I think Ron was doing the best he could. E.g. kept on talking about needing a “strong dollar” and not “debasing our currency.” Those kind of soundbites appeal to people’s patriotic instincts and still get the point across.

Agreed.

People who survive the crash will have an opportunity to build something on the ashes.

I hope so, but that’s if we haven’t been completely communized and globalized before people have gotten their communities together to resist.

Thanks for the kind reply.

Yes, you’re right, jtgw, that one can explain the gist of it easily, but I think Dr. Paul was too polite of a guy to put this in raw terms. Also, the Lyin’ Press was in the way between his words and any kind of decent explanation to readers or viewers. It’s not just that deliberate effort by the media at the time to marginalize Dr. Paul, as he is not one of the establishment and wouldn’t go along with the path to destruction that we are on. It’s also that they are pretty damn stupid, as a rule, as I wrote above.

I agree completely with your assessment of economists, too.

“I think you’ve got this sentence written backwards.”

Yeah. Really I think the dollar is the chicken AND the egg. When the dollar goes the Empire and the economy turn to dust.

“… the coming economic collapse will take care of it one way or another.”

People who survive the crash will have an opportunity to build something on the ashes. I wish them well. I have already been here 73 years.

Go in peace A. E. Newman

The thing is that the problems of the Fed and inflationary monetary policy are pretty easy to explain: new money benefits those who receive it first at the expense of those who receive it last. This is exactly why counterfeiting is a crime, and indeed fiat currency is just a fancy word for government-approved counterfeiting. But the economics profession are part of the exploitative class for the most part and use their intellect to contrive fancy-sounding arguments in favor of fiat money and central banking which succeed in intimidating those who might otherwise see the problem quite plainly.

Yep, Jack Squat (sorry, trying to be polite here), I also think Dr. Paul is way too optimistic. However, he did try to spread the word around about the FED, having started up right back then in 1913. As commenters already wrote here, nobody cares. They’d care if they understood the problem with a private bank (OR US Feral Gov’t for that matter) creating money, and how inflation is a hidden large tax on wealth that’s been around for > 50 years in force.

American people in general are not smart enough or motivated enough to want to find out anything this detailed. I admit that I can’t get through an article explaining exactly how the pieces of paper or computer bits go back and forth from the FED to the Feral Gov’t as IOU’s, treasury notes, blah, blah in the money-creating process. You don’t need to know all those details though, just the basics of HOW we are being screwed and how badly we are. I think Dr. Paul did his best. The American people, as a whole, are going to get what they deserve, for not defending their Constitution.

Even if there were members of the Lyin’ Press who would be on the side of truth (what the 1%’ers?), they are too stupid to understand what’s going on, much less explain it. News reporters are some of the stupidest people ever to graduate from college.*

* oops, left out Education majors. Mea culpa!

Yes, great comment, R.C., and I’m glad your comment is on top to be read first. This is to add to my last comment, though the thread is old: It’s not just that the young people are ignorant of the evils of Communism and Socialism with regard to it’s design to work against human nature as understood even by kindergarteners. Another reason for the ignorance is that anyone under 35 y/o has been aware of American economics and government completely during these times of crony capitalism.

Most young people have seen nothing resembling a free market beside, perhaps, a flea market. You can’t blame them so much for hating capitalism, since they think that’s what the US has now! Yeah, right, if this is capitalism, I’m a monkey’s aunt. The real Commies that are embedded throughout US institutions like to keep this narrative going. “See how capitalism is bad? Look at how this country is run. Sign here to help support the coming utopia, just as your useful idiot, I mean, patriotic great-great-grandfather did for the Motherland a century ago.

We seem to be on a roughly 1-century period with this Commies-out-of-the-woodwork deal – it never goes well, and is usually only ended via an outside power. Who’s gonna help America this round, space aliens?

The blind will be blind sided by the impending collapse of Imperial Washington and the attendant destruction of the domestic economy.

I think you’ve got this sentence written backwards. The impending collapse of Imperial Washington will only happen due to the destruction of the domestic economy. People have not done their jobs in stopping this beast, but the coming economic collapse will take care of it one way or another. It may go the wrong way, toward Communism, as, that’s we’re about at the time in America when they will be crawling out of the woodwork again, and, as written in the great comments here, these young people are extremely ignorant so far as understanding economic systems.

You don’t have to be exceptionally stupid not to see that D’s and R’s have ruined the country. That is a blindness widely shared among the American electorate. If a new generation is getting its eyes open then more power to them. But it’s too late for our absolutely corrupt former Republic to be reformed by electoral politics.

The blind will be blind sided by the impending collapse of Imperial Washington and the attendant destruction of the domestic economy. After which no one will admit to ever having been a Democrat or a Republican.

I love the divil outta Dr Paul, but I agree with the assessment that he’s a bit too sanguine.

Currently, mainstream politics in the US is all about power – how to get it and how to keep it – and not at all about philosophy or ideology. It is about selling out principles at every turn in order to chalk up another point in the “win” column. On issues like war and spending, it’s incredible how easily the two major parties are able to “compromise.”

New party or no, that will not change.

The reason is simply that the country is in thrall to the international money changers and they’ve had us by the throat in a virtual death grip, with their congressional colluders, since at least 1913. Any change for the better will most probably have to come from the outside.

Quite true. My apologies for leaving out my fellow European men (sadly, women of any race aren’t particularly libertarian).

I should have just said those of European descent.

Understood. How about “libertarianism for our people”?

Most people, certainly most young people, don’t give a damn about the federal Reserve, nor do they seem to care about deficit spending.

On a common front for the popular position of ending our needless wars, though, you are right on the money.

Many libertarians whom I have known, including ME are not primarily of NW Euro background. Plenty of Italian and Slavic Americans who are libertarians, for example.

Probably best to just kill the GOP and take its stuff.

They have been exposed to many new ideas, including good ones like libertarianism and non-interventionism.

And shit that libertardians are blind to, like blood and soil (i.e., real) nationalism, strong borders, race-realism, taking your own side in a fight, etc.

Libertardians make me wanna take a nap.

It’s not just young Americans who want another political party, it is a plurality of registered voters and likely a majority of all citizens. But the one party they don’t want is RP’s Libertarian nonsense.

There was no great hate campaign against Buchanan: as always, Buchanan was pushing his single-issue culture war and that lost in the primaries to the mainstream candidate, Bob Dole.

You must not have watched the news coverage from that time because right after Pat B. won New Hampshire the establishment knives came out and Bob Dole publicly denounced Buchanan’s campaign as “intolerant” since he wanted to end affirmative action, deport illegal aliens and bring sanity to our system of legal immigration in addition to ending free trade deals that were beginning to impoverish the working class. His “single issue” platform was far more comprehensive than Bob Dole’s “cut taxes and everything will be alright” platform.

Each night a new Republican heavy would condemn Buchanan. Jack Kemp chimed in, Rush Limbaugh was critical and even House speaker Newt Gingrich piled on.

Buchanan as a “maverick” was a hoax, as became clear when in 2000 he brought the Reform Party down to oblivion in some swamp in Alaska

Buchanan screwed himself when he virtue signaled by choosing negress Ezola Foster as his running mate. His support among the deplorable Americans evaporated within 24 hours of that betrayal. You can blame Jesse Ventura and even (at that time) centrist Donald Trump for sowing discord in the Reform party.

Pat Buchanan was about as much of a “maverick” as has been John McCain.

Pat Buchanan – Deport illegals, seal the border, drastically reduce legal immigration, end trade policies that harm the American worker, end affirmative action, end judicial tyranny, foreign police neutrality/avoid war.
John Mclame – Mass amnesty, keep the border open, maintain high levels of third world legal immigration, more free trade and more wars for Israel, more liberal voting record in the Senate than some Democrats.

Sure gramps, Buchanan and McCain are almost identical if you say so. Buchanan was a maverick compared to the majority of the Republican party then and now and Trump borrowed heavily from his 1996 platform.

I want a party with the domestic policy of Bernie Sanders, and the foreign policy of Ron Paul!

Here’s a possible argument for Ron’s approach:

Framing the Fed as a tool for the rich and a driving force behind inequality is a great way to get young leftists on board, which can be important for political victory (it is also correct, of course). But maybe what should not be emphasized too much is the fact that a strict monetary policy will create strong natural limits on government expansion. Without inflation, the only way the government can get that universal healthcare and free college is by a) raising taxes (very politically unpopular) b) borrowing (less unpopular at the start but economically not as bad as inflation and will probably lead to demands for cuts later, especially if the left can be persuaded to oppose deficit spending) or c) cutting spending elsewhere (no objections to that here!).

The Hoppean strategy of focusing on immigration and other right-wing talkings points first and foremost only works if you can win on a conservative base alone. The narrowness of Trump’s victory and his subsequent difficulties seem to throw doubt on that strategy. However distasteful the left appears, I think it is worth exploring areas of common interest. Abolishing the Fed, ending foreign interventions and ending deficits is something we all want.

“People of all ages have been thirsting for an alternative to the Dems and Repubs at least since the early 1990′s when Ross Perot burst on the scene and later when Pat Buchanan ran as a maverick Republican in 1996 before the media sunk his campaign with a 24/7 hate campaign.” — KenH

I think this is a mischaracterization of the political history of the ’90s. KenH is confusing that time and Pat Buchanan with today and Donald Trump. There was no great hate campaign against Buchanan: as always, Buchanan was pushing his single-issue culture war and that lost in the primaries to the mainstream candidate, Bob Dole.

What I recall about 2000 is that, like it or not, the ‘pro-life’ movement had proved itself to be a political loser for the GOP or anyone else, whilc Dole promising opposition to globalization before the election, was seen shortly after the election (still as Senate leader) certifying the total moral bankruptcy of the GOP, by happily shaking hands with Clinton on the success of NAFTA — which Dole had shepherded through the Senate. Meanwhile, the real alternative was Ross Perot, whose gallant effort to pull America back from the brink of the abyss of globalization perished on the rocks of corporate media collusion in lockstep support of globalization. Perot’s campaign could hardly have been helped by Buchanan whose ‘culture-war’ extreme anti-abortion position appeared to be calculated to take votes away from Perot, whose position on such matters was tempered by realism. IMO, Buchanan as a “maverick” was a hoax, as became clear when in 2000 he brought the Reform Party down to oblivion in some swamp in Alaska — which convinced me that he had been cynically acting as an agent of the RNC all along.

Pat Buchanan was about as much of a “maverick” as has been John McCain.

The bad news is that young Americans are nearly 50% nonwhite and thus predisposed to want lots of government and to tolerate lots of corruption. Oh, and they’re pretty tribal.

The future will look like Brazil, and Brazil not exactly a hotbed of Paul’s Libertarianism. Though this will make Mr. Paul gasp, someone really should tell him that Libertarianism is only seen with people of NW European decent. It’s a white thing and can only exist in overwhelmingly white countries. Since the United States is quickly losing that status, Libertarianism will die outside of a few think tanks and professors.

Well said, Ken. And I wish I had supported Perot instead of Deep State Bush Senior in 1992, but in my defense I was very young. More evidence that we should have raised the voting age from 21 to 25, not lowered it to 18. But that would now be politically impossible, even more than back in the 60s. And the indoctrination of the young in government schools (“public schools”) and universities is far more radical, hateful, and pervasive, hence the soundness of your characterization of any likely new youth party.

I’m sure after the amnesty of 30 to 50 million mestizos you’ll have a libertarian party resugent like never before. By g-d the last time I was in South America the amount of entrepreneurial spirit was breathtaking. Not only were public services largely eschewed (I have to assume this was out of principle, based on how widespread their dysfunction was), but I was entreated no less than a dozen times by street vendors and private security, seeking to make better use of any capital I had on my person.

Hail Flavelas! Hail their People! Hail Victory!

I must echo the sentiments of poster “Radical Center”. If by young Ron Paul means millenials then most of them just want an American version of Communism because their witless high school teachers and college professors have convinced them it’s sexy. Around 40% want curbs on the first amendment and I’m sure at least that number and possibly more think America is racist, sexist and homophobic and in need of a little reeducation from above.

There’s a good chance that a third party comprised of these young people would be an SJW party and have narrow appeal.

People of all ages have been thirsting for an alternative to the Dems and Repubs at least since the early 1990′s when Ross Perot burst on the scene and later when Pat Buchanan ran as a maverick Republican in 1996 before the media sunk his campaign with a 24/7 hate campaign.

The only good libertarian is a Hoppean Snek libertarian, so to speak. Because Hayek von Pinochet did nothing wrong.

Ron, you are a good, principled, honest, and sensible man. I supported you and voted for you in the GOP presidential primaries of 2008 and 2012 and gladly would have voted for you again in the 2016 primaries if you had run. I hope to meet you before one of us shuffles off this mortal coil.

But I think that you are also terribly naïve and suffering from unwarranted optimism. The new party that many young “Americans” would want, it seems, would be more socialist and more openly perverse and radical in support of the “rights” and privileges of homosexuals, “transsexuals”, and “the undocumented” (illegal aliens who break our law to enter or stay in the USA against our will and without our permission). More unaffordable, debt-financed freebies at the expense of the declining portion of the population that actually pays federal income taxes.

In other words, many of these young folks who are so disillusioned with the Dems and Repubs, would readily enact new government programs to spend the trillions saved by ending our unnecessary wars and occupations, closing military bases abroad, and ending corporate welfare. Such as “universal single-payer healthcare” and “‘free’ college for all” and welfare benefits for non-citizens (as we have in some respects already, here in California).

Of course, I know and meet young people who are more like you describe, and I’d love to be proven wrong.

[…] I have recently found that many conservatives and even libertarians now tend to shy away from serious debate on national security issues. They have become particularly nervous about discussing Israel’s role in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy for reasons that I can only guess at. CPAC had only one foreign policy panel in its most recent iteration and the various libertarian gatherings have become comfortable with anodyne anti-war bumper stickers as a substitute for any serious probing of the issues underlying America’s downward spiral. http://www.unz.com/article/the-politics-of-protest-is-literally-killing-us/ […]

When Khatami ( Iran) visited USA, he was greeted by the neocon crowd with epithets and slurs reserved for criminal . Alan Dershowitz equated him to David Duke . Boston Herald taking advantage of American stupidity pertaining to secular and fundamentalism or Shia and Sunni and Arab and Iran blamed the invitation by Harvard extended to Khatami as the arrogant expression of Arab Lobby.

( John Walsh in Counterpunch . Sept 12 2006 )

Apology accepted. Now that I have demonstrated that I condemn hate-speech, are you willing to do the same?

Specifically, are you willing to condemn the vile hate speech propagated by the likes of Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and the Clarion Fund, (a Zionist front group that produced the trilogy of films that inspired Anders Breivik to murder over 70 Norwegians) whose sole objective is to incite in the goy Islamophobia?

In short, are you prepared to condemn the real haters who are intent on causing death and destruction or is your angst limited to those who call into question the morality of the actions of the Zionst project?

“I am also happen to know (from reading history) that Jews, as parasites, were robbing, ruining and wrecking nations long before Zionism”

Must have been authored by someone who decided that history would be unkind to the Jews, because he intended to write it.

Some people will try to tell you that there are two kinds of “Jewish people”; The rather harmless, gentle Sephardic Jew who just wants to live and get along as best he can, and Zionist Jews who are responsible for the wars and financial havoc being wrecked on the world today. An argument I would tend to buy into, except for the fact that I am also happen to know (from reading history) that Jews, as parasites, were robbing, ruining and wrecking nations long before Zionism came into existence as a political force.

ethnocentricity is a brutal force that makes people blind and deaf to other peoples’ pain if these others present a competition.
There has never been homogeneity among Jewish people and this is particularly true today, when many Israelis are the opportunistic newcomers from distant lands, which boast their Jewish identity for purely political and economic gains. The noble Jewish tradition is of no value for the aggressive lot. It does not help that among the leading neocons there is the number of influential Israel firsters that look upon the US as a useful tool for protecting their biblical rights and superiority and other childish dreams that infuse the tribalists with the sense of significance.

Suspicion? I thought it was obvious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

I’m not one to talk though. I’ve aided in the ruin of many of a comment thread. The moderator probably hates me.

Thanks for the link, annamarina.

Just wondering whether our friend, Mr. Shama, takes issue with how the author characterizes last summer’s assault on the Gazans:

“… a war of a ruthless occupier against an almost defenseless people.”

Rather a petulant dud, don’t you think, for the intellectual firepower of IQ 204?

Here is a supplemental material for Rostow arguments.
“The Children of Gaza’s Harrowing Cry for Help:” http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/26/the-children-of-gazas-harrowing-cry-for-help/

Priceless.

Ron lashing out shines a spotlight on your own failings: hypocrisy, since you made your little pile working and then selling to Wall Street your tortured, user-unfriendly software; penning a pretentious “statistical” expose on the Ivies, rendered insignificant for its sophomoric measurement and specification errors, reduces you to hurling ad hominem attacks on those who objectively critiqued you!

Bravo! Do run for office again.

“The unvarnished truth…”

Ever wonder why the advocates of the Zionist project are only prepared to proffer the truth on an exceptional basis – i.e., after being repeatedly challenged on a particular issue – rather than it being de rigueur from the outset? It would save a lot of time and effort… but I guess that’s part of their strategic thinking – grind it out until they’re too tired to continue!

btw – do you have a response to annamarina’s post below regarding Rostow and the illegal settlements?

“..Rostow as well as Alan Dershowitz..”
You mean that these two gentlemen are known for their objectivity re Israel? Come on…
Here is something on the international law by Mr. Rostow: “Israeli settlements are more than legitimate.” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/24/challenging-the-long-held-notion-that-israeli-settlements-are-illegal/
And here is something about Mr. Dershowitz the Lawyer: “The Jihad of Alan Dershowitz.” http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/09/30/the-jihad-of-alan-dershowitz/

Mean’t to write “issue an unreserved apology”. Don’t want you to think that I was accepting an apology from you!

Thanks, hadn’t gotten to reading it, but just skimmed through it. Its a bit of a coincidence that I was emphasising inequality last evening…..

Do mean the nationalisation or the outlawing derivatives, forex and “unnatural parasitic activities” (what are these?)

I do understand the frustration. The world at large is changing very rapidly and he is trying to take on far too much, which will inevitably result in more frustration. I have some ideas that may be more achievable…

OK. I hadn’t seen your previous words, and I hereby acknowledge without reservation an apology.

Rabin’s words.

Look, Rabin amongst many, had been trying to achieve peace (which later on he re-attempted with Arafat and paid for with his life). The unvarnished truth is a combination of the following: (1) the generals in Israel most certainly wanted to take full advantage of the un-coordinated, amateurish behaviour of Nasser and Jordan; Hussein himself was occupying theWest Bank violating armistice, played into the hands of the generals. (2) Quigley’s mechanistic interpretation of 242, ignoring the entire history and context, which should include in the least, 1957 and 1948, bypasses reality, one of which is that 2/3rds of the world’s populated area is child of wars fought by design and accident.

Rather than rehashing, here is some of Rostow’s thoughts (Dershowitz I won’t post, since I know your feelings on the matter)

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1313&context=djcil

http://www.unz.com/jpetras/pillage-and-class-polarization/

Accurate. Too bad if the result is the last sentence, though.

“… otoh I have not seen any obvious attempts to discourage or dissociate from the bilious and vitriolic either.”

Is this attempt obvious enough?:

@Blurp

Congratulations on another impressive splenetic diatribe!

Buffoon? Ouch!

Just for the record, since I’ve already denounced the racist comments of other posters on Unz,

“Glad to see the kind of audience Unz and Giraldi are attracting:…”

This Anonymous character is the exception, not the rule. Most posters on Unz are fair-minded and make responsible comments without any hints of racism. Knowing the MO of hasbarists, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was a zio-troll intentionally trying to damage the reputation of Unz by posting such repugnant comments!

I’ll leave it to folks like you to do so in the future, given that you are being paid to “police the Goy” as another poster aptly put it.

btw – do you mind responding to the Rabin quote?

Point taken. I certainly have not seen any from you, otoh I have not seen any obvious attempts to discourage or dissociate from the bilious and vitriolic either.

Also for the record, I don’t really get overly bothered by words. (the “204″ allusions are pretty funny, a point of pride in my 20s, sort of escaped in a moment of fractious debate. Again for the record, I believe that while initial human endowments might be different, due perhaps to a sprinkling of selection, most of achievement is simply a matter of persistence and efficiency)

“… the echoe chamber comparison is apt when it comes to Jews; its a montonic (sic) function of hatred”

Do you detect any hatred in any of my postings? If so, please provide evidence.

“Britain’s ambassador to Israel, Michael Hadow, after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol reported to London that Israel agreed with the British assessment “that Nasser’s new posture posed no real threat.” Nevertheless, Israel responded with additional deployments of its own in the south.

In connection with the increase of its troop strength in Sinai, Egypt asked the UN to withdraw its observer force from the area. However, says Quigley, Egypt, the UN and the United States all offered to Israel that the observer force could be stationed in the Sinai on Israel’s side of the line. Israel refused.

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/understanding-still-matters#sthash.wA1PFrsr.dpuf

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/understanding-still-matters#sthash.wA1PFrsr.dpuf

” closing of the Straits of Tiran” is heard nowadays . But No one from Israel leadership made this claim as a reason. May be it was.
Now one can understand that why an actual blockade imposed by Israel from all directions immidiayrly after the election on Gaza let alone just to the sea could generate the appropriate responses from Palestinian but which could never be understood by the neocons other than in the terms of labeling Palestinian as irrational,suicidal,fanatic,primitive sufferring from hatred and rage.

“… your echo chamber does not extend beyond the “interpretations” of Mondoweiss and a few others.”

Does Yitzhak Rabin qualify as a member of the echoe chamber?:

[A]ccording to even Yitzhak Rabin, who was then the Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, “We did not think that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to Sinai on May 14 would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

“I am fully conversant with Quigley’s work, which was destroyed as a matter of international law & jurisprudence, as well as on factual basis by Rostow as well as Alan Dershowitz.”

Could you be so kind and inform us as to which specific facts Prof. Quigley got wrong?

I simply love to listen to people as it helps me crystallise and criticise my own thoughts. UR has smart people commenting, unlike the WSJ……the echo chamber comparison is apt when it comes to Jews; its a montonic function of hatred

“Nasser added that “your own State Department called in my Ambassador to the U.S. in April or May and warned him that there were rumors that there might be a conflict between Israel and the UAR.”

U.S. intelligence had indeed foreseen the coming war. “The CIA was right about the timing, duration, and outcome of the war”, notes David S. Robarge in an article available on the CIA’s website.

On May 23, Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms presented Johnson with the CIA’s assessment that Israel could “defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts … or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth.”

In an document entitled “Military Capabilities of Israel and the Arab States”, the CIA assessed that “Israel could almost certainly attain air supremacy over the Sinai Peninsula in less than 24 hours after taking the initiative or in two or three days if the UAR struck first.”

Additionally, the CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive, stating that “Armored striking forces could breach the UAR’s double defense line in the Sinai in three to four days and drive the Egyptians west of the Suez Canal in seven to nine days. Israel could contain any attacks by Syria or Jordan during this period” (emphasis added).

–
Neither U.S. nor Israeli intelligence assessed that there was any kind of serious threat of an Egyptian attack. On the contrary, both considered the possibility that Nasser might strike first as being extremely slim.

The current Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael B. Oren, acknowledged in his book “Six Days of War“, widely regarded as the definitive account of the war, that “By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed”.

–
Four days before Israel’s attack on Egypt, Helms met with a senior Israeli official who expressed Israel’s intent to go to war, and that the only reason it hadn’t already struck was because of efforts by the Johnson administration to restrain both sides to prevent a violent conflict
–
Yitzhak Rabin, who would later become Prime Minister, told Le Monde the year following the ’67 war, “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent to the Sinai, on May 14, would not have been sufficient to start an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Despite its total lack of sustainability from the documentary record, and despite such admissions from top Israeli officials, it is virtually obligatory for commentators in contemporary mainstream accounts of the ’67 war to describe Israel’s attack on Egypt as “preemptive

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/

a

You might claim your private firm doesn’t get losses socialised; so how would going after the big boys be bad for your company then? Does it at all invest in buying sovereign debt for pennies on the dollar, then dun the debtor nation for the full amount? How about the trick of austerity and suffering for populations, when ruinous loans were knowingly extended, just as destabilised a Weimar facing World War I debts that wouldn’t be paid off until 1989, the year the Berlin Wall fell?

I claim it, for it is so. I have no problems with going after the “Big Boys” (the banks or their CEOs?). The issue becomes what is the exact nature of the crime they committed? Issuing loans that in hindsight the borrower could not pay? Perhaps, but that is impossible to prosecute!

Nope, I don’t believe in buying Argentinian debt pennies on the dollar and then subjecting the country to a faulty interpretation of the law, handed by a cantankerous old judge! Same applies to the purchasers of the FNM/ FRE debt and then trying to soak taxpayers.

I believe, nay I know, that austerity is rubbish from a macroeconomic perspective and has caused great harm to the U.S. economy, which can finance at very low rates. We should engage in (in my estimate) about $3tr financed at 2.3% on infrastructure in the U.S. over 5 years. This will add millions of jobs and has a projected return well over 9%!

A very similar thing is happening in Europe, where Germany which immeasurably benefited from the adoption of the weak EUR currency, thus getting it out of the “sick man of Europe” condition to what has been termed Wirtschaftswunder, is entirely due to the magic of the weak currency that they could only have as a part of the Euro and suppressing wages in Germany for decades. Greece is now being subjected to insane conditions such as 50% unemployment and a 30% shrinkage in their GDP, as a sacrificial lamb to the illogical demands of austerity, which is neither socially sustainable nor economically smart!

Balnkfein? Well he is a phenomenal trader, and taught Greece how to dress-up its balance sheet!

“The trick is in imposing correct constraints, that will lead to what is termed a”corner solution”. “

What makes you so certain that the imposition of “correct constraints” must yield a “corner solution,” and not an interior optimum?

“Again, in keeping with traditions in this echo-chamber,…”

If you think UR is an “echo-chamber,” why do you bother posting comments here?

This simply reinforces my suspicion that your presence here is not quite what it seems. I think your true motive for being here is identical to that of your predecessor, the M.A. in Physics – namely, to police the goy for their unseemly thought crimes!

Why don’t you come clean and admit it? Otherwise, we have no choice but to conclude that you are obsessed with listening to echoes, echoes, echoes, …

As I said at very start, your echo chamber does not extend beyond the “interpretations” of Mondoweiss and a few others. I am fully conversant with Quigley’s work, which was destroyed as a matter of international law & jurisprudence, as well as on factual basis by Rostow as well as Alan Dershowitz. btw, the Wiki article (the power of open source) discusses the controversy….

Rostow:
Israel’s action in June, 1967, was a reasonably proportionate defensive
response to an armed attack. 2 The attack consisted in the first instance
of the closing of the Straits of Tiran and a huge Arab mobilization all
around Israel, backed by violent calls for a Holy War to destroy Israel. 3
Given escalating guerilla infiltrations of increasing sophistication and
intensity, and the location of the Straits of Tiran, the destruction of the
Arab armies in the Sinai Desert by Israel was not only proportional to
the Egyptian delict – it was the only possible military response.

what S2C and geokat are talking about is easily rejected by anyone who recognises the situation at hand as essentially belonging to an elementary class of problems in maths of optimisation, where a search for the optimal leads to a multiplicity of trivial solutions. The trick is in imposing correct constraints, that will lead to what is termed a”corner solution”. They think quite so airily that they have “eviscerated” arguments, without any real comprehension of the objective function or constraints. The Kargil war I pointed to previously, is apropos.

“If you object to what the Fed has been engaged in since 2008,…”

What we object to is what the Fed has been engaged in since the mid 90s – namely, cheap money that resulted in numerous asset bubbles that preceded and precipitated the subprime fiasco!

Basically the objection to the bankster label, first applied to that cabal of Wall Street Firsters by a government regulator in the wake of The Great Depression they caused, is that, being “too big to fail” no matter the otherwise criminal behavior, they were therefore “too big to jail.” But last time I looked, identified members of the Mafia are identified as gangsters, even if they’ve managed to evade being charged or convicted. It’s quite the protection racket to achieve immunity from being charged with crimes, with the excuse being it would hurt the little guy too much. The same little guys they already ruined. In reality, it’s donorism at work. As the President claimed when questioned why he didn’t even try the slightest as FDR had (who even convicted foreign capitalist and historian Conrad Black admits saved capitalism from itself), “I would have liked to have done something, but it would have pissed off too many powerful people.”

You might claim your private firm doesn’t get losses socialised; so how would going after the big boys be bad for your company then? Does it at all invest in buying sovereign debt for pennies on the dollar, then dun the debtor nation for the full amount? How about the trick of austerity and suffering for populations, when ruinous loans were knowingly extended, just as destabilised a Weimar facing World War I debts that wouldn’t be paid off until 1989, the year the Berlin Wall fell? The subsequent wreckage led to Hitler – and all the troubles thereby in the Middle East today from the fallout of that genocide.

Banksters, indeed. A well deserved pejorative, although it’s not surprising that those with such hubris should feel offended. Blankfein doing God’s work, after all, even if he does say so himself. The Devil must be in the details.

“ok now why don’t you post the “facts” from your own exclusive vintage echo-chamber, you know the ones that are closed to open source edit!?”

Here you go, Mr. 204:

In The Six Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War, John Quigley, a professor of international law at Ohio State University, presents a clear and compelling case that the orthodox story is wrong. Quigley’s book draws on evidence recently declassified by the four main powers involved in the lead up to the war: France, Britain, Russia, and the United States. He concludes that, contrary to the orthodox story, Israel’s army substantially outnumbered the Arab troops at the borders, and that Israel did not expect an attack. In short, Quigley asserts that Israel’s invasion of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in 1967 cannot be justified as self-defense; Israel seized upon an opportunity to wage a war of aggression in violation of international law and in violation of the commitment Israel had made by joining the community of nations under the auspices of the UN Charter. (emphasis added) http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/understanding-still-matters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

ok now why don’t you post the “facts” from your own exclusive vintage echo-chamber, you know the ones that are closed to open source edit!?

“The 1967 war was precipitated by Egyptian mobilisation in Israel’s southern border.”

This is not factually true. This myth has been debunked years ago. As you well know, this was a pretext for going to war when the Israelis felt they were in the best position to defeat Egypt.

Keep trying!

I understand your hesitancy. Actually India and Pakistan came very, very close to a nuclear confrontation in 1999

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

Can you imagine what might have happened, if for example Iran and Iraq had nukes when they waged war during 1980-88?!

The 1967 war was precipitated by Egyptian mobilisation in Israel’s southern border. Israel engaged in a pre-emptive strike and destroyed the Egyptian air force. This may not not have happened, as you say, if both parties were nuclear, then again witness what happened between India and Pakistan in 1999! (Actually from what I understand, and it is certainly NOT official, it was in 1999 that the USA took de facto control of Pakistani nuclear assets)

Best Fran comment ever. Thanks for reminding us of the IQ. I’d forgotten that.

Your political stance appears to be unreformed Likudnik neocon Wall Streeter. It may serve a policy purpose some may believe serves their higher cause, it is true, but that is about the truth of it.

Dear Fran:
I am surprised you did not add unrepentant!

I ask in all seriousness: I see all these labels bandied about these days, and while I suppose I do understand the context in which some are applied, I strenuously object to the mischaracterisation of my analyses. Should you re-read my words,

http://www.unz.com/mhudson/global-financialization-2015-the-state-of-play/#comment-980185

http://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-fed-cornered/#comment-979054

http://www.unz.com/mhudson/global-financialization-2015-the-state-of-play/#comment-977257

http://www.unz.com/mhudson/global-financialization-2015-the-state-of-play/#comment-976602

you cannot fail to note that I was essentially analysing current economic conditions. You will further note that I have agreed with you that our system requires reform: for the issue of inequality cannot simply be brushed off! I have also said that I believe that regulatory changes and tax policies need to be revised. Allow me to be rather more concrete. It is perfectly clear to me that the tax rates applicable to dividends and long-term capital gains need to be increased to the marginal rates paid by any individual, i.e., a Mitt Romney or a Warren Buffet (and he agrees), should not pay 15% whereas an ordinary income earner pays on the average 40%!

I suspect you took exception to my quoting the improving national income statistics that did not reflect the realities in many middle class neighbourhoods in the U.S., thus again underscoring the real urgency to tackle inequality. You also spoke of banksters; I say in this context, that this being a nation of laws, one can only prosecute when an alleged crime is prosecutable. I also provided a list of actions undertaken and successfully completed by the SEC. Again, one supposes that if a large scale change in common law is the goal, that ought to be the premise of elections. (on a bit of a sidenote, since you invoked the Wall Streeter pejorative, I do not work at a bank, but rather in a private capital enterprise, which does not socialise its losses! All of this is to say, that I firmly believe in what I say, and strive to practice what I preach. I do resent the labels!)

To fold in some of what S2C said about Greenspan, I find entirely irrelevant. Greenspan is a bit of an extreme Ayn Randian, but that has no bearing at all in gdp and labour data! Here is a simple thought experiment for those who do not analyse Fed policies for a living: If you object to what the Fed has been engaged in since 2008, think what you would have done if banks failed, ATM transactions frozen, credit cards frozen, etc. etc. You might say that one should have allowed banks to fail en masse, thereby subjecting the “banksters” to poetic justice, you might have a point. Yet it would fail to save the citizen from incredible harm!

anyway enough said!

You could be right of course, yet I hesitate to extrapolate from European experience and apply to the Middle East.

I’m hesitant about the idea as well but I just don’t know what else would work. It’s worked with India and Pakistan – they haven’t exactly learnt to love one another but at least they haven’t had a major war for more than forty years.

It’s worth considering that if Israel and Egypt had both had nukes in 1967 the Six-Day War would probably not have happened, and the Six-Day War was the first fateful step in the destabilisation of the region.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is the most important treaty since the end of WWII. It’s tripart premise and promise was quite simple:

Non-Proliferation:
Non-nuclear-weapon States (NNWS) agree not to import, build or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. NWS are obliged not to transfer nuclear weapons or explosive devices to NNWS. Any group of states are permitted to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones in their respective territories. [USA has failed to appropriately comply with that requirement]

Disarmament:
Article VI of the NPT obliges all Parties to the Treaty to undertake “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”. This is the world’s only legally binding obligation on NWS to reduce and ultimately eliminate their nuclear weapons. . . .

Peaceful Uses:
All State Parties to the Treaty agree to full exchanges of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. NNWS parties must accept and comply with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards as a condition for peaceful nuclear co-operation. The IAEA uses safeguard activities to verify that States honour their commitments not to use nuclear programs for nuclear weapons. IAEA safeguards are “based on an assessment of the correctness and completeness of the State’s declarations [to the Agency] concerning nuclear material and nuclear-related activities.” The NPT encourages international co-operation for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, from medical diagnostics and treatments to power production. Non-nuclear-weapon States (NNWS) agree not to import, build or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. NWS are obliged not to transfer nuclear weapons or explosive devices to NNWS. Any group of states are permitted to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones in their respective territories.
http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/nuclear-nucleaire/npt-tnp.aspx?lang=eng

Israel has not signed on the NPT although it enjoys benefits of nuclear technology sharing — one more instance of Israel demanding treatment as an exceptional [read: rogue] entity all the while disdaining the minimum demands of every other civilized state.

Iran has been a member of NPT and its nuclear facilities have been monitored by IAEA — on some occasions IAEA has betrayed the confidentiality required of it, resulting in the deaths of Iranian nuclear scientists.

the important issue of missing objective analyses,

While he was in his heyday, Alan Greenspan produced hours and hours of complex “objective analyses,” replete with esoteric convolutions.

It was based on a flawed and Randy theory, as Greenspan himself conceded, not so much grudgingly as defiantly. Much of the US economy suffered; Greenspan and “too big to fail” banks did not.

Given the choice between “objective analysis” based on what may well be another “flawed theory,” I’ll go with my own “lying eyes” — the evidence I (or Fran Macadam, above) see of what is happening on the street.

Statistics have zero nutritional value.

I don’t believe StoC advocated for more nuclear weapons in the ME; geokat62 expressed the appropriate position — either nobody has nukes or anybody is entitled to nukes.

The current situation, with Israel the only unregulated and rogue nuclear weaponized entity in the region, is not sustainable.

If you have been reading this thread you will have noticed that as far back as 1995 the other states in the region were promised a conference to create a Nuclear-Free Zone in the region, which was (obviously) aimed at disarming Israel, it being the only nuclear weapons state in the region, then as now. That promise has not yet been fulfilled because Israel and its enabler, the USA, would not permit it to be fulfilled.

Refer also to the link to Israel’s Periphery Doctrine. Yossi Alpher states in bold letters that it is not likely that Israel will change its behavior: the original Periphery Doctrine held that Israel would partner with, among others, Iran. That partnership having failed, and Israel having not yet learned how to get along with its neighbors, Alpher stated that (rather than examining its own rogue behavior) Israel is forming a new Periphery Doctrine, this time by coordinating with, arming for, and carrying out violence and destruction with Egypt and Saudi Arabia against Iran and Palestine and any other indigenous people of the region that demand sovereignty and resist Israeli and US belligerence.

In other words, it is not likely that the effort to bring rogue Israel out of the cold that has failed over the past 40 years will succeed, absent some dramatic event or, tragically, violence.

The situation that exists, therefore, is as if Iranians and the Palestinians — and Libya, Syria, Lebanon — must remain the weapons-free Mother Emmanuel Church, and the Dyllan Roof/Israels of the world must be coddled and given “security guarantees” and more and more weapons.

Does that make sense to you?

How would you resolve that dire situation?

This makes little sense to me, again its like the gun debate, if every country in the world had nukes how is that safer in the long run? It just increases the chances that someone might use it, accident or otherwise. You can’t get US, Russia, China, India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea to disarm. So now you want EVERYBODY to have a nuke. Great!

Everybody’s entitled to his own statistics, just like opinions. Like MacNamara’s, ultimately they claim to say everything and prove nothing except to those who cite them selectively and inappropriately. In this way, they are much like the tautological arguments cited by “race realists,” Holocaust Deniers and those seeing the Jews as the source of all mankind’s ills, ideologies impervious to reason – for those with high IQ, colossally invincible ignorance. Like Jesuits or madmen do, they can be cited to offer irrefutable proof that the moon is made of green cheese, or even Cheez Whiz if necessary.

Your political stance appears to be unreformed Likudnik neocon Wall Streeter. It may serve a policy purpose some may believe serves their higher cause, it is true, but that is about the truth of it.

The cultures are indeed different. But the differences have been easily bridged when, for example, the US, Saudis (9/11?), and Israelis (USSLiberty?) see benefits of cooperation. (These benefits are not always mutual, though).
Iran has been suggesting nuclear-weapon-free Middle East. Do you know any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons and does not want to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency? A hint: this country is not Iran.

Right

Believe what you wish to satisfy personal needs, it still leaves rather unaddressed, the important issue of missing objective analyses, something you have clearly stated as anathema to you …

..Mr. Shama can cite all the statistics he wants…..

The gentleman doth protest too much; no daylight between those two, perhaps literally as well as figuratively, dalliance and alliance both.

“So I am with Sam Shama on this. Makes zero sense to put the bomb within the reaches of Iran. Did you forget what they did to our embassy?”

If the Israelis are not willing to disarm, just as Iraq, Syria, and Iran were and are required to do so, this would leave them as the sole nuclear power in the region, enabling them to lord it over their adversaries. If they do agree to disarm, that’s when the others should be required to disarm as well. Thus, the most stable scenario is if either everyone or no one has nuclear weapons in the region!

Not a bit.
btw I think I have, within a fairly tight confidence interval, determined the issue and identity of the Econ/Physics swap. In the interest of keeping speculation within the confines of speculation, the person, Notare bene, has been jolly thorough in consigning to the proverbial dustbin, Unz’s article on the HYP admissions issue. (I am sure you got the Latin clue)

Again, in keeping with traditions in this echo-chamber, I have not seen from Unz any objective work critiquing her analyses, rather only the fully expected ad hominem that seems to be directed at commentators who provide, in actual practice, “the alternative selection”, so boldly claimed in by UR on the very top line.

On the other hand, if there is such an analyses, which does the objective needful, please inform me and I will retract my observation.

I have been reading this thread, and it seems to me that having more nukes is worse than having fewer. Its pretty similar to when you have a bigger pile of 4th of July fireworks, the chances of an accident has to go up.

I mean your position is also the same as giving a gun to everybody in the U.S. to lower gun related violence! How does that work? (Yeah I know all the NRA b*shit arguments)

I’ve been to the middle east (Saudi, Dubai and Tel Aviv) and what I can say is that the cultures are pretty different.

So I am with Sam Shama on this. Makes zero sense to put the bomb within the reaches of Iran. Did you forget what they did to our embassy?

“If you are genuinely interested in solving the problem, isn’t it essential to discern the root cause rather than “set aside” the root cause?”

As Fran indicated, rather than solving the problem, he’s genuinely interested in “Deep D’d – disrupt, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade, deter, denigrate, distrust, degrade,” despite his flippant response to her query: “What is your purpose?”

Another problem of the anti-war, anti-Israel- influence- over- US- foreign- policy sector is the way that it is atomized. There are many voices and small groups who do their best to gather information, inform themselves, educate others, and speak out, but they have not coalesced to form a body with enough heft to tip the balance.

One such small group is the American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC) http://iranprospect.blogspot.com founded by Ardeshir and Ellie Ommani.

Sadly, Ardeshir has succumbed to a lung disease that he fought for several years, even as he and his wife fought for “peace through justice.”

Rest in Peace Ardeshir Ommani, and condolences to his wife, Eleanor.

“Sam Shama — save your boilerplate for a less informed audience; folks here eviscerated bogus arguments like yours years ago.”

I love it when someone calls a spade a spade!

Sam Shama wrote:

the ME and its instability is utterly unpredictable, and setting aside discussions about what the root cause is,

The root cause is zionism, zionist Israel, and zionized US Congress and foreign policy establishment.
If you are genuinely interested in solving the problem, isn’t it essential to discern the root cause rather than “set aside” the root cause?

Sam Shama wrote:

we simply have to weigh the risks against benefits. If Iran gets the bomb, surely Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq will follow rapidly, perhaps in that sequence.

1. One major benefit might be containment of Israel’s freedom to act violently and with impunity against its neighbors who do not have anything approaching the capacity of Israel to deliver death and destruction.

2. Speaking of delivering death and destruction, do you have the same concerns about proliferating other weapons to “Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq” ? USA and Israel are arming these states to the teeth. Isn’t it a fact that far more innocent people have been killed with non-nuclear weapons than with nuclear weapons?

3. In any event, the nuclearization of other states in the Middle East has already begun, and the USA is supporting the project —

Launched January 4, 2012
The Mideast’s newest nuclear power plant is being built in the United Arab Emirates, just a few hundred miles from Iran. U.A.E. officials promise that the plant will be open to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and other international watchdogs. U.S. and European officials describe it a model project which stands in direct contrast to Iran’s secret nuclear push.
Dig beyond the public statements, however, and U.S. officials acknowledge real concerns about the plant. . . .http://pulitzercenter.org/projects/united-arab-emirates-nuclear-program-weapons-arms-iran-iaea-middle-east

With American support, the Emirati government is building the Arab world’s first—and, for the moment, only—nuclear-power plant. http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/persian-gulf-nuclear-power-bomb-united-arab-emirates-iran-arms-race-braka

Sam Shama wrote:

The various sectarian divisions in the ME cauldron exist at very high base temperatures and it takes only a small spark to set off Armageddon.

Isn’t it a fact that Arabs and Jews got along quite well together in Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Syria for hundreds of years until the zionist project inserted itself and stirred up the pot?

Isn’t it a fact that despite their “sectarian” differences, the various Muslim sects intermarried and lived together in relative peace in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, etc., until the US invasion of Iraq, roundly endorsed & promoted by Bibi Netanyahu, turned the region into a cauldron of chaos?

It IS a fact that Iran is home to at least seven diverse ethnic groups who all get along more-or-less peacefully — at least as peacefully as do groups in the multi-ethnic “immigrant nation” and multi-denominational USA; and that Islam as practiced in Iran is inflected with ineradicable core Zoroastrian habits of mind and culture.

–
Sam Shama — save your boilerplate for a less informed audience; folks here eviscerated bogus arguments like yours years ago.

“The various sectarian divisions in the ME cauldron exist at very high base temperatures and it takes only a small spark to set off Armageddon.”

In case you haven’t noticed… that spark has already been lit. Any idea by whom and for what purpose? Or is that something you’d prefer to sweep under the rug?

By the way, you missed the other Progressive platform point that turns many people off; Separation of Church and State. You will never find a Progressive that doesn’t hammer on that point.

Talk about crossing boundaries to achieve common goals — those goals being, in Phil’s words: “an end to the continuous global warfare syndrome and also pari passu
to get Israel out of our politics,”

“a voting majority actually exists to challenge current policies but it has to come together. . . .” [also Phil's words] — or in any event it has to be pieced together.

One important and surprising piece of that “voting majority” exists in the Orthodox Jewish community. Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro has led a number of protest rallies and participated in interviews to protest, among other things, the denial of religious freedom to Orthodox Jews in Israel! In Israel, Jewish cemeteries are being bulldozed to make way for zionist “progress.”

Rabbi Shapiro’s stump speech gets to the heart of the matter: just as zionism has supplanted American foundational values, so it has co-opted the essentials of Jewish religion:

the most insidious crime that that state has committed against our people: the theft of our identity. WE ARE THE JEWISH people. We are Israel. Here. We have been around for thousands of years practicing our religion. . . . They have not been around long enough to collect Social Security. They are impostors!

Everybody knows the history of zionism: they weren’t happy with the way Jews were. They had inferiority complex. They were not accepted by the religious Jews because they were not religious, and they were not accepted by the non-Jews because they were Jews. They thought, in their great brilliance, that in order to eliminate antisemitism and in order to protect the Jewish people we have to change what the Jewish people are, from a religion . . . to a nation of soldiers and warriors *.

What in the world is a Jewish state, can you tell me? I know what a Jewish person is, I know what a Jewish philosophy is, but the adjective Jewish does not accommodate the noun state.
It’s like saying a Jewish tree, a Jewish car. What does it mean?

The only way the zionists were able to create a Jewish state — for the noun State to accommodate the adjective Jewish — is to change the definition of Jewish. The hate, the seething psychopathic hate that the zionist has for the Jew is not borne out of bigotry and it’s not borne out of ignorance, it’s borne out of fear — fear because they thought by now there would be none of us left. They thought that by now all the Jews in the world, or all that matter anyway would be remade in their image; that the world would be at peace with them; that they would be able to vanquish their enemies with their armies. And now they see that We Still Live! They see that we are rapidly expanding and they see that we raise our voices. They see that they are a failure and that’s why they hate us! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChQLH71HAo4#t=188

Rabbi Shapiro struck both chords of “majority” discontent with US foreign policy and with zionist Israel’s disproportionate influence and impact on it: zionism knows only militarism; zionism’s founding ideology was based on violence and war-making.

The zionist ideology has overtaken and subverted the US Congress and subsumed the principles on which the US was founded.

Perhaps there’d be a better chance of peace in the Middle East if there were more nuclear powers in the region.

You could be right of course, yet I hesitate to extrapolate from European experience and apply to the Middle East. The ME is not the American MW! That’s not a flip remark, the ME and its instability is utterly unpredictable, and setting aside discussions about what the root cause is, we simply have to weigh the risks against benefits. If Iran gets the bomb, surely Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq will follow rapidly, perhaps in that sequence. The various sectarian divisions in the ME cauldron exist at very high base temperatures and it takes only a small spark to set off Armageddon.

Thanks for giving me something to think about. I’ll keep this in mind as I attempt to move minds towards the anti-war message myself. As a Libertarian/Anarchist I tend to get a little harsh with anyone who I see as overly devoted to the state.

I think the biggest problem with regards to your ideas here are that people just love being part of a team and love to hate the other teams. It’s only gotten worse and worse in the last couple decades though. Really terrible and by far the worst I have seen is right now. Identity politics is such complete trash. You really can’t be part of any party and keep your morality in tact. It’s just impossible. It’s not just a matter of compromise either, you have to be able to completely toss out your own belief system and suspend logical deduction at the same time. It’s amazing these partisans’ heads don’t explode from all the cognitive dissonance.

As for Progressives most of them do seem to believe their own line, but then they blow it by hating Republicans/Conservatives/Evangelicals so much that they will back anyone with a D behind their name. This allows anyone with a D to completely ignore them. They know they have their vote anyway.

By the way, you missed the other Progressive platform point that turns many people off; Separation of Church and State. You will never find a Progressive that doesn’t hammer on that point. It’s not that other groups don’t also agree with this but it’s how they come across that is killing them. It’s like they believe Christianity belongs in the closet. Their motto could be Gays out Christians in. This turns off Christians by the millions. I wonder how many of them know the KKK had Separation of church and state as a top item on their list too, just in reverse, if you know what I mean? Not that I’m a practicing Christian because I’m not. But most Americans like myself do believe in God even if we don’t go to church or even give it a whole lot of thought. However, nobody likes to have their beliefs oppressed or even mocked as so many progressives seem to do. It’s one thing to demand that we never become a theocracy and it’s another thing entirely to demand that people keep their faith out of any public place as if it’s something to be ashamed of.

If I had one word of advice for progressives it would be to dial this one back a notch. We get it! You can’t stand Evangelicals, most of us don’t care for them either. But don’t cross that line and make all Christians out to be bible thumping, gun hugging, cousin fornicating, no teeth trailer trash.

Oh and I get the e-mails for the free guns too. I sign up for all of them, I really do. But I do cringe at this message. The Rand Paul supporting ones are coming off as way too right wing. So much so that I have a hard time taking him seriously as any type of libertarian. They just make me think of typical Republican nonsense. Obama gonna grab your guns!! Scare tactic nonsense, when they could be talking about a whole lot more important things, like foreign policy! I don’t know, maybe he thinks this stuff will steal enough votes from the right wingers to win the primaries. I hope so, but it still bugs me to get them. I don’t read them anymore at all, makes me feel dirty like I’m one of “them”.

“Simply wanted to see the source of that poll.”

I don’t buy it. If you were so keen on seeing the source, you could have simply googled it yourself. As I said before, something smells fishy!

And the dead giveaway is your statement: “I’m not opposed to a deal” without explicitly indicating you are, in fact, opposed to the current deal… very, very sneaky!

Scanned your comment prior to reading, spotted the word “Libertarians”, immediately go to next comment #lawgicTrap @stawpPoasting

@Philip Giraldi

I would disagree with the claim that the left has not criticized Obama. He’s regarded in many quarters on many mainstream progressive website as a liar and a sellout, because he campaigned in 2008 on a progressive platform and largely continued the abuses of power of the Bush Administration. The wars did not end, nor were the majority of Obama’s promises.

I think that although far from perfect, the progressive left has one of the largest of the anti-war movements throughout the US.

The opinions were not divergent in the least bit regarding the lethality or undesirability of nuclear arms

Why exactly are nuclear weapons undesirable? They gave Europe an unprecedented period of peace. Maybe it was peace through terror, but then maybe that’s the only way to get peace.

Perhaps there’d be a better chance of peace in the Middle East if there were more nuclear powers in the region. It would certainly reduce the chances of the US getting involved in yet another bone-headed war like the Iraq war.

“But compared to the feeble efforts emanating from the political right and center, I find that progressive events tend to be commendably much more focused and even aggressive but also aimed almost exclusively at the choir with little attempt to reach out to a broader audience. ”

Maybe they are doing the smart thing for their interests. The progressive left wants these issues to themselves. They use issues like opposition to war to recruit.

They have been very consistent and very clear that they will never collaborate with anyone on the dissent right. They consider all of us to be racists, bigots, scum etc.

They will never give us credit for agreeing with them on some issues or decide that makes us less bad.

“Why the self-styled genius of a boasted IQ of 204 is spending time to tell us…is a conundrum.”

So… you smell a fish, too!

Iran has been more than welcoming to Jews for millennia, from the time of Akhashverosh/Esther and Mordechai.

Fascinating.

Sam Shama dates Iran’s “welcoming to Jews” to the events of Esther, who oversaw the slaughter of 75,000 innocent Persians in addition to Haman and his ten sons; Esther installed herself in the position of the queen and gained control of Persian treasure, while Mordechai supplanted Haman as Persia’s foreign minister — in other words, a coup d’etat of the Persian state by Jews Sam Shama termed the beginning of Iran’s “welcoming to Jews.”

However.

Torah records that Persia’s “welcoming to Jews” began much earlier (which seems to imply that Esther’s acts were those of gross ingratitude and treachery, at the very least).

Centuries before the kingship of Ahasueras (Akhashverosh) Cyrus, king of Persia, liberated Jews from the control of Nebuchadnezzar; recovered the sacred vessels of Yehud (the Jews); the people of Persia contributed their treasure to assist Yehud to return to their keenly missed Zion — “If I forget thee o zion may my right hand be forgotten” (one assumes Esther was a south paw); supported the Jews financially and politically for 200 years to return to Jerusalem and rebuild it.

Sam Shama failed to mention those several centuries of Persian friendship toward Jews.
Rather, Sam remembered the events where Jews killed and stole from Persians and he used that as a reference point for Iran’s attitude of “welcoming to Jews.”

–
Sam wrote: “Khomeini was the beginning of trouble.”

Perhaps from the Israeli or Jewish point of view, but the Iranian revolution came about for reasons that were significant to the Iranian people.

If Israel would stop meddling — for example, if Israelis had not abetted and profited while Iranians were dying in a war with Iraq but instead encouraged Iran to seek a graceful end to hostilities; if Israel had offered political support to Iran when Iran complained to the United Nations, numerous times, about Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against the Iranian people, including civilians; that is, if Israel had shown the spiritual and political maturity and generosity that Cyrus demonstrated rather than the greed and bloodlust of Esther, it staggers the imagination how much different today might be.

Gilad Atzom noted in his book, The Wandering Who, that Esther wrote the template for the zionist project.

The Biblical Book of Esther that was given to President Obama by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday was far from being a cryptic message. The Book of Esther is a genocidal recipe; It is there to educate Jews how to infiltrate into foreign administrations. In my latest book The Wandering Who I explore the role of The Biblical text in shaping contemporary Jewish political Lobbying and its open attempt to dominate American and British foreign policies.

Mr. Shama can cite all the statistics he wants, but I’m afraid that for many of us, to believe him, we’d have to ignore what our “lying” eyes present to us, right here in our own neighborhoods, among our friends and community members.

In this middle class neighborhood, on one street alone (this one) there are seven foreclosed single family homes. The bank, Wells Fargo, was certainly bailed out and both wrote off and profited. I guess that’s Mr. Shama’s full recovery and he can cite some balance sheet to prove that the wealth of banksters is the health of the nation.

Food banks are under pressure as never before here, demand having grown exponentially. The number of homeless is a visible sight even in areas they weren’t seen before. There are homeless camps outside city limits.

Inability for many to find employment, or any as good as they previously had, is endemic. Several middle aged men in this community committed suicide after long term unemployment.

The companies that used to provide even high tech employment moved production offshore, and the skeleton crews were moved to become outsourced subcontractors with no benefits.

So many university graduates we know moved back in with parents – no work in their field and often none at all. Underemployment at best.

An answer for some I know has been becoming disabled and collecting social security that way. Sad because they could work, but there is no work.

Savers all their lives now experiencing hardship because the bailed out banksters pay no interest on their savings while inflation to say the least is understated by Mr. Shama’s unchallengeable statistics.

Public services from the city decline because with all the empty storefronts and foreclosures, the budgets just aren’t there from the shrunken tax base.

I could add more, much more, but you get the idea. Of course, the real experiences are merely anecdotal and to be disbelieved, compared to Mr. Shama’s statistics, right there in solid black and white, backed by the full faith of the banking industry and its bureau of employees in government. Although there are competing statistical analyses.

Why the self-styled genius of a boasted IQ of 204 is spending time to tell us we are really eating cake, and all is well with neocon control, Wall Street depredation is good for us and current endless war policy the cat’s meow, instead of engaging in more profitable exercises for himself, is a conundrum.

It really does fit the bill for propaganda.

The Confederate flag,whom my great grandpa fought for in the Army of Tennessee,is a symbol of modern anti Americanism ,as its wavers hate the USA,and also seem hate everyone else.Fly it in the basement,but keep it off statehouses.
If these idiots actually realized who their true enemy is,Zion.

you have definitely read a wide variety of material on the Jewish Diaspora. Iran has been more than welcoming to Jews for millennia, from the time of Akhashverosh/Esther and Mordechai. Khomeini was the beginning of trouble. btw Jews have been living in India for many hundreds of years very happily (originally Iraqi jews)

If I didn’t know what they don’t know, or they didn’t know what I know, then we would not all, not know, what we don’t know.

Yes

Ontologically speaking, to experience the Incredible Lightness of Being.

I can’t think of any other “leaders over there” who makes periodic trips to the United States for the purpose of inducing ignorant Americans into financing and supporting wars against indigenous populations opposed to Israel’s theft of their homeland. The truth is that Benjamin Netanyahu is an arrogant bastard in a class all by himself.