hypocrisy of the 'highest' order ...

  .. what we see (endless bloody murder) ...

    .. what they push on TV (filthy peace-process lie)


It's not 'merely' mass-murder, it's not 'just' genocide - it's incontrovertible evidence of the deep, essential criminality of the race that call themselves 'Jews.' More on that statement in a moment.

My thanks to Kate Bates for the Steven Lendmen article. More on that in a moment also.

Disclaimer 1: One of the mind-games played by Jews is that if one refers to them as Jews they may instantly object (screeching 'racism!' or worse, 'anti-Semitism!'), and/or demand to be called Israelis or Zionists or some other whatever. It is this site's policy to avoid such filthy mind-games; here a spade may be called a bloody shovel, if that is closer to the truth.

Disclaimer 2: Before being dragged into the ghastly task of fighting through the fug of capital crimes that the US and Israeli regimes continually create, it never occurred to me to mention the H-word: hate. On some Lakoff-framing scale, the H-word must rank as one of the very worst, as it invokes one of the most negative aspects of humans. I found to my horror, that not only was the H-word deployed in what should be serious discussions of vital matters of fact, but it was veritably thrown willy-nilly around - mostly, almost exclusively - by Jews, their accessories and apologists (any exceptions being generally secondary, i.e. in response to being H-worded first). Forgetting the US for the moment, and paraphrasing Marilyn Shepherd, we do not hate the Jews, we simply and utterly deplore the ugly, murdering-theft-crimes of the rogue state of Israel, and we completely condemn any and all support for those crimes.

One specific thing stands out and that by a vast margin: justice-seekers are vitally interested in truth, criminals simply are not, in fact with criminals, the absolute opposite to truth often obtains. So it is no surprise, in retrospect, that the criminal Israeli regime, its supporters, accessories and apologists use emotional terms - anything to avoid the sad truth, anything to hook sympathy however confected to their vile and criminal cause.


They (a publicly-financed broadcaster) trotted it out again last night, something like "What are the implications of the Israeli elections for the Middle-East peace process?"

Q: Err - exactly what 'peace process' please?

A: The one that hasn't worked these past 60+ years?


We know - now, following the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq (1mio+ dead Iraqis; murder for oil) - that the commercial mainstream media (MSM) can be very truth-averse when it comes to certain topics, like the US M/I/C-plex depredations, say. See the myriad filthy lies pushed by certain 'journalists,' the names of Judith Miller (NYT) and Tony Parkinson (theAge) come quickly - infamously - to mind.

The commercial MSM deploy a flimsy two-way 'excuse:' a) that they are privately-owned and b) that they must pursue profit (in the name of shareholder-value, actually another weak cop-out); I write 'excuse' because in good faith, the mission of the news-organizations is to inform us, when they tell us lies they are betraying the trust that they implied we should have in the first place, and what one tacitly assumes when one pays for a service. Well of course, caveat emptor; but now not only do we pay for the news (voluntarily in cash, or involuntarily by being passive advertising targets), we also have to spend our time and talents separating the truth from the lying propaganda.

It is, however, an entirely different story vis-à-vis any publicly-financed broadcaster. Having grown up in Aus, having turned to the AusBC as my primary information source - and having innocently fallen for the poor little Israeli David vs. ugly Arab Goliath myth, I accuse the AusBC as having knowingly broadcast lies. Given that the lies support murder of Palestinians, and have done so for 60+ years, I accuse the AusBC of nothing short of treachery (betrayal of trust), as well as being accessory to murder. It's not an easy thing to write and that's for sure, but in here, we deal with provable facts. The truth is not ugly, but acts of treachery indubitably are. Very.

Just as the commercial MSM clings to a flimsy, feeble 'excuse,' so the AusBC: they, the AusBC, must have permission[1] from 'above,' i.e. from the politicians - bipartisan, not in the people's interest, and therefore diametrically undemocratic - and, even more deeply undemocratic one supposes, permission from the politicians' shadowy controllers. This permission-giving chain has incredibly vicious implications all of its own: IMHO, it is prima facie evidence of a conspiracy of our so-called 'leaders,' a criminal conspiracy directed against us, we the people and at the very heart of our democracy, both.


PS Just as "Some of one's best friends may be Yanks," so not every Jew must be suspected of being bad, but until enough Jews deploy an effective counter to the criminality, Zionist evil will taint them all. The 'more' on Jewish racism (I don't invent this stuff, I just distil it) can be seen in detail in the Lendmen article, the Jews are often their own worst enemy. This latter, their own worst enemy, would be a good joke if it wasn't so sad; they even have an horrendous slur for any internal dissenter: "Self-hating Jew!" Now an extract:

February 09, 2009
A Short History of the Israeli - Palestinian Conflict: Past Is Prologue
 - by Stephen Lendman

  «Understanding Zionism is fundamental:

-- its reliance on oppression, violence, and dispossession;

-- its belief in exclusivity, privilege, and Jewish exceptionalism;

-- racism at the core of its politics;

-- democracy only for Jews;

-- an ethnically pure state in which half its inhabitants aren't Jewish, are afforded few rights, and none on what matters most.»




[1] permission used instead of remit[2], for the illiterate until proven otherwise Mr. Butler. BTW, distractions about blaming others are purely that: distractions (troll warning!) As far as I can see, no-one is denying anything here, perhaps you could save us from your baseless fantasies.

[2] remit (see—n. 1) —v. (-tt-) 1 cancel or refrain from exacting or inflicting (a debt, punishment, etc.). 2 abate or slacken; cease partly or entirely. 3 send (money etc.) in payment. 4 a (foll. by to) refer (a matter for decision etc.) to some authority. b send back (a case) to a lower court. 5 postpone or defer. 6 pardon (sins etc.). —n. 1 terms of reference of a committee etc. 2 item remitted for consideration. [Latin remitto -miss-] [POD]


  1. Ian, if this is a project you have picked (exposing the WHY of the MSM lie), it is great! Continue on!

  2. G'day Naj,

    the main problem confronting the world is the threatening excess-CO2 caused climate catastrophe; if we don't avoid that, then no other battle matters.

    I see the lies forced upon us, both via and *by* the MSM, as a key part of the overall problem; while the lies continue we can't even address the real problems, we are constantly side-tracked ineffectively fighting phantoms. One really has to wonder, do these treacherous MSM people have some (magic?) way out - or are they simple idiots, bought off by a few $s, or some erring ideology?

    Yes, the WHY is important, but more challenging is the HOW; exactly who fabricates, who coordinates, all the lying propaganda?

    Here is an important (old!) clue: In Propaganda, his most important book, Bernays argued that the scientific manipulation of public opinion was necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in society - the theory of which has undoubtedly been adopted - but only after having its original purpose perverted, and how. Totally!

    One could postulate this (gotta be secret!) scientific manipulation - if it were to be done in the public's best interest - but when it is deployed *against* us, we the people - well, no longer 'mere' treachery, this time it's treason, most foul.

  3. G'day IDHolm and Naj, I'd like to highlight a particular line in the Wikipedia article on Edward Bernays:

    "Bernays' vision was of a utopian society in which the dangerous libidinal energies that lurked just below the surface of every individual could be harnessed and channeled by a corporate elite for economic benefit."

    He clearly shares that neocon Straussian notion of Noble Lie, and worse, he'd deploy it to feed the greed of the few who'd think it utopian to 'harness,' like beasts of burden, the people of this planet for the benefit of the elites (aka their oligarchies), indeed, as he specifies, a 'corporate elite' (aka their plutarchy).

  4. Not very subtle, is it.

    And they have the nerve to throw things like "Land of the free!" at us.

    See my comments above: "treachery, high treason."

  5. G'day IDHolm, in the post above you mentioned certain 'journalists' pushing lies and noted Tony Parkinson (TheAge) as an example.

    Parkinson is no longer regularly spreading his 'opinion' (lies) from pages of The Age. He serves Malcolm Turnbull these days. Last October, Turnbull signed up Parkinson, who had been with the IPA and advising Alexander Downer, as his own foreign affairs and security adviser.

  6. We'd predicted it: SMH's Jason Koutsoukis (in Jerusalem), today provided a platform for Dan Gillerman to once again push that "wiped off" propaganda.

  7. Take note that Gillerman says: "My advice to the rest of the world is to listen to him [Ahmadinejad] very carefully and take him at face value and take him seriously."

    My advice to the world is: (1) Gillerman and his ilk only want you to take 'seriously' whatever it is he and his ilk tell you Ahmadinejad said (and notice that they automatically dismiss everything he actually says that doesn't fit their framing); and, (2) what Ahmadinejad has or has not said, and does or does not say about the 'Zionist regime', really doesn't matter much anyway, as he doesn't call the shots when it comes to Iranian foreign policy (whereas Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei does).

  8. G'day Orana, the new US administration is on song about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.

    In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability.

    Obama's nominee to serve as CIA director, Leon E. Panetta, left little doubt about his view last week when he testified on Capitol Hill. "From all the information I've seen," Panetta said, "I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability."

    The language reflects the extent to which senior U.S. officials now discount a National Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007 that was instrumental in derailing U.S. and European efforts to pressure Iran to shut down its nuclear program.

    Never mind the NIE

    The new chief of US intelligence has confirmed the findings of a 2007 intelligence report that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

    Dennis Blair told the Senate Intelligence Committee that his organization has assessed that Tehran does not have nuclear weapons design and weaponization work.

    A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), issued in November 2007 by the sixteen US intelligence agencies, clarified that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

    The 2007 intelligence report was widely seen as a setback for Bush administration efforts to pressure Iran and halt its nuclear program.

    The UN nuclear watchdog, which has carried out the highest number of inspections in its history on Iranian nuclear sites, has also found nothing to indicate that the program has diverted toward weaponization.

    Blair also acknowledged that Tehran has made significant progress in its uranium enrichment program during the past two years.

    "Although we do not know whether Iran currently intends to develop nuclear weapons, we assess Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop them," said the retired admiral.

    Look out - it's an option, run for the hills.

    From Pepe Escobar, a two-parter worth reading. Part 1. Part 2.

  9. G'day orana gelar and Graeme Watson,

    note Koutsoukis' last para:

      «"We all paid a huge price for not taking seriously the ranting of another small, moustached leader who some people considered as crazy, and I don't think we have the luxury to show the same indifference and apathy as we did before."»
    [smh.com.au/Jason Koutsoukis in Jerusalem ]

    Nothing like trying to scare the sheople shitless, eh? Two reminders:

    1.   «Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda in Nazi Germany and played a large role in creating anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi material for the party. He was in charge of a propaganda machine which reached down to neighborhood level. In this way information and instructions could be sent out from party headquarters and adapted to local circumstances.»

    2.   «The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".»

    Nothing much has changed since WW2 - except the actors and the locus; evil remains rampant. Recall the very 1st act of the cold-war, the A-bombing double war crime? Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians murdered? Merely par for the US course; they just did it all over again; 1mio+ dead Iraqis.

    So we see the US and Israel mass-murdering for spoil, and the propagandising of us, we the people, is done not only by a corrupt and venal MSM, but also by the treacherous publicly-financed broadcasters, as I just wrote on my new 'how to fail at diplomacy ... '


    It is of course totally obvious, that for anyone prepared to mass-murder for spoil (US, Israel), swamping us with filthy, lying propaganda is not just par for the course but absolutely de rigueur.

    Those of us paying attention, like Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, assure us that Iran is *not* working on a bomb. That 'holocaust denial' is an Israeli weapon of mass-distraction. That the 'map-wiping' meme is a crooked propaganda distortion amounting to a massive lie. They keep it up, listen to almost any AusBC broadcast; distortions when not outright lies, 'Muslim extremists,' 'radical Hamas' etc. Never anything about the US and/or the Israeli militaries mass-murdering for spoil, though. (We just want to get the facts, Aunty AusBC?)

    There is one other point that must be made: even if Iran had an A-bomb, it could only ever be 'deployed' as a preventative, defensive measure, since any 1st use would bring immediate retaliation on a scale more than sufficient to destroy the entire country of Iran. Everyone and his dog knows - or should know - this. The same exact circumstance obtains vis-à-vis N.Korea. US/Israel is lying outright when they pretend otherwise, were Iran to have the bomb aggressive action against Iran would suddenly be off the table for ever.

    One simply cannot have a properly functioning democracy when we, the people are being so filthily lied to...

  10. Indeed, IDHolm.

    Thanks for pointing us to the 2 parts by Pepe, Graeme.

    There are very few doing the good and correct thing, conveying to the mainstream the clear difference between the regime pursuing what is (most likely) a hedging strategy (i.e. positioning to be able to gear up and produce a wmd quickly if and when it became absolutely necessary for a last resort defense of Iran) and the regime actually actively manufacturing wmd (unlikely, despite the claims constantly made by assorted neocons and Likidniks, the extremist Lieberman, Gillerman et al).

  11. Hi Ian
    "excess-CO2 caused climate catastrophe" Frankly, I think the earth does deserve a rest from our folly! So what, we all die? If I was a Braizillian tree I would say: "the sooner the better!"


    Just wondering if you have thought of investigating the Madoff-Mossad link. I am not very familiar with the dark cavities of the Zionist Machinery. And am also not familiar with the nature of anti-zionist movements out there. Would be interested in your take.

  12. My searching turns up extreme far-right organisations as the original/early sources of Madoff-Mossad link stories.

  13. The other primary source of Madoff-Mossad link stories seems to be someone using the name "Scorcha Faal" (maybe aka "David Booth"), who had published an article in Dec 2008 titled: Obama Forces Stage Massive Takedown Of Mossad Forces In US.

    In the article "Scorcha Faal" claims:

    "Russian Intelligence Analysts [sic] are stating today that US Military and Police Forces loyal to President-Elect Obama have staged the largest takedown in American history of a foreign Nations [sic] spy service operating within its borders [sic]. According to these reports, New York financier Bernard Madoff was the target of Obama Forces [sic] as he is believed to have masterminded the financing of Israel’s vast espionage operations in the United States since the 1960’s."

  14. long answer ...

      .. to a short question ...

        .. (shortest answer: no data)


    Naj asks: "What's your take ... [on] the Madoff-Mossad link?"

    The shortest answer has already been given above; I'd like to extend that but before I even start, this: English is a large and growing language, and many people using it come from widely different places and/or backgrounds, and have different levels of language skills and vocabularies. Sooo, I try to stick to 'standard English[1],' I would suggest replacing 'take' in the question with something more exact and applicable, like 'evaluation,' say. In short, I don't do 'takes.' Having said all that, a further qualification: nothing I say should necessarily be taken *personally* - unless it *obviously* is so meant. This is not being picky for picky's sake, just better communication.

    A slightly longer answer is that one can find almost anything on the net to 'prove' almost any point of view - that's exactly what the lazy (and/or ignorant) ones say to excuse their lack of substantiation. Of course, these 'anythings' used to support (used in contrast to 'prove') can be the absolute, unvarnished truth - or complete and utter, filthy lies, the latter most likely on rat-bag r-wing websites.

    So thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the stuff from orana gelar (nevertheless a friendly "g'day!") - stuff from a r-wing blog is v.suspect at best, and I'm presuming you know that, and that your response is so meant.


    Now, there're three problems I'd like to highlight, Madoff, Mossad and lies, which I'll address in reverse order.

    1. Lies: This time, only a looong answer. I heard a report on the (publicly financed) radio this morning about a community considering whether to mandate ethics lessons in the school system, and if so what content/source. Of course, some church or other - actually multiples - were mentioned. IMHO there's something going *drastically* wrong here; ethics should be acquired from the parents direct, and all religion deliberately withheld from delicate, sensitive *and vulnerable* children.

    Exactly as we did with our daughter; I leave it to your imagination as to what effect this earliest acquisition of *good* ethics may have, on the moral-minefield infested society we are sinking in.

    Conclusion on lies: I think it's one of, if not the prime problem, eliminating the lies would be the single most effective 'change we could believe in.'

    Fazit on lies: In general, parents are simply unaware of the correct principles of "Bringing up Baby." Now, why do you suppose that is so?

    2. Mossad, CIA etc.: A bit quicker now; I don't think I'd get a big argument if I were to say that all such agencies are most probably corrupt (think CIA-drug nexus, not to mention rendition, torture and outright 'black-ops.') As well as corrupt, these 'secret' services by definition do not inform us, rather they are most likely to lie to us, to disguise their (illegal??!) operations. There is a vital point to be made, though, and that is this: secrecy simply does not belong in a properly functioning democracy. We the sheople - as Naj has already pointed out ("people by and large are not AS STUPID as Israelis think they are!") - can handle the truth. Lies, after all, are deployed to deceive; why should anyone deceive us, we the voters? Only the well-informed have a valid basis for choice.

    3. Madoff. If one of us were caught stealing a bagatelle from Walmart, we may well end up in some gaol. Madoff has apparently made off with some $50bio; he sits in his luxury NY flat, possibly eating caviar. Says it all, really: one law for us, quite another for the filthy-rich.

    Country of laws? Which laws, for whom?

    Democracy? What democracy?

    Tell me no lies!


    PS Naj, if you were a Brazilian tree, you'd most likely not survive to benefit from the drastic excess of CO2 on the way. The usual human MO is "If it moves, shoot it, if it doesn't, chop it down."



    [1] My personal preference is for Pocket Oxford Dictionary [POD], but I'm willing to admit Webster's as an alternate.

  15. You've understood my intent correctly, IDHolm.

  16. Having just delivered a sermon on more proper (standard) English usage, there is at least one word I deploy despite this, and that is 'gobsmacked.'

    Which is what I am by GW's Pepe links.


    Middle East
    Feb 12, 2009
    Obama's Persian double; Will Obama say 'we're sorry'?

      «The wily Kissinger found out how: the rise of OPEC oil prices. This is how Kissinger - employed by the Rockefellers - drove to the roof the profits [me: ripped-off!] by US Big Oil, which at the time consisted of five of the Seven Sisters, and especially Rockefeller Big Oil (Exxon, Mobil and SoCal, three of the four majors, the other being Texaco). And all this with an added big bonus. Japan, Germany and the rest of Western Europe depended on Persian Gulf oil much more than the US; thus Kissinger also found out how to undermine the devastating industrial and commercial competition to the US by especially Japan and Germany.»
    [atimes/Pepe Escobar Part 1]
    [atimes/Pepe Escobar Part 2]

    There's lots more, of course. Can I say it again?


  17. Note that Kissenger was the "most frequent visitor" to the George W. Bush White House.

  18. And I spotted him on the tiny snip of video that made it onto the local TV news report on the recent WEF ... presumably travels by CIA-Air, or some other non-controlled, non-US country entry/exit (danger of being arrested as a war criminal?)

    Q: How do they get away with it?

    US economic warfare, I mean.

    As in the petro-dollar rip-off, say.

    The US 'prints' $s, and uses them to buy Mercedes and Porsches, say.

    The Germans collect the $s, which they then use to buy oil. Which is then burnt; oil gone, $s gone.

    Gotta build & sell ever more Mercedes and Porsches, just to keep their heads above the financial tides, i.e. just to maintain position. Loop as long as needed (endlessly).

    Then we see the US deliberately inflate the oil-price, and we know what happened then; called 'the oil shock,' and blamed on the A-rabs!

    Sooo, the 'people at the top' must know all this (even as we the sheople are not just kept in the dark but viciously lied to); the so-called 'leaders' know exactly how bad the US is treating them, 'close friends' as we (Aus, CH, D, etc., even the 'close partner in crime' UK) supposedly are. Then Merkel (Sarkozy, Rudd) stand up and defend the US!

    Madness. Utter madness.

  19. Q. Guess who, in 1973, said:

    "Of course [the world price of oil] is going to rise. "Certainly! And how...; You [Western nations] increased the price of wheat you sell us by 300%, and the same for sugar and cement...; You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid to us...; It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."

    A. Beneficiary of CIA operation TPAJAX, the last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

  20. Same year, 1973, that crook Nixon said to Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in front of an assembled Washington elite:

    "... we welcome you here as not only an old friend, as a progressive leader of your own people, but as a world statesman of the first rank."

    Think about what deals would likely have been done between these two, particularly with Kissinger on hand to advise.

  21. For a long time, both before and after 1973, I was a political neophyte and, amongst other quaint failures, I believed everything coming form the AusBC. If there had been a CIA sponsored coup against Mossadegh, or if Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was in the US' pocket - or poor little Israel was *not*, as repeatedly claimed, a brave David facing a primitive, hating A-rab Goliath, I was blithely, blissfully unaware.

    Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to B, B & H all that changed; the scales fell - or more accurately, were rudely ripped - from my eyes.

    (Noting the arrival of orana gelar's comment of 1:31:00 PM, Nixon's most memorable quote, also his 'best' was Nixon: "I am not a crook!")

    More from GW's Pepe article:

      «Based on the US defeat in Vietnam, and convinced he would never be able to directly combat all the global subversion nodes springing up against US interests, Nixon started to promote global "gatekeepers". No gatekeeper was more essential than the one in charge of the Persian Gulf. The shah gladly accepted the role, but complained he was broke - he could not buy the weapons the US was trying to sell him.»
    [atimes/Pepe Escobar ibid.]

    That bit immediately precedes the "The wily Kissinger" snip above.

    A last quote (for now):

      «Recent history has shown - from Vietnam to Iraq - that the "policies" concocted by the Washington establishment never matched reality, and that's why they spectacularly failed. Added to the inevitable decadence of empire, it has become increasingly difficult to hide the stark consequences from American public opinion. Nevertheless, it's still taboo in the US to acknowledge September 11, 2001, as blowback for US foreign policy in the Arab and Muslim world. So how far would Obama really go to explain in detail to US public opinion how the CIA coup against Mossadegh in 1953, and the support for the shah dictatorship, led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution and 30 years (or 56 years?) of mistrust?»
    [atimes/Pepe Escobar ibid.]

    Well, one tiny bit more "This - the real story - will never be featured in the mainstream US media" - or on the AusBC either, to their (and their "controllers'") utter damnation - and eternal shame, that is if they had any decency - not at all apparent. Treachery!

  22. G'day orana gelar and Naj,

    as part of my discussion with Naj of the ugly, probably bogus 'holocaust denial' allegations against Larijani heard on a public broadcaster, I promised to search for an 'official' transcript. Well, I found one.

    Speaker: Larijani, Dr. Ali
    Function: Speaker of the Majlis, Tehran
    Nation/Organization: Islamic Republic of Iran

    (19,254Kb, duration 20m32s)

    Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference

      «- By organizing the 1953 coup in Iran the U.S. toppled Mosadegh’s nationalist administration and restored the Pahlavi dictatorship. This meddling resulted in Iran being kept back - it also helped the U.S. to gain control of our energy resources - and further resulted in decades of repression and torture which claimed the lives of many great Iranians.

       - In 1978, by dispatching a team headed by General Huyser, the U.S. worked to organize another coup, but thanks to the vigilance of the Late Imam Khomeini (PBUH), it was foiled.»


    No mention of either holocaust or Ahmadinejad. After the speech there was a panel discussion, now I'll have to try to track that down.

  23. Um. Note that the audio linked to above is *not* in English...

  24. More Gillerman news today from Fairfax journalist Jason Koutsoukis (in Jerusalem), this time published in The Age. It starts:

    "SENIOR Israeli diplomat Dan Gillerman has urged Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd not to send a delegation to a United Nations forum on racism, saying it will be used as a platform to bash Israel."

    And then highlights:

    "In an interview with The Age, Mr Gillerman, who was Israel's ambassador to the United Nations from 2003 until September last year, also strongly rejected calls for war crimes investigations against Israeli commanders involved in the recent Gaza offensive.

    Speaking from his office in Tel Aviv ahead of a scheduled visit to Australia at the end of the month, Mr Gillerman said the 2009 UN World Conference Against Racism, also known as "Durban II", to be held in Geneva in April, was a charade.

    "Keep away from Durban," Mr Gillerman said.

    "Countries like Australia who, to my mind, represents the best of what democracy and civilisation can be, shouldn't take part in this charade."

    Gillerman is wrong.

    Countries like Australia, if they really do want to represent the best of what democracy and civilisation can be very much should take part in the 2009 UN World Conference Against Racism, and if the way Palestinians and Israeli Arabs are treated by the government of Israel is one topic that comes up, then representatives from Australia and other nations should listen carefully, maintain objectivity, and facilitate discussion of solutions to the reasonably 'proved' problems that are brought to light.

  25. Oh, the hypocrisy! It is indicative of the acquiescence of much of the media that Gillerman can make such statements and not be met with laughter. Another example.

    Israeli officials are putting together a position paper on talks between the United States and Iran for the new administration in Washington, Israeli officials say. The paper will include a list of reservations about the state of international efforts against Iran's nuclear program. One worry is that negotiations will go on for too long.

    The paper states that talks between the United States and Iran should be limited to a short period of time. It also recommends that harsh sanctions be imposed against the Islamic Republic if negotiations fail.

    No mention of Israel signing the NPT and opening its nuclear facilities to the IAEA.

    As the Pepe Escobar pieces were so well received, here is another in a sensible vein.

    Not that sense has a place in the considerations of the powers-that-be. Nor does gratitude - recall how Iran helped the US in respect of Afghanistan but then was called part of the "axis of evil".

  26. Recall how Iran helped the US in respect of Afghanistan? Yes, and so does President Obama’s top envoy to Afghanistan, Richard C. Holbrooke.

    From NYT:

    "It is absolutely clear that Iran plays an important role in Afghanistan," Mr. Holbrooke said during an interview on Sunday with Tolo TV, a private Afghan television network. "They have a legitimate role to play in this region, as do all of Afghanistan’s neighbors."

    But note the NYT's spin in the next par:

    "He also passed up an opportunity to criticize Tehran about allegations — some made by NATO officials — that it has provided help to Taliban guerrillas in Afghanistan.

    "I heard those reports," Mr. Holbrooke said. “I talked to the military command about them. I did not have enough time really to get into the details yet, but I will get into it on future trips."

    So Holbrooke's been asked about "those reports" and hadn't raised them himself. He then states, in effect, that "those reports" are not important enough, not credible enough to "get into" now, but the NYT clearly wanted very much to mention them.

    Holbrooke is making the point that Iran could be approached by the US about cooperation in respect of Afghanistan, but the NYT clearly could not pass up an "opportunity to criticize Tehran," could it?

  27. Let us hope, Orana, that the Administration does pursue diplomacy with Iran and does not allow the NYT (and others) to divert it.

  28. we know a secret - which if you heard it ...

      .. would scare you sooo bad (quiver! quake!) ...

        .. so just shuddup and do exactly what we say - hop!


    The racism/racist[1] tags fit the Jews perfectly, like a well-worn boot.

    Also the tags liars, propagandists and mass-murderers.

    We know these *facts* because we can see them.

    Watching them now for 60+ bloody years.

    No peace, just more killing -

      more lies, more theft:

        filthy criminals!

    Q: How do they get away with it?

    A: Scare the sheople shitless - then tell 'em to "Hop!"


    There's probably no better way to scare people, than to tell them that some monster is threatening to nuke 'em. The Yanks did it, pointing at Russia (from immediate post-WW2 with obvious accent on '49, then at least all the 'way' to the Berlin wall-fall). The Jews did it, pointing at Iraq (Osirak, 1981+). The US did it again in 2002+ (mushroom-cloud Rice). Now the Jews are doing it again - pointing at Iran. Except that it is *well known* (IAEA) that Iran not only does not have an A-bomb, it doesn't have the wherewithal to build one - presuming they wanted one, also hotly disputed. Even if they had one it would be instant suicide for the Iranian nation to '1st use' it; it'd only be good as a defensive insurance policy.

    But the illegitimate Israeli tail continually tries to wag the rabid US dog, trying to provoke the US into attacking Iran - on the mere, supposed off-chance that Iran may someday begin building an A-bomb. The US wants to demolish Iran too, under the dual impetuses of revenge (for an insult!) and the usual suspect, oil-theft. Sound OK to you?


    The fear mongers say "Yeah, yeah; but what if?"


    Search for the 'smoking gun' (Rice, 10Jan'03)
    By Wolf Blitzer

      «"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."»

    From an eml exchange with Tony Parkinson,
    Thursday, 13 March 2003 02:44

    Me: «You warmongering bastard. What if this UAV is nothing more than what the Iraqi's claim, a large model aircraft which needs to be flown in sight of the command pilot on the ground with the RC handset?»

    (This was the actual case; an smh report only 3 days after my eml could be definitive proof that TP lied.)

    Him: «as for iraq's asburd [sic] claims that it is flight-testing model planes, you must be one of the very few people who takes what saddam hussein's regime says at face value. here's a heresy for you to ponder: what if it just so happens that they're fibbing?? it has not been unknown to happen in the past.»

    Then, there're the orders the pro-Zs give to 'Western leaders,' as in orana gelar's theAge article: "Hey you, Rudd - hop!"


    G'day Graeme Watson, orana gelar - thanks for some good links. Nice to see someone (fpif's Beeman) being positive about US-Iran relationships, but IMHO Obama must stop talking about 'clenched fists' before any real progress could be contemplated. MSM reporters, whether of the corrupt and venal corporate MSM, or of the even less ethical publicly financed broadcasters (they who take our dough, then unashamedly lie to us), are often part of the problem. Here's a good (old-ish) example of fear mongering from SBS:

    SBS WORLD NEWS AUSTRALIA (6:30 bulletin, 08/10/2007)

      «COMMANDER STEVE STACY, US NAVY: We will not allow them to fail. We will ensure that we are there alongside them to ensure that, yes, they are protecting the infrastructure of Iraq - in fact, they're securing the future of Iraq.
    The stakes are high - failure here would impact world oil markets with inevitable repercussions for the global economy.»

    [CNN via SBS]

    (Now try telling us it wasn't about oil?)


    PS MSC; I give-up: I have not been able to find any sort of 'official' quote of what Larijani may or may not have said vis-à-vis the holocaust and/or Ahmadinejad; in view of this and the apparent lack of further interest, I hereby abandon the quest.

    PPS On the Parkinson case, IMHO he's an unreformable shit. Going to work for Turnbull is about right - they all belong in gaol.



    [1] racism n. 1 belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this. 2 antagonism towards other races.  racist n. & adj. [POD]

  29. ON superiority - and ending with a classic piece of hypocrisy - Glenn Greenwald on Americans who think that not only should Americans not be subject to foreign jurisdiction but that:

    ... domestic investigations and prosecutions -- by American tribunals and American courts -- are also inappropriate, illegitimate and destructive.

    So much for the rule of law.

    Much is being written about the Madoff shenanigans, but there is a bigger con that is finally being investigated. From Juan Cole.

    The US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) has issued a report on as much as $125 billion unaccounted-for reconstruction and military equipment money in Iraq. Patrick Cockburn at the Independent quotes a US businessman active in Iraq after the US invasion who observed that Iraq was looted alright, but the big looting did not come at the hands of poor urbanites but rather at that of US officers. Although immense peculation was engaged in by Iraqi government and military figures, it seems unlikely that their US military minders were not complicit in the corruption.

    The link covers various aspects in re Iraq with further links to some interesting material.

  30. I saw a piece by Anthony Cordesman on Israeli operations in Gaza and it seemed to look very violate the laws of war. I was amused in a "how blatant is piece of propaganda is this?" kind of way. He could have been relying on Israel's Ministry of Truth for his "evidence". Well, I will allow Norman Finkelstein to take up the story.

    From the opening paragraph:

    The report is based on “briefings in Israeli [sic] during and immediately after the fighting made possible by a visit sponsored by Project Interchange, and using day-to-day reporting issued by the Israeli Defense Spokesman.” Cordesman omits mention that Project Interchange is funded by the American Jewish Committee.


    Paeraghrah two:

    Cordesman’s faith in the pronouncements of Israeli notwithstanding, respected Israeli analysts exhibit less confidence. “The state authorities, including the defense establishment and its branches,” Uzi Benziman observed in Haaretz, “have acquired for themselves a shady reputation when it comes to their credibility.” The “official communiqués published by the IDF have progressively liberated themselves from the constraints of truth,” B. Michael wrote in Yediot Ahronot, and the “heart of the power structure”—police, army, intelligence—has been infected by a “culture of lying.”(2) During the Gaza massacre Israel was repeatedly caught lying among many other things about its use of white phosphorus.(3) Recalling Israel’s train of lies during both the 2006 Lebanon war and the Gaza massacre, Human Rights Watch senior military analyst Marc Garlasco rhetorically asked, “How can anyone trust the Israeli military?”(4)

    Indeed. See the final paragraph.

  31. As I noted on Damian's blog the other day:

    On 9 Feb, UN Mines Advisory Group teams removed and destroyed white phosphorus wedges discovered by young Palestinian students in the grounds of their school in Tal El Hawa, Gaza.

    This was reported by the UN OCHA, but was the report spread far and wide by the MSM? No.

    According to the IDF, their enemies 'stole' some unexploded (i.e. failed) ordnance. Within hours the IDF's spin (aka lie) is spread all over the world by the MSM.

  32. Funny how some stories gets wide distribution but others not. Funny how one some blogs commenters can lash away at Palestinians yet the management are reluctant to allow criticism of Israel. Any excuse to DNP will be used. I posted some Finkelstein material elsewhere and it is yet to appear - a day later. I suspect it is the work of one particularly gutless editor.

    Also there the resident sub-moron ran with the stolen explosives story. The manner in which said explosives arrived in Gaza was of no concern too him. Somehow, though, I suspect he would be in favour of the method of delivery. Not, perhaps, that they did not work.