comes from Scott's book The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy, but I'm guessing his argument & evidence are similar in both.

    OK, that's all I have time for now, SandPuppy.  I will try to write more this weekend.

    Cheers,

    Hugh

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jul 06, 2016 - 6:04am

    Reply to #36

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    if we stick with neocons...

    SP-

    If we stick with the subject of neocon attempts to (mis-guidedly) support the state of Israel, there is a lot of room for agreement.  The issue of morality – thats when things get a little odd.

    So if we look through the five acknowledged false flag attacks, many of which were engineered by the CIA, the moral framework of those were quite clearly: "we do what we must to manufacture consent in order to achieve our policy objectives."  Ends justify the means.  Acceptable losses.  Casualties of war.  Triage.  Its all about inflicting a smaller loss now to avoid a (projected) greater loss later.

    http://theantimedia.org/5-confirmed-false-flag-operations/

    Same thing applies to all of the events you talk about.  If you want to ask about morality – it uses the universal morality of the military/intelligence operation in order to manufacture consent to achieve an objective.  Soviets did this, Germans/Nazis did this, US did this, UK did this, and it turns out, Israel does this too.

    Let me try with Chertoff.  "If, through constructing this security state, we avoid the detonation of a single nuclear device on American soil, it will all have been worth it."

    There.  Justified.  No religion involved.  Who cares if he's a rabbi's son?  Let's disagree with his policy instead of focusing on who his daddy was.

    The whole "Jew" focus of yours is a total red herring, as is "ruling the world from Jerusalem" meme.  It unnecessarily distracts from the essential point: do we want to continue down the path of executing covert operations (some of which dramatically change life in the US, and kill US citizens and military personnel) in support of a wrong-headed plan to help the Israeli state?

    That question alone should be our focus, for a variety of reasons.

    I sure don't want to be destroying countries in a misguided attempt to make the world safe for Israel – especially when I think it actually makes the world a whole lot more dangerous overall, and more dangerous for Israel too.  Its just bad policy for everyone.

    If we stick with that line, I promise, I won't be destructive.

    However, if we hare off into a navel-gazing analysis of Judaism (with NONE of us being Jewish) in an attempt to "figure out why these people are so evil" – that's when I'm going to stand up and call bullshit, because that's all that approach is: its bullshit.  Or to put it more politely, it will not lead anywhere productive.

    Why do I say this?  Let's go through the list of false flags:

    • Tonkin Gulf.  US Anti-communist "domino theory.".
    • COINTELPRO.  US suppression of dissent within the US.
    • Operation Ajax.  US/UK Anglo-Persian oil.
    • Operation Gladio.  US/UK Anti-communist "discredit the Reds."
    • Lavon Affair.  Israel discrediting Egypt via destroying US/UK assets.

    Only one of these items has to do with the state of Israel, and they all share a common morality: do what you need to do to manufacture consent and/or make others look bad in order to achieve your larger objective.

    Presumably the US/UK operatives were Christian.  Should we start exploring the Bible and Christianity in order to answer the burning question "why, oh why do these Christian people act like this?"  OMG bullshit, again.  They're covert operatives, and the ends justify the means.  That's just how they work.  Covert agents all operate in RED/BLUE, regardless of religion.  That's their world.

    Same answer w.r.t. all the pro-Israeli activity.  Its all in service to support the survival of the Israeli state in a neorealist worldview where "you gotta help yourself" since there is no law and order in the international arena.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neorealism_(international_relations)

    There is a large space where we agree.  If you can stifle your "fascination" with trying to find the evil allegedly inherent in Judaism, we can discuss forever whether or not this should be US policy, whether or not the policy is even a good one, whether it will achieve its objectives, what the policy happens to be, who are the players, what's coming next, and how we can best inform others as to what's going on – again, there is lots of space where we can agree.

    Just from a "sales" technique – my (unsolicited) advice to you is, the LESS time you spend trying to pin the blame on a particular religious belief and some crazy-sounding "secret plan to rule the world from Jerusalem", the MORE people you will find willing to agree with you.  You'd probably get the Israeli left on your side too, FWIW.

    My two cents.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jul 06, 2016 - 1:44pm

    #37

    jtwalsh

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 261

    Thanks Davefairtex

    Dave:  Thanks for bringing your analytical mind to the disturbing tack taken on this thread.

    JT

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jul 07, 2016 - 8:40pm

    #38

    Ivo

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 26 2009

    Posts: 20

    Psychologists about 9/11

    Sand Puppy: here's a link to a video of psychologists, who more or less answer your final question at point 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxiQmtVGgcQ

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jul 07, 2016 - 11:55pm

    #39

    debu

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Aug 16 2009

    Posts: 36

    The Gatekeeper Problem

    SP has received a lot of flak for daring to ask who are the neocons? while delving into their underlying motives, loyalties, cultural affinities, religious beliefs, pyschologicial and emotional hobgoblins among other issues. Thorny issues all and one for which a thorough airing is long overdue.

    Today at Mondoweiss Philip Weiss has published an important piece entitled Jewish entitlement, and Jewish populism. In it, he states

    It has always been my contention that honesty about the Jewish role in the establishment is not going to spark another Holocaust: because history doesn’t repeat itself, because people already know about that presence, and because Americans have a right to discuss the sociological character of elites, especially if those elites are influencing Middle East policy, as Jeffrey Goldberg, Paul Singer  Jane Harman, Penny Pritzker, David Brooks and Richard Haass are. (Emphasis added and yes it is that Paul Singer. Such a lovely man…)

    Below the article atlantaiconoclast comments:

    Phillip, I greatly appreciate your comments in this article. It takes such courage for you and other Jews to speak out about this issue. I just hope other Jews like yourself realize that it is even harder for Gentiles to speak out about this issue. There is virtually no way for us to talk about this issue without being accused by someone of being “anti Semitic,” or spreading a “blood libel.” It gets old.

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 08, 2016 - 12:29am

    #40

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    Re: The Gatekeeper Problem

    Just select "Ignore User" for HughK and Michael_Rudmin and most of the gatekeeping disappears. Just sayin'.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 08, 2016 - 2:37am

    Reply to #40

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 844

    LOL! turn off dissent to solve gatekeeping

    I honestly had to look up what gatekeeping was. I assume that wikipedia’s definition is good enough.
    By all means, if your definition of gatekeeping is “one dissenting voice for each ten of groupthinkers”, by all means, turn it off.

    I suppose my humor in the “books never written”, and my commentary on concrete decay, my comments on gardening, my attempts to help us improve our forecasts, my commentary on PMs, are all valueless because I do not agree with the groupthink on 9-11 or the JewzInPowr.

    Ah, well. Throw a rock in a bunch of dogs and the one it hits will bark.

    You said my name, so I’ll say Woof.

    Let me get back to my gatekeeping now.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 08, 2016 - 6:08am

    Reply to #40

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    "An elephant is like a spear": non-dualistic views of knowledge

    [quote=Michael_Rudmin] By all means, if your definition of gatekeeping is "one dissenting voice for each ten of groupthinkers", by all means, turn it off. [/quote]

    Ironically, one of the factors driving T2H's use of the ignore button, as well as Debu's desire to simplify what has been a much more complex discussion, may be the monotheistic dualism acquired inadvertently by pretty much all of us Westerners (and Middle-Easterners) – and by much of the world now that our civilization has gone global.  This dualism seems to be one of the reasons that many people an inflated sense of their own ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.

    Debu, T2H, while you seemed to have stayed stuck at the same point this conversation was a few weeks or months ago – and even then it was more nuanced than you were either willing or able to notice – some of the recent posts in this thread indicate progress and development of our knowledge.  Indeed, your approaches and characteriizations seem to be designed to shut down thought and debate than any of mine.  After all, I've been quite specific about which statements seem bigoted.  You may disagree with specific points, but then address them instead of just saying, "gatekeeper!" and then closing the door to your mind.

    For example, Dave and I both articulated what we objected to as well as which parts of SP's posts are more compelling.  On the other side, MarkBC, to whom I have yet to respond, has elucidated a clear argument for why discussions of the Deep State does belong here. I don't agree with everything he says, but his post has some good points – some of which I need to consider more deeply – and does give us another perspective, hence developing the conversation.  

    SP asked for positive contributions in the form of other sources or alternative views of the Deep State, and I provided some.  Debu, T2H, is there no value in Lofgren or Scott's view of the Deep State?  Do you both agree with all of the statements made in this thread and others regarding Jews, to the point that you see any dissent with that as mindless gatekeeping? 

    What about groupthink here at PP?  Is there ever a danger that we become our own echo chamber, and that we – me included – sometimes exhibit our own sheeple-like characteristics?  I think we can all find some examples of this at the site pretty easily, both in the realm of economy (gold!) and in politics.

    The conversation is showing signs of moving forward.  However, those who press the ignore button or otherwise limit their sources of information, are probably going to be further removed from that elusive truth, stuck in an echo chamber of their own design.

    The Japanese woodblock print below contains a non-dualistic view of the relationship between human perspectives and objective reality.  For any not familiar with it, here's a link to a Western poet's rendition of this Eastern story.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 08, 2016 - 7:40am

    Reply to #40

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    troll gatekeeper

    Just select "Ignore User" for HughK and Michael_Rudmin and most of the gatekeeping disappears. Just sayin'.

    Troll!

    Just sayin'…

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 08, 2016 - 3:24pm

    Reply to #40
    Cornelius999

    Cornelius999

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 17 2008

    Posts: 362

    Angel Merkel is reported in

    Angel Merkel is reported in the FT today as seeing Russia as a threat. As Blair might, maybe we can blame her Intelligence people. It’s nice though that the same article quotes her foreign minister as being unimpressed.He described recent NATO exercises as ” sabre rattling and war-mongering.”PS Thanks Dave and HughK for all you efforts at keeping us here at PP aligned on a “middle way”.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 08, 2016 - 6:00pm

    Reply to #40

    debu

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Aug 16 2009

    Posts: 36

    Straw Man

    By all means investigate alternative views and develop the conversation.

    I welcome that as I was not suggesting monocausality for a moment. That would be absurd regarding any complex issue.

    The gatekeeper problem arises when one particular line of enquiry is taboo.

    My point was quite simple. Unmissable even, I had thought.

    Life is full of surprises, big and small. This one would be of the latter type..

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 08, 2016 - 8:26pm

    Reply to #40
    Yoxa

    Yoxa

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 20 2011

    Posts: 286

    Monomania

    >> Taboo

    The problem I'm seeing in all of this is not that "one particular line of enquiry is taboo", it's that other relevant lines of enquiry are being ignored. Monomania!

    Point to ponder: Freedom of speech means that you can say [whatever] but it also means that .others who think differently are equally free to say so.

    A person who truly believes in free speech will learn from thoughtful analysis and reasoned disagreement, not just resort to name-calling.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 08, 2016 - 10:08pm

    Reply to #39

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    thorny issues

    debu-

    SP has received a lot of flak for daring to ask who are the neocons? while delving into their underlying motives, loyalties, cultural affinities, religious beliefs, pyschologicial and emotional hobgoblins among other issues. Thorny issues all and one for which a thorough airing is long overdue.

    It is a thorny issue to be sure.

    There's two levels of this.  There actual policy, and then there's the touchier stuff that has to do with people making value judgments about someone else's culture and religion.

    Those too are valid things to discuss, but if you go there, you should probably come equipped with some evidence, not just personal opinion extracted from your favorite author's hiney.  So to speak.

    Here's an example of the kind of evidence I'm talking about in commentary on the impact of religion and culture on politics.

    Kevin Phillips in his book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Theocracy goes into great detail about the effects on policy of certain large religious sub-group within American culture who currently have immense influence over (what was formerly "his") Republican party.  Specifically, he suggests that people with End of Times beliefs have a different level of concern about earthly problems (climate change, peak resources, debt) because they are focused on the world coming to an end in the near future.  Why worry about peak oil when gotterdammerung is literally a few years down the road?  They are far more concerned with moral decay.  Makes sense – if the world ends, and a positive outcome for you depends on how moral you are, its probably a good idea to focus on being a better person.

    Ok, so what's all this evidence?

     He doesn't just drag out the good bits from Revelations – he points out that an End Times novel sold some 60 million copies in the US, he references national polls that assert that a large percentage of this group believe Jesus will arrive on earth in the near future (which will bring about the end of times), he lays out the policy changes this group demands, and how that affects the ability to get Republican candidates elected nationally.  (Given he used to be very plugged in to that particular party, he brings a strong level of credibility there as well).  Plus he includes a number of quotes from currently active ministers of this faith talking about this very subject.

    End Times is a central motivating myth.  It isn't hidden or secret.  Proof is easy to find, and he presents it.  And if asked, I suspect the evangelicals here at the site would be happy to lay it out for us.

    So.  We get that level of evidence about Judaism and its aspects, I'm perfectly happy to talk about it because we'll be talking about facts and evidence, not about one guy's opinion.  Assuming that ends up going somewhere useful, of course.

    In the meantime, why not focus on the stuff that really matters?  What these guys are doing, who they are, what they want to do next, who they are funded by, and so on.  The more people we have on board, the better – and the less we focus on the opinion-based evidence-free things that just tend to polarize, the more allies we will collect to achieve the objective.  Think: Big Tent.

    Otherwise…

    "If you want to join the PFJ, you'd have to REALLY hate the Romans!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 09, 2016 - 12:09am

    #41
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 864

    WHATS UP?

    Why can I not give Davefairtex more thumbs up for his above post?

    i know, it does not fit with the pre-tribulation, second coming, 1611king James, dispensational, millennial reign eschatological world view….

    seems a Judaic world view forgot the original mandate towards mankind was to steward the earth…it was never rescinded.

    i is one, but usually christianspiss me off.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 09, 2016 - 11:42am

    Reply to #41
    Cornelius999

    Cornelius999

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 17 2008

    Posts: 362

    2017 War with Russia

    "2017 War with Russia," is of course the correct title of a book by Sir Richard Shirreff, former Assisstant Commander NATO. Sir Richard has apparently taken to writing novels for the sake of you and me that happen to get reviewed on RTE News.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 09, 2016 - 11:28pm

    Reply to #39

    debu

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Aug 16 2009

    Posts: 36

    On "Coming Equipped with Evidence"

    …you should probably come equipped with evidence

    Nice one, Dave. Way to keep it classy!

    I don't really see a qualitative difference between the evidence SP has been offering and what you provide by way of example.

    In the meantime, why not focus on the stuff that really matters?  What these guys are doing, who they are, what they want to do next, who they are funded by, and so on.

    This is precisely the sort of stuff we have trying to be focus on between screams of "bigot", "monomaniac" and now from you, too "polarizing" meaning, presumably, "quiet, we mustn't frighten the children".

    On the whole I find the substance your reply of bewildering and the supercilious tone unbecoming.

    There is a place for a big tent approach but sometimes, especially when the stakes are high, it is necessary to ask awkward questions even we if inevitably screw up from time to time in doing so.

    The attempts to browbeat those of us on our side of the argument into silence on taboo topics are getting, as others have noted, old.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 10, 2016 - 4:14pm

    Reply to #39

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    two products

    debu-

    This is precisely the sort of stuff we have trying to be focus on between screams of "bigot", "monomaniac" and now from you, too "polarizing" meaning, presumably, "quiet, we mustn't frighten the children".

    Frightening the children?  I guess you really didn't get it.  Let me try a different approach.

    You guys have two products you are flogging.

    Product #1 is: "Neocons are causing big problems."

    Product #2 is: "Jews are Evil." *

    *(because of their religion – something about it makes them do evil things, and we really need to figure out exactly what it is!)

    From where I sit, I believe that Product #1 is a best-selling product.  People will love it.  I love it.  I want to hear more about it.  I'm a "motivated buyer."

    Product #2 is not going to sell.  Its a loser.  I do not like this product at all, I think it's a steaming pile of manure.  And, I suggest to you that most people are not going to buy this product – it will only appeal to a small, niche market.  This small subset will definitely adore it, but the vast majority of people will not.

    If in your sales campaign, you persist in linking these two products together – a prospective customer will not be allowed to buy product #1 unless they also buy product #2 –  then sales of product #1 will fall to the level of product #2.  By doing this, you are essentially shooting your own marketing campaign for product #1 in the foot.  This is too bad, because product #1 has real mass market appeal.

    A more clever marketing strategy might be to break up the sales campaigns of two products.  That way, each product can rise to its maximum on its own terms.

    Last point.  If I were a neocon, I'd want you to do exactly what you are doing –  because that will be the easiest for them to defend against.  There's no palatable way to sell "Jews are Evil" to the wider public.  Or to me.  You are playing right into their strength.

    Try hitting them where they are weak.  I'm telling you, it will work.  Try this tagline on for size: "Jews are fine, they're like everyone else – but those neocons are just fanatical nutjobs and have already caused the world a great deal of pain.  We should stamp them out."  At one stroke you strip away the neocon primary line of defense.  They don't have Jews to hide behind any longer.

    Alternatively, you can keep talking about "gatekeepers", "frightening children", "taboos", "hasbara swarms" and all the other lines you guys in the in-group love to use, but if you are focused on maximizing your impact rather than scratching some personal itch, you might consider what I have suggested.

    Consider this "feedback from a potential customer."

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 10, 2016 - 4:29pm

    Reply to #39

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    I have never seen anyone here say, "Jews are Evil"

    That is just meant to incite Dave. Really awful.  By even putting these words into print you are doing EXACTLY the kind of gate keeping task that is being talked about here.  Awful, Awful, Awful.  My best friends in life happen to be Jewish, and to even read such a thing makes me sick.  Don't even try to explain yourself, at least for my sake, because I won't read it.  I don't read anything you write anymore.          

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 10, 2016 - 4:51pm

    Reply to #39

    debu

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Aug 16 2009

    Posts: 36

    Misreading and Misleading

    If I understand it correctly, a fundamental premise of SP's argument is that  

    "Neocons are causing big problems."

    categorically does not mean

    "Jews are Evil."

    and he has taken great pains to indicate as much.

    The obtuseness shown by some about this very simple point is breathtaking.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 10, 2016 - 8:08pm

    Reply to #39

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    breathless

    debu-

    The obtuseness shown by some about this very simple point is breathtaking.

    There are two separate bits I'm referring to.  (And admittedly, I did simplify things down so nobody got bewildered they way they did last time.  I guess I swapped bewildered for breath-taken.  I'll give it one last go.)

    Here's Bit #1 – from SP:

    Isaiah 2:1-4 is taken as a biblically prophesy that in the last days the world would be united in a single world government in peace and prosperity and that this one world empire would be ruled from Jerusalem.  I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.

    Right.  So for so many Jewish people to buy in, they must all more or less agree that a one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the coolest thing ever.  However, I don't get the sense this is central to Jewish culture.  I just don't.   As a contrast, Evangelicals are pretty clear about their focus on End Times as one of their central motivating beliefs.  Its actually pretty hard to miss.

    See, for it to be central, it is something that this culture or group spends a whole lot of time talking about.  Its not hidden or secret.

    I did find evidence in support of the belief of "God giving this land to the Jews" in polls taken of US Jews (I think the number was at about 50%).  Likely that's the source for the support of Zionism in general – that plus the holocaust.  "Bible says we were given this land…plus Hitler tried to kill us all.  Maybe its time to take God up on it, what do you think?"  But there was zip about "ruling the world."

    This "ruling the world" meme does tie in quite nicely to the whole "Fear the Jews, they run everything" meme which is a pretty popular one in some circles.  No denying they have an outsized influence, but the "ruling the world" bit is just over the top – my opinion.

    It is widely considered a violation of social norms for an outsider to critically analyze another’s religion. 

    I also understand that ethnocentric identification runs very, very deep in the Jewish culture, and ANY criticism of ANY aspect of Judaism might be experienced as “a knife in the heart.”  It is also painful to me personally to be viewed as an enemy by my Jewish friends and to have my honest attempts to understand the Jewish culture immediately characterized as bigotry.  But, this is the very heart of that needs to be examined.

    Ok, so my conclusion from this is that it is required that we investigate Jewish culture to figure out just what bits of that culture are responsible for all the evil wrought by the neocons.  SP's attempts to understand the culture are a necessary first step in identifying the bits where the evil comes from.  (My guess is, his friends sense this motivation – and so are reluctant to play along.)

    Ultimately, the theory here is there are seeds of evil within the culture, and locating these evil seeds is absolutely critical.

    I boiled this down to the "Jews are Evil" myth which was simplistic.  Perhaps I should have said "SP believes that elements of the Jewish culture is at the root of neocon evil – and Jews identify with and support both this culture, and the neocons so therefore…Jews are either wittingly or unwittingly expressing this evil too."  Yes, that sounds more nuanced.

    So – quick summary:

    • Jews love the idea of them ruling the world from Jerusalem.  They all buy in to that (supplying appropriate bible evidence as required), and that's the central reason why the neocons have such large support in the US.
    • There is evil somewhere inside Judaism, it must be investigated; without such an investigation, there can be no "cure" to the problem of the neocons.

    [SP, if you want to rephrase any of these words I stuffed into your mouth…please feel free…I'm sure there's nuance I missed]

    Me, I say we just focus on exposing stamping out the neocons, and not try to sort out which specific bits of Judaism are allegedly responsible for the neocon evil.  I just don't think this "Judaism/Jewish culture is the root of the problem" approach will sell well at all.

    Plus I don't think we should give them a pass.  Personal responsibility and all that.

    I think you all will interpret this as me somehow being a gatekeeper, or a hasbara something-or-other, I just think I'm using common sense.  Properly phrased, I could sell all of this to the Israeli left.

    But if I go off into a deep dive of the culture and fish around and pull up the bits I claim are responsible for the whole mess – good luck with that approach.  It would be DOA.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 10, 2016 - 8:54pm

    #42
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 520

    PP dialectic - effort in futility?

    Man #1: " Why are you Jews always asking such difficult questions"?

    Jew: " Give me one good reason why we shouldn't?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 10, 2016 - 10:26pm

    Reply to #39

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    Inside Out

    [quote=Jim H]

    That is just meant to incite Dave. Really awful.  By even putting these words into print you are doing EXACTLY the kind of gate keeping task that is being talked about here.  Awful, Awful, Awful.  My best friends in life happen to be Jewish, and to even read such a thing makes me sick.  Don't even try to explain yourself, at least for my sake, because I won't read it.  I don't read anything you write anymore.          

    [/quote]

    Edit:  Has anyone else found the closing paragraph of MacDonald's book, cited by SP as a key text, to be noteworthy?

    History also suggests that anti-Jewish reactions develop as Jews increase their control over other peoples. As always, it will be fascinating to observe the dénouement.

    Do you guys understand what this suggests about MacDonald's view of the Holocaust?  When you gloss over stuff like the passage above, then you do indeed seem to fall into the trap of making statements that qualify as what I have already called theoretical anti-Semitism.  You think I'm a gatekeeper because I say that?  No, I just read SP's statements about Jewish culture and two of the texts that are key to his interpretation and characterizations and stated what is really quite obvious.

    When you're a learned guy with a wide vocabulary, as MacDonald is, and, out of all the adjectives at your disposal, you choose to describe the Holocaust, the pogroms of Eastern Europe, and the anti-Jewish aspects of the Spanish Inquisition as "fascinating," and you support a presidential candidate who is an open white supremacist, and found a journal that is also openly white supremacist, then it's reasonable to ask SP why he has not bothered – even once – to separate the parts of MacDonald's and Guyenot's work that are clearly bigoted from the parts that he finds useful.

    Yet so far Debu, Jim, SP, Bankers Slave or T2H have not seen fit to do that, although I actually thought that SP's last post was bringing things forward.  Then we had a bunch of posts about gatekeeping.  

    Bringing up specific examples of bigotry in the work of MacDonald and Guyenot is not gatekeeping.  It's engaging in the conversation in a specific way, supported with passages from books that SP has cited.

    Once SP asserted that it was necessary to look into the nature of Jewish culture, he went beyond 9/11, the Neocons, and Deep State.  So far, none of his boosters have bothered to make these distinctions.  This is one example – but not the only one – of how Jim's and Debu's claims that we are mindless (or Machiavellian) gatekeepers are undermined by the facts.  

    And the fact is, that at least two of SP's key sources, as well as some of SP's assertions, are bigoted by most definitions of that word.  

    When Debu or Jim or T2H dig into Guyenot and MacDonald and start separating the wheat from the bile, then we'll be making progress as a community of inquiry.  Right now, the conversation seems to be in a holding pattern.  Let's move forward.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 10, 2016 - 10:50pm

    #43

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    try asking those jewish friends...

    JimH-

    You've got lots of Jewish friends, that's fantastic.  So how about this: give them a copy of MacDonald's book, tell them it is your go-to source on neocon influence in the US, and see how they react when they read it.  I'm sure they'll be willing to pull out the good bits – or maybe you'll end up losing your friends and then you can label the ones that react negatively "gatekeepers" or "the hasbara swarm."

    I have Jewish friends too.  ("Some of my best friends…")  I imagine how they'd react to an attempt by me to dissect their culture and religion to look for the bad bits that have somehow resulted in the neocon evil.  I already know my friends would find this a disagreeable experience – and they'd most likely reassess whether or not they wanted to remain friends with me.  Since I wouldn't do this to their face, I certainly won't do it "behind their backs" here either.

    I have said literally dozens of times, go after those neocons by all means, but don't go after the culture or the religion.

    If you persist in thinking going after Jewish culture is a fantastic idea, I dare you, go try it out yourself on just one of your Jewish friends.  You're ever so brave here, calling me "awful."  I'd like to see how you act when you talk to your many Jewish friends about this subject, armed with your go-to books.

    I know.  I'm being a gatekeeper by even suggesting such a thing.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 10, 2016 - 11:58pm

    #44

    jtwalsh

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 261

    Back to the future

    Going back to the initial ideas on this thread and the Neo-con thread:

                 I find the theme of “oh my God, there was a secret, foreign controlled, religiously motivated, group manipulating the government” to be somewhat disingenuous. The Neo-cons have not acted in secret, nor are they all Jewish.  Since the founding of the Project for a New American Century and their Statement of Principals in 1997 the Neo-con view point and political aims have been quite overt.  They believe in a strong defense, to the point of offensive actions, by the United States. They see the interests of the United States and Israel as being intertwined with mutual support being necessary for the survival of both countries.  They have been pushing this agenda for two decades and have convinced Democratic and Republican members of Congress and Presidents to follow their plan. Bush II, Obama, Clinton and Kerry all have adopted large portions of the Neo-con platform.

    Take the Neo-cons at their spoken word and their actions.  They want to project American power anywhere and everywhere possible.  They believe that the world needs a Pax Americana.  This plan and the political actions taken to bring about world-wide American hegemony are enough to show us that these are dangerous people who would bring us to ruin. We should be rejecting, for its own lack of merit, the idea of a world policed and controlled by a United States, superpower. Regardless of who engineered and carried out 9/11, we have enough examples of Neo-con sponsored actions run amok to keep the historians busy for the next two or three generations without probing their spirituality, or lack thereof.

    As a result of 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and the war on terror, the amounts of money (mostly our taxpayer money) changing hands has been incredible and continues to be so. There are many who profited and continue to profit from this cash flow. If we decide to “blame” the history of the past twenty years on only the Neo-con group we will be doing ourselves and the world a great disservice. Beyond the Neo-cons there are plenty of other parties benefiting from the perpetual warfare status quo.  There is much to review concerning the connections of the Bush clan to oil interests and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  Cheney, Rumsfeld, and numerous other power players are well connected with Halliburton and the other military industries.  Focusing solely on the Neo-cons allows these others to slip away without being called to account for their actions.

    We are also neglecting the other large group of responsible parties. We Americans will in effect be exonerating ourselves from responsibility for the actions of our politicians, government and military.  Engrossed in our private lives, in our quest for mac-mansions, suvs, vacations and fat 401Ks, we ignored what our political class was doing.  So long as the good times rolled on we did not care that our government was drone bombing wedding parties, engineering the destruction of civil society in Iraq, Libya and Syria, helping overthrow an elected government in the Ukraine, arming those who have now become ISIS and provoking the Russians.  We have been more intent on following American Idol and football than in paying attention to the growing animosity, promoted very often by our side, with much of the world, and particularly with the Russians. By focusing on the Neo-cons as some type of alien group, secretly attempting to seize or manipulate power, we are saying that there is no blood on our hands, that we were duped.  Like three year olds caught in the act we search for someone to point to and say “It was them, not me.” 

    Please don’t tell me there was nothing we could do. That the “force” was carrying us forward and no objection from the public could have stopped it.  Black Lives Matters has grown in a couple of years from several people to an organization that appears to be able to get out hundreds to thousands of people in almost any place in the country.  They are reaching the point of being able to disrupt normal traffic and life in nearly any city they choose. You can believe or not believe in their objectives but you have to admit they know how to organize and to bring an issue to the media forefront. The sudden popularity of Trump and Sanders, much to the horror of the established politicos, are other examples of how the people can capture the news and the attention of the public, if they are willing to work to do so. While there were some who protested the wars, the public in general never seemed interested in the cause.

    I hate to be the one to bring the wake-up call.  It was us.  The world knows it was us.  Payback will not be pretty.   

    JT

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 11, 2016 - 12:38am

    Reply to #39

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    Guess who introduced & edited MacDonald's book?

    Guess who introduced & edited MacDonald's book, Understanding Jewish Influence, recommended by Sandpuppy?

    Samuel T. Francis  

    Here's an example of a Francis position.  Note that he described himself as a paleoconservative:

    Hence, common paleoconservative goals should include (1) a long-term moratorium on all immigration, (2) the withdrawal of the federal government from involvement in all racial issues, and (3) the repeal of all federal laws and court decisions (including the civil-rights laws of the 1960’s and the rulings of the Warren Court) that authorize such involvement.   Source

    Translation:  The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1964 and Brown v. Board of Education (a Warren Court decision) should all be repealed/overruled.  

    No, I'm not going to trust MacDonald's characterizations about the nature of the Jewish people or culture based on his own background and the background of his intellectual associates.  Clearly the underlying theory they share is white/Christian supremacy.

    This is the team that the "JewsinPower" party, as Michael Rudmin has labeled you after being a called a gatekeeper, is inadvertently batting for.  I realize that's because you don't seem to have read or researched carefully in this case, but all the same, these are the ideas you're working to share.

    You don't want to be the "JewsinPower" faction any more?  No problem, then separate the wheat from the bigotry once and for all.  It's high time you did so, and your analysis so far is really quite hobbled – debilitated really, when you insist that Jewish culture be on the table for discussion yet you haven't bothered to address that MacDonald (and Guyenot) are clearly writing from a Eurocentric bigoted perspective.  

    This is not coming from some left-wing university student diatribe.  Anybody who thinks that we have to worry about whether or not the Jews killed Jesus or whether or not Machiavelli was, deep down, a Jew (Guyenot) or who helped to found a white supremacist party and who labels Jews as psychologically aggressive (MacDonald) is a bigot.  Plain and simple.  I'm not saying you guys are bigots.  I am saying that you haven't done your homework and therefore have inadvertently adopted some bigoted claims about Jews when you give some of SP's posts that repeat MacDonald's or Guyenot's claims about Jews the thumbs up; i.e. theoretical anti-semitism.

    Note:  MarkBC I don't include your post in this response.  Your challenge to me is well-founded in some ways. It's hard to address it, though, when there is this other cross-current of noise and misunderstanding running through the thread.

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 11, 2016 - 1:19am

    Reply to #39

    debu

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Aug 16 2009

    Posts: 36

    Soapboxes can be slippery

    I have not read Kevin MacDonald so will make no attempt to proclaim on his work one way or the other.  This exchange from 2007, however, at Jewcy.com published by Tablet ("an American Jewish general interest online magazine": Wiki) suggests a more nuanced take on MacDonald's writing may be more appropriate than the one that has HughK up on his soapbox in such a high dudgeon. 

    Hoping this will help us move forward from self-righteous virtue signalling to an actual community of enquiry…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 11, 2016 - 11:51pm

    Reply to #39

    debu

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Aug 16 2009

    Posts: 36

    Making Stuff Up?

    For the record, it was the odious neo-con Michal Ledeen who orginally speculated about Machiavelli being a secret Jew which Guyenot references in this article from Veterans Today.

    You bang on about your extensive readings of Guyenot and MacDonald and how the rest of us haven't done our homework, etc but in about 10 minutes of googling I have found 1) a take on MacDonald's work on Jewcy.com that is considerably more measured and nuanced than yours; and 2) a misattribution to Guyenot of a theory put about by someone I hope that even you agree is a nasty piece of work, i.e. Ledeen.

    This, it seems, somewhat undermines your credibility in this discussion as it does the basis of your rush to judgement of all and sundry who disagree with you.

    In fact, it may behoove you to dial back on the hectoring and issue an apology to SP for what has amounted to an ongoing character assassination.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 12, 2016 - 5:34am

    #45

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1873

    Soccer or Football

    I have been asking around with my Jewish friends and find that the mythology of the "end times" doesn't seem too prominent in their thinking.  Also, a watcher of the Israeli political scene wasn't too impressed by this thinking either.

    So, I would like to formally announce that I have changed my mind and see that "ruling the world from Jerusalem" just doesn't seem to be a big deal.

    I have also become very aware just how much distress this discussion thread is causing people.  And for many different reasons.

    Soccer or Football

    In soccer, you are only permitted to attack the ball but may not kick the player controlling the ball.  In football, the opposite is the case.  To stop the advance of the ball you destroy the person carrying it.  You intend to injure him.  Hurt him so badly he won't get up.  Some discussion boards like ZH are "fight clubs" and go by football rules.  I don't enjoy that.  The ideas becomes secondary to having one's viewpoint "win" dominance.  Ideas that are nuanced or complex simply cannot be explored in a fight club.

    Non-Violent Communication (NVC) is a skill set that is internationally acclaimed and taught for use in business, political and international negotiation.  It has some rules.  The more touchy the subject, the more essential the rules be followed rigorously.

    A few general general communication principles that seem important to me:

    1.  It is fine to disagree.  Each person is always welcomed to inhabit their own unique viewpoint.

    2.  When someone talks, listen deeply.

    3.  Ask for clarification "It sound like you believe the world is flat.  Am I understanding you correctly?"

    —————–

    I'm going to take a break from this forum as I don't seem much understanding coming from it. 

    If anyone would like to continue in a respectful exploration of some of these topics, maybe we can set up a group PM thread.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 12, 2016 - 10:15am

    Reply to #45

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    thanks SP

    So, I would like to formally announce that I have changed my mind and see that "ruling the world from Jerusalem" just doesn't seem to be a big deal.

    Thanks for clearing this up.  It was one of my biggest problems with your viewpoint.  Seriously, thanks.

    Here's one last thought for you.  Have you considered that the act of trying to deconstruct someone else's religion and culture looking to find the source of the evil will always be perceived by them as an attack, especially if you are an outsider?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 12, 2016 - 6:15pm

    Reply to #45

    debu

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Aug 16 2009

    Posts: 36

    Belabouring the obvious?

    As a matter of tactics, I happened to agree with you that focussing on the neo-cons (and possibly Zionism as well) SP could have made a more accessible case.

    But the fact that certain lines of enquiry are awkward or threatening for some doesn't necessarily invalidate them as legitimate lines of enquiry.

    My sense was that SP was less concerned with point-scoring than actually reaching some deeper understanding of the issues. There may have been one or two missteps (eg. the "rule the world from Jerusalem" notion) but in my view SP did us a great service in connecting many dots.

    For his trouble he suffered relentless cyber-bullying from certain quarters so it is understandable that he chooses to disengage from the topic at this point.

    Thank you SP for having the courage to raise this difficult, important topic and soldiering on with such dignity through all the abuse you received . It has been a revealing exchange.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 12, 2016 - 10:00pm

    Reply to #45

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3125

    agree

    debu-

    I agree too, the whole neocon thing and the dot-connecting has been very interesting for me as well.  The whole situation was not something I was aware of, and I am glad you guys brought that to the surface here for us.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jul 13, 2016 - 10:41pm

    #46

    Bankers Slave

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2012

    Posts: 513

    Obama Nation

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 25, 2016 - 4:37am

    #47

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1873

    Germany Preparing for War Against Russia

     

    Paul Craig Roberts is writing on this same topic as Chris did last month–the provocation of Russia by NATO

     

    His source article is here:

    Germany Preparing for War Against Russia

    Eric Zuesse, June 6, 2016

    According to a report issued on June 6th in German Economic News (Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, or DWN), the German government is preparing to go to war against Russia, and has in draft-form a Bundeswehr report declaring Russia to be an enemy nation. DWN says: “The Russian secret services have apparently thoroughly studied the paper. In advance of the paper’s publication, a harsh note of protest has been sent to Berlin: The head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian State Duma, Alexei Puschkow, has posted the Twitter message: ‘The decision of the German government declaring Russia to be an enemy shows Merkel’s subservience to the Obama administration.’”

    Back on February 17th, DWN had reported that German Chancellor Merkel “will develop a new military doctrine” declaring, “The ‘annexation’ of Crimea by Russia is the basis for military action against Moscow.” Apparently, that prior report will soon be fulfilled.

    Not mentioned in the DWN articles — nor anywhere in Western ‘news’ media — is a crucial fact, that the head of America’s ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor acknowledged only when addressing a Russian-speaking audience: that (in English) the overthrow of Ukraine’s President in Russia’s neighboring nation of Ukraine during February 2014 was “the most blatant coup in history.”  Extensive video documentation exists demonstrating that it was a coup, and even demonstrating that the Obama Administration had selected Ukraine’s post-coup leader 22 days prior to his being formally appointed by the Ukrainian parliament. Furthermore, the only detailed scholarly study of the evidence that has been performed came to the same conclusion — that it was a U.S. coup. The last month before the coup was incredibly violent, with Obama’s hired fascists attacking the government’s security forces brutally: Here is some of the bloodshed from the prior month, on January 21st, then January 22nd, then January 25th. Moreover, immediately after the overthrow, when the EU sent its own investigator into Kiev to report back on how the overthrow had taken place, he too reported that it had been a coup. Subsequently revealed was that the Obama Administration had started preparing the coup inside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev by no later than 1 March 2013 — almost a year prior to the coup. Also, the even earlier preparation for the coup, extending through decades, on the part of CIA-affiliated ‘nonprofit’ or NGO organizations (funded by Western aristocrats and their corporations), laying the groundwork for this coup, has been brilliantly documented at some online sites. None of this information has been widely published — it’s virtually not at all published in the West.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Sep 19, 2016 - 2:04pm

    #48

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    Russia Trumps USA Energy War in Mideast

    Russia Trumps USA Energy War in Mideast (New Eastern Outlook)

    [quote]In a fundamental sense the entirety of the five-year-long war over Syria, as well as the entire Arab Spring from Libya to Egypt to Iraq has been about control of hydrocarbon resources—oil and natural gas– and of potential hydrocarbon pipelines to the promising markets of the European Union. Dick Cheney’s 2001 War on Terror was primarily about providing the excuse for a direct US military takeover of the vast oil fields of Iraq and other key Middle East countries. Washington’s War on Syria has been less a war for control of oil. Rather, it’s about who controls whose natural gas flows via which pipelines through which borders to the vast EU gas market. At this point it looks more and more as if Russia’s geopolitical and geo-economic strategy is trumping (no Donald pun intended) Washington’s very troubled game in the region.[/quote]

    [quote]With the advance of the Turkish Stream project, Turkey and Russia are now positioned to trump repeated efforts of Washington and their NATO allies to force Russia and Gazprom out of the EU and open the door for US control of the huge EU natural gas market.

    The first step in the US effort to break links between Russia and Western Europe was Washington’s February, 2014 coup d’ etat in Ukraine, referred to by Stratfor’s George Friedman as the “most blatant coup in US history.” In an interview with Moscow’s Kommersant paper that he perhaps today regrets, Friedman, then a Pentagon and CIA consultant, openly admitted that the geopolitical aim of the entire US-led Maidan Square Color Revolution was not at all to force “democracy” on Ukraine, but rather to block growing ties between Germany and Putin’s Russia.

    As Friedman noted, “the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.” And gas pipeline wars are at the center of that US effort to block Russia economic links in the EU.[/quote]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Sep 29, 2016 - 6:51pm

    #49

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2230

    Tick-Tock

    Turkey's National Security Council calls for extension to state of emergency (DW)

    [quote]Turkey's top national security body has called for an extension to the controversial state of emergency imposed after the July 15 coup. Some 32,000 suspects remain in custody in the unprecedented crackdown.

    "The emergency should be extended to ensure the protection of our democracy, rule of law, rights and freedoms of our citizens," the National Security Council (MGK) said in a statement after a meeting on Wednesday chaired by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan at his presidential palace in Ankara.

    The statement reportedly makes the announcement of the new state of emergency a formality. The MGK did not say whether the next period should also last three months.

    The ongoing three-month state of emergency declared on July 20 less than a week after the failed coup has provided the legal framework for the biggest crackdown in Turkey's modern history.

    Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag told NTV television on Wednesday that 70,000 people had been investigated after the attempted putsch on July 15, with 32,000 of them remanded in custody.

    Bozdag said that there could be new arrests but gave no no indication as to when trials might start.

    Turkish media reports say the authorities plan to build 174 new prisons over the next five years, which would increase the country's current prison capacity of less than 200,000 by another 100,000.

    The council also recommended that July 15 should in future years be marked as Turkey's annual "Day of Democracy and Freedoms" the statement said.[/quote]

    U.S. close to suspending Syria talks with Russia as Aleppo battle rages (Reuters)

    [quote]The United States is close to suspending talks with Russia on a ceasefire in Syria, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday, as the Kremlin vowed to press on with an assault on the city of Aleppo.

    Moscow and Damascus launched a campaign to recapture the rebel-held sector of Syria's biggest city this month, abandoning a ceasefire a week after it took effect to embark on what could be the biggest battle of a nearly six-year war.

    In the first significant government territorial advance of the Aleppo campaign so far, Syrian forces captured the Handarat camp north of Aleppo on Thursday.

    Rebel fighters have launched an advance of their own near the central city of Hama, where they said they made gains on Thursday.

    The United States and European Union accuse Russia of torpedoing diplomacy to pursue military victory in Aleppo, and say Moscow and Damascus are guilty of war crimes for targeting civilians, hospitals and aid workers to break the will of 250,000 people living under siege in the city.

    Syria's U.N. Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari rejected accusations that his government was killing civilians.

    But U.S. officials are searching for a tougher response to Russia's decision to ignore the peace process and seek military victory on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad.

    "We are on the verge of suspending the discussion because it is irrational in the context of the kind of bombing taking place to be sitting there trying to take things seriously," Kerry told an audience in Washington.

    "It is one of those moments where we are going to have to pursue other alternatives," he added.[/quote]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Apr 06, 2017 - 7:00pm

    #50

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1873

    US attacks Syrian airbase with missiles tonight

    Catherine Austin Fitts has been saying for some time that the neocons are taking down Trump’s lieutenants one by one and eviscerating his team.
    The Saker says the same and that the loss of Flynn was key.
    The globalist bankers of Goldman Sachs have taken much more ascendance.
    Wow things change quickly.
    So.  If you were Russia, what would you do now?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Apr 06, 2017 - 7:10pm

    Reply to #50

    Adam Taggart

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 25 2009

    Posts: 2548

    Stay Tuned

    sand_puppy wrote:

    Wow things change quickly.
    So.  If you were Russia, what would you do now?

    Wow, indeed.
    Stay tuned. Chris and I are working on a response that will be posted within the hour.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Apr 06, 2017 - 7:13pm

    #51

    Barnbuilder

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 07 2014

    Posts: 23

    Here we go again

    So, The deep state wins again. Hillary or Trump, we get war.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Apr 06, 2017 - 7:27pm

    Reply to #50
    reflector

    reflector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 20 2011

    Posts: 252

    RE: syria

    yes it is surprising and disappointing how quickly trump went from “useful idiot” of russia, to going to war with them.
    syria is all about the gas, but not the chemical gas weapons that the MSM wants you to believe the story is about.
    if usa can take syria, maybe the petrodollar lives a little longer.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Apr 06, 2017 - 8:18pm

    #52

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1445

    Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile defense silent?

    Did Russia shoot down any of our cruise missiles? If not, why not? And what does that mean?
    I had been hoping we’d take a couple of days to at least verify what happened and who did the chemical attack. So now we’re fighting on ISIS’s side?!
    Oh well, at least we now have a suitable distraction from Trump’s faltering domestic agenda.
    Rah, rah, rah! USA! USA! USA!

    Login or Register to post comments

Login or Register to post comments