The Gods, Les Visible, and Pascal's Wager

What's a bloke to do? Here I am with a desktop overflowing with unfinished pieces - 'World Death Organisation', 'Satanism and the Self', 'Bonuses for the Most Expensive Fuckwits in History', 'The Daily Global Fear and Desire Index' etc. etc. - and all of them knocked back.


I knocked them back because... who gives a shit? Or to put it another way, we're at the town meeting, called because a thirty metre tsunami is due in an hour, and a voice pipes up asking what the council's going to do about the cracks in the footpath that the tremor caused. And the guy's got a point: the cracks are so bad that you could fall and break your hip. But in the face of the tsunami... who gives a shit?

Actually that's just our little world. Truth is, back in the real world everyone is rolling their eyes, catcalling, and otherwise laughing their heads off. Broken footpaths, the collapsed bus shelter, and what-about-the-insurance, is all they want to talk about - and who is this dickhead blathering about a tsunami? What tsunami? Doesn't he watch the news that guy? Sheesh! If there was a tsunami, they'd tell us. The worst is over - they said so on the news!


Yeah well, we'll leave them to it. We're having a whole other conversation, and there, between 30m waves; and bits and pieces of broken infrastructure, one of them is a topic worth discussing and the other is a mere series of clues pointing to it. Can you dig it?

---

Still, a little nagging voice says that maybe it won't be so. What with the death cult following the Fabian creed of gradualism, perhaps there won't be a tsunami at all - just more run-of-the-mill rollers wearing away, wearing away. Dig it - it's the condemned man keeping his fingers crossed that he won't go before the firing squad and will instead be sentenced to hard sodomy for the term of his natural life. "Oh thank God, it's only daily rape." Whew!

But really, as if the death cult would be so rigidly doctrinaire. If gradualism suits, they'll use it. And if a world war is what's required, then dandy, cue the fire bombing. Or whatever! - they're nothing if not versatile. As if the people who control our education, media, and government are going to leave any bases uncovered or otherwise resile from anything because, well, "That's just going too far..." Besides, there's just too much now and it's there for anyone with an ounce of curiosity to see.


Just to be precise, I figure we're in for an unholy trinity - Economic Collapse: 426 trillion imaginary dollars. Never mind the 'recovery' - is everyone familiar with a 'head and shoulders' curve? Okay, so we're at the shoulder and now comes the long drop, all the way down. Cue the, um... 'Great Recession' is it? Ha ha ha. I guess that's like a Great Depression but with more hype. And more deaths - six million in the US alone last time around. Global Pandemic: A fake virus treated with a vaccine that's no such thing. Will this be the greatest act of mass murder in history? Sure, why not? The CFR/Bilderberger mob has already declared that five billion dead would be just dandy. World War: Iraq, Afghanistan, even the coming smashing of Iran - all sideshows. The big game? Russia v Nato. And are Ladbrokes offering odds on Israel nuking someone? If evens is the best you can get, it'd be worth laying a hundred bucks on.

Any one of these would qualify as an event of unparalleled wickedness. And we're going to get three! Yay - fans of history, rejoice! And sure enough we, who ordinarily prefer history at a bit of a remove, ask the question - What's to be done?

---

Well, we must oppose it! Fight Fight Fight! Well... there will be fighting and no mistake. We'll meet the enemy and he'll be us - the streets will run with blood and the death cult (looking down from their corporate boxes) will roar with laughter. Who said there's East and there's West and never the twain shall meet? He didn't own an Armalite obviously. East/West - North/South - Muslim/Christian - white/coloured - rich/poor - military/civilian - It's time to do the us-and-them cha-cha, and all to a rat-a-tat beat. Buddha was bullshit and his so-called "middle way" nothing more than an excuse for Hegelians to smash two opposites together. Bring on the Revolution! And cue the impossible voice-over guy - "This revolution has been proudly brought to you by International Banking."


If people want to pile in on that, good luck to them. I'm sure the death cult won't have seen them coming. Meanwhile where I live, in this cardboard cut-out town, in a cardboard cut-out state, in a cardboard cut-out country - with Rupert Murdoch in charge of the paper, scissors, and Perkin's paste - ain't nothin' gonna happen. Between the bang and the whimper (with no third option), it'll be "A whimper for me please. And how much is that? Ten trillion dollars? Um... okay, just one then, and not so big thanks." What nice manners we have, even for our rapists.

---

"Hey nobody, what's that in the title, about Les and Pascal having a bet or something?" Oh yes, I do thank that imagined fellow for reminding me. It seems that in setting the mood in the first couple of paras, I've done my usual trick and written a thousand words already. But rather than quit and come back, I'll just plough on.


I have Les pegged as today's Hunter S. All he lacks is an editor to sort out his possessives, contractions, and plurals, ha ha. Sorry Les! (He also lacks Thompson's uncannily accurate descriptions of the paedophocracy, which until Jeff Wells laid them out, I'd always taken as a variety of metaphor. Those stories about Thompson? Well, if Operation Mockingbird and Laurel Canyon got funky together, and the result was a natural child, what would that offspring look like?)

The above is not me dropping any dark hints about Les. I have as good an ear for falsity as anyone, and I've yet to hear Les strike a false note. There are real people in this world and Les is one of them. Or to put it another way - I wouldn't bother discussing Les if I thought he was bullshit, or insubstantial, or any other epithet. I come here not to bury Les, but to praise him (backhanded, of course...)

---

That being said, let's carry on - the point of the exercise here is merely a continuation of me turning Les' discussions of the coming tsunami in deus ex machina terms around in my head and wondering at them from different angles. And that's when Renaissance man, Blaise Pascal, stuck his tuppence in. Primarily Pascal was a mathematician who, amongst other things, built one of the world's first calculating machines, invented the science of hydraulics (and the syringe specifically), and was otherwise the founder of the modern theory of probability.


As if that wasn't enough, he was also a religious philosopher who spent the whole latter half of his life cloistered in the Jansenist convent of Port Royal. Cloistered or no, he never forgot the libertine friends he'd made during his 'worldly period', and with them in mind (and as you might expect from a mathematical expert in probabilities) Pascal sought to appeal to their scepticism by way of a simple bet with what's now known as Pascal's Wager. Here's Encyclopaedia Brittanica -

Pascal assumed, in disagreement with Thomas Aquinas but in agreement with much modern thinking, that divine existence can neither be proved nor disproved; and he reasoned that if one decides to believe in God and to act on this basis, one gains eternal life if right but loses little if wrong, whereas if one decides not to believe, one gains little if right but may lose eternal life if wrong. In these circumstances, he concluded, the rational course is to believe.

It's hard to believe I know, but I'm not the only fellow who turns things around and comes at them from different angles. Brittanica again -

The argument has been criticized theologically for presupposing an unacceptable image of God as rewarding such calculating worship and also on the philosophical ground that it is too permissive in that it could justify belief in the claims, however fantastic, of any person or group who threatened nonbelievers with damnation or other dangerous consequences.

Good point. But you've got to love this - "...it could justify belief in the claims, however fantastic, of any person or group who threatened nonbelievers with damnation or other dangerous consequences." Ha ha ha, that sounds like every religion ever invented doesn't it? It certainly sounds like the Christian church.


Unsurprisingly, with Pascal effectively an adherent of a Jewish sect (er... that would be Christianity), the whole discussion is one of what's-in-it-for-me, driven by the twin carrot-and-stick prospects of the fear of damnation versus the promise of a glorious eternity. And me, I have to ask the question: What sort of insecure God is this?

If a fellow was an incarnation of Francis of Assisi (say), leading a life of perfect virtue devoted to the well-being of all living things, would Pascal's God get angry with him if he didn't know who He was? Absolutely! The Christian God (besides being a slavish adherent to the old bullshit maxim of 'ignorance of the law is no excuse') is a jealous one who visits the iniquity of the father upon his children to the fourth generation merely for failing to acknowledge him. Jesus Christ! As if a God who's every kind of 'omni' wouldn't be above such petty concerns? Where's the serenity?


Bugger it. Why don't we turn Pascal's wager on its head - and plug it into Les' deus ex machina while we're at it? And so: given that Les' manifestations of supernature are not insecure and do not demand we tip our hat every time we sneeze; given that a shit-storm tsunami to end all shit-storm tsunamis is definitely coming, and if anything was ever going to warrant a deus ex machina response, this is it; given the rightness of Epictetus' discussions of 'what is in our power' (thanx Kikx), with stopping a tsunami not being one of them; and not forgetting yours truly being a Buddhist of his own description, attempting to embody the right end of the continuum (at the top of the page), we arrive at the following 'thus' -

Supernature or no, if one sheds fear and desire, and acts with reverence for all things as if they were possessed of supernature, if right, one gains all that might be hoped for, but loses little if wrong, whereas if one embraces fear and desire, and effectively reveres the self, if right, one gains little beyond the ephemeral, but if wrong... "Hey, the ocean's just gone out. Let's go down and look."

Henry K and the Council

The true star of Susan Ford's (Brice Taylor's) Thanks For The Memories is Henry Kissinger. Was there ever a fellow more deserving of assassination than Henry Kissinger? Hmm... there's a piece in that - 'People who deserve to be assassinated, inexplicably haven't been, and what that means'. Al Qaeda? Ha! Otherwise, for anyone who's ever wondered at the Nobel Peace Prize, no need to go any further than the fact that Henry Kissinger got one. It's a sort of unfunny Swedish Monty Python I'm thinking.


In Thanks For The Memories, Henry Kissinger is partners with Bob Hope in 'utilising' Susan Ford. Whilst that team-up may seem absurd, it actually makes perfect sense. All one has to do is plug this into Laurel Canyon with its wider implications re the significance of the entertainment industry, and the whole thing stands to reason. Regardless, the partnership of Hope and Kissinger is clearly an unequal one.

The closest analogy I came can come at for this inequality is one based on computers - imagine Susan Ford is a laptop that Bob Hope uses to find porn. He lends the laptop to all of his buddies and they likewise go nuts looking up variations of www.everyperversionknowntoman.com. The laptop always comes back to Kissinger who, unbeknownst to everyone, is systems admin super-user. What with having installed a keystroke monitor, and otherwise having full access to each of their caches, there's nothing Kissinger doesn't know about every sordid detail of their lives. Anyone who's ever run a computer system and had super-user privileges knows precisely what this means. Privilege equals knowledge and knowledge equals power.


Kissinger, not unlike Frank Zappa of Laurel Canyon, never participates in the vices he urges upon others. In spite of the fact that he was super-user and thus free to go nuts, Kissinger never availed himself of, nor even expressed an interest in, Ford's unrivalled charms. Square this with his carefully cultivated, albeit unlikely, image as debonair lady-killer. There's something not right with that picture but I don't know what it is. Otherwise it occurs to me that far more is to be concluded from those who didn't sample Susan Ford's earthly delights, than from those who did. With Ford as 'trap' anyone who falls into her qualifies as variation of 'prey'. Significantly, only Kissinger and the Rockefeller black sheep, John D Rockefeller, choose not to avail themselves of Ford's programmed easy virtue.

And then there's the council. Ford unambiguously states that Kissinger is their number one servant. Since Ford never states precisely who is on the council it's conceivable that Kissinger might not be a servant so much as a member. Whilst it pays to turn the puzzle pieces this way and that to see if greater sense might not be made of them, in this case I dismiss the possibility of Kissinger as a council member. This would posit the council as some variety of meritocracy, frankly an absurd idea. Aristocracies do not function on meritocratic principles - an obvious contradiction in terms. Their servants, absolutely: regardless of birth, talent and loyalty will be utilised. Amongst their aristocratic selves there will be a meritocracy of sorts but only from within their own ranks. Were it any other way, blood-lines might be displaced. And then where would the aristocracy be?


So who is the council? In his foreword, the author of Project Monarch, Ron Patton, discusses Adam Weishaupt being commissioned by the Rothschilds to unite various occultic organisations under the single banner of the Illuminati. Curiously, in spite of this organisation being founded and sponsored by the Rothschilds, they never get a second mention. Ford herself never discusses the Illuminati, nor the Rothschilds, nor even utters the word 'Jewish', apart from in the most innocuous circumstances. All Jewish people in this book are only incidentally so - they are bit players, innocent bystanders, or victims. And Henry Kissinger? Astoundingly Ford's book never once connects the words 'Kissinger' and 'Jewish'. Were you to read this book not knowing that Kissinger was Jewish you'd arrive at the end of it none the wiser.

But never mind Ron Patton, who does Susan Ford say the council are? She never names names and had she done so I'd view it as a black mark against her credibility. The Council she describes wouldn't be much chop if they went about introducing themselves to the help, would they? But that aside, Ford is free to hypothesize. The Council are Freemasons, she declares. Hmm... Freemasons eh? As a fellow not given to pursuing impossible riddles, I've never bothered attempting to undo the Gordian knot of the Illuminati/Freemason connection. I understand their original purpose as a professional guild. I also understand them acting as a counterweight to the ancient centralised control of Rome (this in the time prior to Adam Weishaupt). However I find their evolution into globe-spanning rulers of everything falls apart for want of coherency. What precisely are the ties that bind? Apart from the Rothschilds as sponsors, that is?


Besides that, the book tends to be at odds with its own assertion of Masonic control. Surely Prince Philip is a thirty-three degree mason? God knows how many times I've heard it asserted that the English crown, by way of its masonic/Illuminati influence, is the global big kahuna in the new world order. Square that with Ford's own recounting of her meeting with Prince Philip, and his diffident surprise and delight at being offered her singular talents. With Ford as the nexus, between Philip and Kissinger only one of them has super-user privileges, and it ain't Phil. The logic here is unmissable - Prince Philip, however high he might be in the Freemasons, is subject to Kissinger, and Kissinger is subject to the council. Not forgetting that Kissinger is Jewish and the Freemasons' transformation into internationalist Illuminati was brought about under the auspices of the Rothschilds. Honestly, Freemasons?

The other significant aspect of the Council in this regard is its ultimacy. According to Ford, there is nothing above the Council, and simple reason tells us that nor could there be. In reading of her descriptions of Council: their meetings, their communications, and their extraordinary secrecy, there is no way she's describing lieutenants. These people she describes are 'it'. In the big game of Risk they're not so much players as the writers of the rules. Given that this is the case, and given that fact that wealth equals power, we can safely declare that they are the richest people in the world. In either wealth or power, were anyone to even begin to threaten them they would have to be destroyed. Forget Sam Walton, forget Warren Buffet, forget Bill Gates, and all those other people topping the 100 richest list - ain't none of them in the running. And yep, even the Rockefellers ain't in this picture. Ford categorically states that the Rockefellers are subject to the Council. The only kind of 'Rich' that could have all these bazillionaires subject to it is that variety of rich that comes with ownership of the Fed and the international Reserve system. And the IMF. And the World Bank.


Thinking about it - the old chestnut about a business being 'a licence to print money' only possesses charm when it's not literally true. When it is literally true, the appeal of endless amounts of money becomes almost silly. It's like the child's daydream of owning a chocolate factory. A child cannot conceive that an owner of such a factory might view the product with something other than a desire to spend all day eating it. And so it is with money. Possessing a licence to print money renders the idea of a Scrooge McDuck-like accumulation of wealth as superfluous to the point of idiotic. Clearly ownership of the Reserve banking system is not about being rich. Rather the exercise becomes one of the prevention of others from achieving the same. It's about power, and that driven by a combination of hubris and a hubristic sense of immortality. Or are they the same thing? Probably.

With all that aside, let's also dismiss some other red-herrings. Ford's book is rife with satanism. Her entry point into the world of the council seems to be entirely satanistic. Interestingly Ford herself views the topic with disdain. As she later states, this disdain is shared by all those higher in the power structure. Marx's phrase about religion being 'the opiate of the masses' is ordinarily used as a dismissal, and further as a reason for Communism's smashing of religions. But viewed from another angle, ie. that of opiates/drugs as being a useful means of control, it could just as easily be an argument leading, not so much to smashing, but to co-option. In fact the latter makes far more sense than the former - why fight a thing when you could put it to work for you? Thus satanism makes far more sense as the beast being whipped than it does as the whip-hand itself, if you can dig it.



Likewise, the Roman Catholic church appears in the book and yet never in any impressive fashion. All early mentions pivot on it as part of the mechanism of the ritualistic abuse that goes into creating a MPD/DID slave. Small potatoes. Later, Ford describes putting on a quasi-religious dog and pony shows to impress the Vatican heirarchy, Pope included. Okay, I think we can safely declare a rule - Anyone on the receiving end of one of Ford's shows is not in the Council.

Going sideways now, how might we view other such religions and religiously driven 'isms'? In much the same way that Karl Marx was equally dismissive of all religions, do we imagine that the banking families of the Council would somehow get all weak-kneed for Judaism? Somehow I doubt it. Beyond Judaism is Zionism and its founding of Israel. The Rothschilds display their enthusiasm for this grand effort by living elsewhere. Sure they founded Israel, with Rothschild putting his John Hancock on the Balfour Declaration, but they founded the Illuminati too. If it's sensible to view the Illuminati as a vehicle for Rothschild co-option and control, why not view Zionism and Israel in the same fashion? It makes as much sense viewed in this fashion as any other - hell, more so. Frankly I expect that the members of the Council would hold Judaism per se in the same contempt as they'd hold for all religions - a bauble for the hoi polloi. That's not to say that it doesn't possess a variety of 'favourite' status: but only that of a tribe historically given to being loyal servants. Besides, a precise demonstration of the value of the Jewish people was given during the haggling that took place during the time of the National Socialists in Germany with Jews in great numbers being entirely expendable.


Back to the red herrings, at no time does Ford mention the nationality of those on the Council, nor does it even seem to enter into the picture. In this vein, what are we to make of the following quote (vaguely attributed to the Council) that describes the reasons for bringing Clinton down, "A cornerstone will fall, and further destabilize the American people. First Nixon, now Clinton, thus the people will lose faith in their leaders and the democratic way of life. So they will want to change it and will lean toward World Order." Hmm... "the American people" eh? Strange way for an American to describe one's own. Knowing what I know of Americans, I have to admit having trouble attributing this to any American mouth.

I know that the 'American Dream' is a myth but that doesn't mean it's not without power. I cannot believe that a person who grew up in the United States (in something other than a closet) would utter such a thing. Not forgetting of course that the New World Order is not a New American Order. With the century just ended being described unabashedly as 'The American Century' do we think that Americans would now come over all coy and worry that in naming the world order after themselves, other people might think they have swell heads? Ha ha ha ha, Americans have no such shortcomings. Americans are American to their bootstraps. They're Americans first and Internationalists second. I will never buy an American as having no attachment to his country, mythical or otherwise. The quote above could only come from a true Internationalist, someone who spent the vast majority of their life not living in the US. So! Let's also strike the CIA, the old money American ruling class, and any other significant US institution (that's not currently headed by a dual-citizen Israeli).


For mine, it seems all roads lead to the Rothschilds and the other twelve families. Collectively they remain the one ring to rule them all. How does the rest of it go? Oh yeah, "And in the darkness bind them". Exactly.

Australia sucks Israel's cock

The headline in Murdoch's Australian was perfectly marvellous - 'Israel slur fear forces boycott'. We thank that sub-editor for a salutary lesson in loaded writing. Shall I translate it? 'Due to our shock and horror at the possible unwarranted denigration of Israel we have no choice but to stay away [from the upcoming UN sponsored anti-racism conference in Geneva]'.


The headline is emphatically not - 'Australia - racism is bad unless it's Israel's' or 'Australia supports world's #1 apartheid state' or 'Israel cracks whip, we jump'. And God forbid - 'Australia sucks Israel's cock', with the sub-head - 'And keeps fingers crossed they leave ten dollars on the dresser on the way out'. Dreadful! What kind of sick freak would write a headline like that?!

I have no idea what this UN backed anti-racism conference is meant to achieve precisely. But I don't really care. For mine, it's a thing worth having just to see who boycotts it. Anyone who signs up for this boycott is declaring that they are a cheap whore who've utterly dispensed with dignity and are happy to take it up the arse, or swallow, or 'anything you like, Israel honey.'


If this country had some pretence at dignity, we'd attend the conference and abstain from whatever vote it is. The whole thing is symbolic after all. But we ain't even going to go through the motions. In whore terms, we've dispensed with wearing regular clothes when we go out in public. Fuck it, we're so hell-bent we'll not only tramp up and down Main Street in lingerie and high-heels, we even have 'WHORE' tattooed on our forehead.

Who's joining the tattooed whore gang? Oh look, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Italy, and Poland all happy to publicly declare that they're whores and they're proud. Apparently Denmark, the Czech Republic, and Sweden got a tattoo but hid it under their panty lines. Hee hee, a little shy it seems. And where's the UK? Where's France? Surely they're not shy are they? C'mon Gordon Brown-Note! C'mon Nicolas Sukkosily! Declare your whoredom! You're big boys now, just stand up and say it.

---

And where do we go from here? Our flagrancy at kowtowing to Israel is matched only by the flagrancy of their slaughter in Palestine. The most sickening massacre of civilians anyone has seen for decades and we in Oz have no words of condemnation. Instead we defend the indefensible. And the US and Canada is worse. No one is even pretending any more. A slaughter rate of 100 women and children for every Israeli soldier. Not forgetting that half the Israelis were shot by their own troops. Hmm... let's make that 200 to 1. Amongst all this blood we merely channel Debbie from Dallas, 'Ooh Mr Greenfeld, what a big cock you have!'

It seems we're in the run up to an exponential curve here. It's a single curve charting two things. One is of Israel's flagrant racist slaughter-fest and the other is our ever more transparent obsequiousness to that shitty little country. As this dual curve climbs into a near vertical orgasm of blood and degradation, something has to give. There's no future in it.


Certainly no future that makes sense. Unless of course the purpose of the exercise is Israel's own destruction, with the non-pedophocracy majority of the world giving a sotto voce cheer. It will necessarily be muted because, as ever, the reality will be one thing and its depiction in the media and the history books will be another. In this imagined reality, Israel will have been a tiny spark of hope for a hard done by people who valiantly went down fighting against a world of racists that hated them for no reason. Don't think they can't convince us of their innocence and our villainy. Honestly, are there any German nationals that don't view themselves as the greatest mass murderers in the history of the world? Bolsheviks or no? There probably are, but me, I never met one.

Regardless of what we think now, I reckon our lot in the future is to view ourselves with the same self-loathing that the Germans currently have. Honestly, right now, right this minute, we are madly declaring that the most racist people in the world are the greatest victims of racism. But that ain't nothing! The two global religions of this world, Christianity and Islam, somehow imagine that they're not Jewish sects. Ha ha ha, madness! Truthfully, there is no end to our ability to believe what we are told.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. First comes Israel's inevitable destruction. The country created out of whole cloth by a handful of banking families, (who've curiously chosen not to live there themselves) will be gone. And we'll all sigh in relief. 'Surely this is the beginning of the end to all that shit!' we'll say. As much as I hate to be a party-pooper, I have it pegged as nothing more that the end of the beginning.

Burn in Hell you deniers of the Holocausts!

Ha! Call me a sell-out if you like, but I've decided to join with those who demand that history not be questioned. I now condemn all those who deny the Holocaust. And as a man not given to half measures I'm upping the ante. It is no longer good enough to condemn those who question the Holocaust. Since there were two Holocausts, both of them must be sacrosanct. Both of them demand that anyone who questions any aspect of either of them deserves to be jailed, broken, and have their life ruined. One is not good enough. It's both or nothing.

What two Holocausts you say? Fact is, there was a Holocaust in each of the World Wars. Before the Holocaust of WWII was the Holocaust of WWI. If you're wondering why you've never heard of it, you need merely look to the anti-Semitic media. As we all know, Jews never get an even break in the media. If only they had a voice! A means to tell us of their suffering!

Never fear, I shall be their voice!


To dwell on the Holocaust of WWII alone is not enough. Any right thinking person must also acknowledge the Holocaust of WWI. To not do so is to dishonour the memory of the victims of a Holocaust. Every aspect of German wickedness delivered upon the innocent Jewish victims was present in both events. Both had gas chambers. Both had soap rendered from human victims. Both had lampshades made from human skin. And crucially both had six million victims. 6,000,000! To not scream in shrill indignation over both of these events is the absolute height of moral depravity.

Consider the enormity of those who only discuss one of these two Holocausts. For mine, it's the moral equivalent of a Palestinian mother who had ten children shot by the Israelis but only wants to talk about the five that she liked. Admit the truth you dreadful woman! The Israelis shot all ten of your children and all that rubbish about choosing five is just embroidery to, a) slur the good name of the Israelis and, b) save you acknowledging the five children you never liked anyway. Honestly, was there ever a people more deserving of their genocide than the Palestinians? The media is right to perpetually paint them as villains. How dare they resist their righteous Jewish masters!? Bloody untermenschen!


Where was I? Oh yes - as in all topics deserving of shrill moral condemnation, silence equals complicity. I'll say it again - Silence Equals Complicity. Anyone who wants to pretend that the first Holocaust isn't the equal of the second may as well just lather up with human soap, settle down in bed next to a human-skin lamp, and read AJP Taylor's History Of The First World War. I read this hateful tome and it appallingly failed to contain a single mention of gas chambers or 6,000,000 Jewish victims. Taylor is a denier pure and simple, and if he isn't dead already, he certainly deserves to be.

And for those who want to start bleating about any other Holocausts, I spit in your face. I have no time for such piss weak 'moral equivalency' arguments. Fuck the massacre of the Armenians under the Donmeh Turks. Fuck the mass starvation of the Kulaks under the Bolsheviks. Were Jews involved in any of these? As victims, that is? NO. As we all know it's only genocides directed at Jews that are worthy of shrill condemnation. And since here we have two Jewish Holocausts with identical features it follows that the shrillness must be doubled. Subsequently those who deny that two Holocausts took place are twice as condemnable as those who only deny one. Don't argue, the logic is bullet proof.


It's always a beautiful thing to have the moral high ground. I am now one up on those who only ever seem to bang on about the Holocaust, as if there was only one of them. Their moral unimpeachability is now laid bare as a sham, a hollow thing of no substance. Anything they say in their defence, ie: it never happened; the numbers don't add up; there's no evidence etc etc, falls at the first hurdle. As they've said themselves in their one-Holocaust campaign, to argue the point is to be a denier - the Worst Thing In The World! Shrillness is all they deserve. Don't argue with them. Just scream '6,000,000 Victims!' How dare they dishonour Their memory! Sickening.

And besides, anyone who disputes this, instantly disappears up their own clacker. What does it mean if one Holocaust is true and the other isn't? That the Jews merely imagined the first one? That they just made it up? What mad inhuman creatures would do this? What possible reason could Jews have for marching around America telling people that they'd been victims of an unparalleled injustice? Why would they do that? I can't think of a single reason. To even suggest that such a thing is possible is a tremendous slur against Jews. A clear case of anti-Semitism. Me - I reject anti-Semitism, I reject Holocaust denial, I embrace all that I am meant to.


Anyone who objects to the 'facts' of the first Holocaust, whether they like it or not, legitimises the questioning of the 'facts' of the second one. Both Holocausts carry nearly identical features - both were conducted against the Jews by the Germans, both had six million victims, both involved the same monstrous atrocities of lampshades, soap, and gas chambers. Between the two alternatives: that Jews recycled the same story to paint themselves as the world's greatest victims; or that Germans are the world's greatest monsters who pull the same shit over and over, only one of these is permissible.

As anyone who's been to the cinema knows, Jews are always victims and Germans are always villains. We cannot flip this coin and reverse these descriptions. To do so would be to say that all those Holocaust movies were a load of shit. Perish the thought! Jews cannot be fraudulent villains who've tricked the world. Germans cannot be the victims of a colossal hoax. The very idea is monstrous. Thus we have no choice but to double the charges. Therefore Jewish victimhood climbs to ever greater Olympian heights (of the God-like variety not the sporting one) and German villainy doubles again, plunging to a whole new nadir.

Is Dante still alive? Someone should get in touch with him and tell him to rewrite his Inferno with an added 34th circle of hell reserved just for Germans. God knows they deserve it.


So! I stake out my territory. I take the highest of high moral ground. I refuse, unlike all those other people who question unquestionable orthodoxies, to deny anything. It's all or nothing. Either both are true, or both are questionable. And I reject the latter. No fence sitting! Silence Equals Complicity. And so, I point my finger - J'Accuse! Acknowledge both Holocausts or be hoist on your own petard of Holocaust denial. Ignorance is no excuse! Anything other than accepting the truth of both Holocausts is no different to pushing that gas chamber button. Twice!

Burn in Hell you deniers of the Holocausts!

I cease opposition. The Government was right. War is the answer.

What does a country have to do before we in the West do that thing, and bomb the shit out of them? We've done it so many, many times for all sorts of pretexts. Think of every country we ever declared war on. Think of any country we didn't declare war on but just 'intervened' in. It's a long list, and no mistake.


Think of the reasons we went in. They made sense didn't they? They certainly made enough sense for the soldiers to troop off happy that they were doing the right thing. They made enough sense for the media to pile in enthusiastically. And they made enough sense for the rest of the population to think little of it and carry on with their law-abiding lives. Sure, a protest here, a protest there - big deal. Mostly we were happy with the reasons given.


And all those people who want to pipe up with their own version of the truth, just sit on it for a minute. If you want to tell me that we visited death and destruction on these countries on account of a pack of lies, I got no time for that today. Today I am a supporter of everything our governments have told us about us as good guys, them as bad guys, and why we should blow their shit up. Our governments have done this many, many times and now it's time to agree to the rightness of the logic.


Sure enough, the logic makes sense. Each of us understands the rightness of standing up to bullies who beat up those weaker than themselves. Britain declared war on Germany for precisely this reason. The German bully was beating up on the Polish underdog and the British were going to do the right thing and help the little guy. Once more - forget counter-propositions. We're running with the posited logic. We're conceding the rightness of that case.


How does the case go again? The people we have to bomb are racists and murderers. They're ethnic cleansers. They commit genocide. They know no pity. They commit atrocities beyond counting. They deliberately kill women and children. They're a threat to their neighbours. They've demonstrated a clear history of having done this over and over. Unless stopped they'll continue to do it again and again. They're enemies of democracy. Their behaviour is beyond boycotts, beyond sanctions, beyond time-wasting talk. We must bomb them. They understand no other language.

That's how it goes isn't it?


And all the while, as our leaders make the case, we're told horrific stories and shown horrific images so that we might know precisely how villainous these people are. You know the kind of thing - We must intervene because these bastards shoot civilians in cold blood. They bulldoze houses with the people still in them. They tell the survivors to surrender and shoot them when they stagger out, white flags held aloft - grandmas, kids, everyone. They have no pity. They use the bodies of children as target practice and laugh about it. They use white phosphorus on crowded civilian areas and burn people alive. All while their citizens sit on a ridge, drinking pepsis, and cheering. They torture people. They starve them. They are cruel beyond imagining. They are pitiless, supremacist motherfuckers who will never see reason and will never be stopped unless we stop them. With force.


These are the stories we are told - by our own governments - to explain the rightness of our going to war against an evil people. Okay. I need no more convincing. I'm there. I concede the rightness of the government's case.


Forget talk of sanctions. Forget UN resolutions. We've had a hundred of the damn things and what happened? Nothing. We've talked for years and years and none of it made a lick of difference. Academic boycotts, trade boycotts, protesting, shaking our fists, it's all a waste of time. These people are villains and force is all they'll understand. We must take military action.


Where to start? How about their navy? Let's send it to the bottom of the ocean. Let's destroy the labs where the satanic weapons are manufactured. Let's take out their illegal WMD's. Take out their radar and destroy the command centres. Let's bomb their runways and shoot down their planes. Let's target all their military infrastructure. Let's take out their tanks and strafe their troops. Hell, I'll even concede to the rightness of the government's case for the targeting of power, water, and sewerage. This is how we do things isn't it? Okay, so let's do it.


Me, I no longer need convincing. The government's case that genocidal villains require a military response has won me over. I'm with them. I concede the rightness of what they say. If they are somewhat shy, it's okay. I shall make their case for them. I will remind them that if it was right before, it's most certainly right today. Let the stirring speeches begin!


"We in the West, we are not craven. We do not shirk our duty, regardless of how onerous it is. If we see a wrong, we look to right it. We will not let evil go unpunished. We will not stand idly by as innocent men, women, and children are murdered in their homes. Never will we tolerate genocide and crimes against humanity. Were we to do so, who would we be? We are not that. We reject it. Just as we reject the lies that would have us view sins as virtues. No more! We shrug off our torpor and do now what is right. With a clear conscience we say to those genocidal murderers - lay down your arms and surrender unconditionally, and we will demonstrate the quality of mercy, a thing you clearly don't understand. You will be tried for war crimes, your people re-educated, and your wealth given to those upon whom you inflicted such untold misery and suffering. Resist and we will crush you. We will embody a righteous, clear-eyed nemesis to your hubris. Your fate is in your hands. We stand ready and await your decision."

The joys of running amok

It's all John's fault. I should have known better than to take his recommendation that we visit Craig Murray's blog. Craig Murray is really something. He was once ambassador to Uzbekistan and was rather good at it except for one small shortcoming. He called things as he saw them. Well that's him fucked. You won't get very far in the Foreign Service doing foolish things like that. Time to find a new career, sure enough. But it's all there on his blog and you can have a read. It's brilliant and Murray has instantly shot into my list of 'People Who Aren't Bullshit'. As John pointed out, Murray's suppressed book about English mercenaries in Sierra Leone, "The Catholic Orangemen of Togo and Other Conflicts I Have Known" is there in pdf form as a free download. I look forward to reading it


But never mind that. What with Murray having a blog, wondering at the world, and not being bullshit, it wasn't long before the usual suspects were piling in and giving him a hard time for the unspeakable crime of anti-Semitism! Not that he'd said anything anti-Semitic of course. It was some other fellow in his comments section who was the guilty party. As we all know too well, it didn't matter that what the fellow had said was true, nor that he'd failed to mention Jews and had in fact referred solely to 'zionists'. Anti-Semitism is the universal Wonder-Tool of accusations. It's whatever the accuser wants it to be and demands not only that you not do it, but that you must stop everyone else doing it too. The charge of anti-Semitism is basically a demand that one kowtow and otherwise concede the rightness of everything the accuser says.

I searched for an analogy just now and the ever-useful Nazi Germany popped into my head. Anyone in Nazi Germany who didn't object to the Nazis was guilty of being a Nazi. Except for the Zionists of course who were tremendous admirers of the National Socialist ideals of racial purity. No really, they said so, and even struck a commemorative medal with a swastika on one side and a star of David on the other. Racists of the world unite!


Best we pretend that that never happened and we all just carry on. In which case you need to know that the rule with all things Jewish is that one only has two choices: sing their praises, or be guilty of anti-Semitism. Take your pick.

Anyway, there I was in amongst a crowd of people, half of whom were attempting to have a rational discussion about an idiotic subject. As I learnt from hard experience, if the topic is idiotic to begin with, the only answer is to be the most idiotic person in the room. If I can make myself laugh then it's all good. And if anyone else has a giggle, so much the better. The following are my comments -

---

Oh dear, it's just like the bad old days on indymedia. Nazihunter is that really you? By his endless ad hominems ye shall know him.

I'm reminded by this debate of the school debating club. There, the greatest sin was to have the whole thing end up as a definitions debate. This being due to the fact that no debate could take place since no one would be able to agree on what it was we were talking about. Which is bad if the point is to have a debate. But it's good if the point is to kill the debate and just turn the whole thing into a pointless shit-slinging blatherfest. And since the Zionists could never win any debate on facts, it's blatherfest here we come. Every time. Always the same.

But why don't we do the definitions thing anyway? It passes the time. Mr Bronstein above is perfectly correct. Pretty much the whole Levant qualifies as Semitic. And, (with the irony running rampant) the only people of the Levant who aren't Semitic are the Ashkenazi Johnny-come-lately's all of whom came originally from Khazaria in the Caucasus (by way of Russia, Poland, Germany etc). Which is to say, they're Caucasian. Oh alright, arguably they're Turkic since that's where they started out. But either way they're no more Semitic than I am.

So - Between a Palestinian shooting one of his Caucasian Ashkenazi occupiers, and an Ashkenazi lobbing white phosphorus into the Gazan concentration camp (Biggest in the world! Bigger even than the Warsaw Ghetto!), where does the anti-Semitism lay?

So - Between the Ashkenazi authorities of the 50's who dragged Sephardim kids (and only Sephardim kids) out of school on the pretext of ringworm and blasted them with insane doses of radiation, (no really, google 'israel ringworm scandal'), and the adult Sephardim survivors who had lots of uncomplimentary things to say about the refusal of the Israeli government to compensate for, or even acknowledge, what was done to them, who was the anti-Semite?

So - Between the Ashkenazi Israeli government failing to pay the Ashkenazi Holocaust survivors in Israel any of the monies put into various Israeli banks by Germany as compensation, and the survivors who, sick of their penury and of being ignored for decades, complained that the Holocaust survivors in Germany were treated better than they were and shame on the Israeli government, who was the most anti-Semitic?

First correct answer gets a free ticket to Gaza. And for the runner up - two free tickets! Good luck!

-

PS. If anyone wants to get huffy and accuse me of anti-Semitism I offer the following perfectly valid reasons -
1 - I didn't do it and no such thing happened. (Just quietly, they probably did it themselves. They do that doncha know)
2 - I didn't do it, but they were shooting at me so I had no choice.
3 - I did do it but since the UN failed to tell me otherwise I had to shell that building with forty civilians in it.
4 - Well not that building. I was actually shelling another building where they most certainly were shooting at me (and I defy anyone to prove otherwise) and it was all a big accident.
5 - Anyway, I'm the victim and as the aggrieved party I can do no wrong. And besides, as a Caucasian, I assert my right to reject all criticism of me as anti-Semitism.

-

PPS Actually Ehud Olmert told me to say it. I was in the middle of a speech in Philadelphia and he called me mid-speech and of course I quit whatever I was doing and rushed over and he told me to tell Condoleeza Rice to tell the UN that it's not true that Zionists run America. So clearly Zionists do not run America or any other thing. And anyone who says otherwise like whoever it was that said, "The Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." are obviously anti-Semites. Oh now I remember, it was Ariel Sharon. Bloody anti-Semite!

Islamic banking, Jewish banking, and a medley of mixed metaphors

In the current discussion of all things economic, there's been one aspect of it all that I've been keeping an eye out for, so far without much luck. But the odd piece pops up. Here's an article out of AP that's one of the few that I've found - Crisis widens appeal of Islamic finance.

Before we get into the big stuff let's just tear the article apart. It seems pretty innocuous doesn't it? It says nice things about Islamic banking. Sure enough, it's not what's in the article that is the problem. It's what's not in it. And what's not in it is the word 'usury'. Likewise, 'interest' gets a single blink-and-you-miss-it mention, and only in a sentence that's as fine an example of ambiguity as you'd find in an English textbook. The next sentence is perfectly idiotic. "[Islamic banking's limitations] rule out some of the products that got Western finance into so much trouble such as subprime mortgages, collateralized debt obligations or credit default swaps". Some of the products? God spare me! Is that the best this fellow do? Me to him - 'Wake up dickhead! It doesn't have interest! Can you grasp the significance of this?' Somebody slap that hack. Hard.

This piece (like every other MSM piece, sure) is not so much designed to enlighten readers but to befuddle them. Those not familiar with the topic would come away thinking that Islamic banking is some religious variation of 'not quite the thing'. It finishes, just as we'd expect, with a defence of 'conventional' banking. God forbid we should call 'conventional' banking what it is - Jewish banking.

Honestly, isn't that a fair description? In fact, what we now refer to as Islamic banking used to be Christian banking. Christians, like Muslims, used to consider usury, and the charging of interest, to be a sin. Apparently the Reformation somehow put paid to that. From a state of complete ignorance, I ask the question - How did that happen? Did any historian ever write a book looking at the Reformation from the point of view of Christianity's 180° turn on usury? Or if they did, did any publisher put it into print? Or if they did, did the media pick it up, run with it, and enter it into the vernacular? Ha ha ha, we're not a million miles away from a Dyson vacuum cleaner commercial with its three-tiered filter system ensuring no dirt gets through to ruin Jewish banking's otherwise spotless house.


But to hell with vacuum cleaners. I'm going to call 'conventional' banking what it is - Jewish banking. It's their gig, they invented it, and they've held the reins ever since. It started with the goldsmiths and it never changed. And now it rules the world. Three cheers. Sure enough, those chosen by God would have us view everything they do as an act of that self same God. Jewish banking is to be viewed as being as inevitable as the sunrise. In much the same way that no one will ever say, 'What's to be done about that sun coming up every morning?', same-same usury, credit, and interest. No discussion of the essential nature of money, banking, and how it all works (or doesn't work), is to be permitted. Certainly not in any way that will lead to enlightenment. Befuddlement is the key. If the whole world were scratching their collective head with only those who run the gag getting it, then all is as it should be. Or so say the bankers (sotto voce, of course).

Jewish banking, such as it is, is actually a pyramid scam, not so very far removed from what we've been told Bernard Madoff did. (Speaking of which, remember those pyramid scams that bankrupted Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Did we ever hear who ran those, or where the money went? No? Gosh, I wonder who it was.) Anyway, under Jewish banking, with all money as debt, eventually a point must be arrived at where there's more debt than there is actual real world stuff to pay for it all. Really the insanity of this arrangement is obvious. Take Indonesia. They owe so much to the IMF that the debt can never be paid. Not without the Indonesians moving out and handing the whole country, lock stock and oil barrel, over to their creditors. Not that that would work of course. Best they all just stay on as debt peons. And so it is for the world. Eventually we must come to a point where everything in the world, us included, belongs to the bankers.

Are we at that point yet? Looks like it doesn't it? The pyramid scam has hit its endpoint. Now comes the chaotic crossover period where the priests of banking declare themselves god-kings of the new world order. But mucky stuff happens in periods of chaos. Our media supplied rose-tinted glasses slip. The three-tiered filter can't quite suck up all the dirt. People look about. Islamic banking eh? Sure enough, nobody needed it when the pyramid scam was raging. This thing would go on forever! Fuck shank's pony! Everyone get on the gravy train!


Ha ha ha. Now the train has derailed. We all look to the conductor. 'Don't worry, stay in your seats. Everything's being sorted out.' he says. But out the window we see an old iron horse, like some thing from the dimly remembered past. It chugs away - weedy-puff, weedy-puff - barely faster than walking speed. It can no more derail than Ayer's Rock could just fall over. It's the Islamic Banking steam engine. What if we got off this stupid Jewish banking streamliner and got on the old reliable? And that's the thing. We could all get on it. And with perfectly dry eyes we would watch as the nightmare wreckage of the Jewish dream machine slowly recedes into the unlamented past.

And that's what it's all about. The means of our peonage is the Jewish banking system's control of money and debt. The only way this works is if we have no choice, ie. it's a monopoly. Anyone with an alternative must be destroyed. The only substantial alternative to Jewish usury is Islamic non-usury. Remember - Jewish usury and banking is precisely the vehicle (I'll argue the only vehicle) by which the ultimate ambition, subjugation of the whole world, can be achieved. Everything else comes second. Everything else is servant to this ne plus ultra mechanism. Neither war, nor religion, nor culture could achieve this. Each of them is limited. None of them can achieve the strategic endpoint of world domination. They can only serve as tactical responses to threats to the usury strategy.

Soapbox time now - Everything that's going on between us, the subjects of Jewish banking, and the people of the Islamic banking alternative is about the sanctity of usury. Everything. Don't think small. Think big. Thinking big now, how about this - the founding of Israel was not an end in itself. It too is merely a tactical ploy in the long term strategic effort of having the entire world being owned by the banking families. Israel is merely a cancer expressly planted in the geographic heart of the lands that do not pay fealty to Jewish banking. In the Middle East. Where the Muslims are. And do the Rothschilds and their pals actually live there? No? Um, okay. Is that not significant?

Way back when, like a century ago, various other countries were being mooted as potential homes for Zion. These were just lobbed up as smokescreen. Israel was never intended to be a safe home for Jews. It was always intended to be a mad little hornet's nest that would ensure war with its neighbours. The religiously deluded, expendable Jews in Israel are there to be used up and thrown away by the banking families in their campaign of dominance by usury. Forget platitudes and homilies. Whatever Israel claims to be on about, it will never achieve it. It will never be a safe haven. It will never be a regularly functioning country. It has no future that makes any sense.


The impossibility of Israel only makes sense if we view it as, I don't know, how about a parachute regiment dropped behind enemy lines? Their mission is (truth be known) to blow up some Islamic banks. Everything else is bullshit designed to convince the regiment to go on a mission from which they cannot be saved. And what? We're going to tell them that? Hardly. 'Men of the paratroop regiment! Take that terrain and make an eternal home for paratroopers the world over! The future is yours!' The strategists back in their villas on the shores of Lago di Como (who'd no more live in Israel than eat their own shit) know how to inspire their men.

And they know how to inspire us. We've been sold that fucking mission statement too. (Am I alone in hating that expression? When I hear the words 'mission statement' I reach for my gun, ha ha.) And we bought it. Israel something or other, terrorism, bullshit, bullshit, the economy, governments, fucking hell, let's riot and set fire to cars! We shake our fists at whomever.

Meanwhile, down at the Islamic bank, Mr Anouar "I don't think conventional banks are dirty, bad, or money obsessed" Hassoune is diligently, and honestly, totting up the figures with no idea that it's all about him. He's it.

Merry Xmas, Ha Ha

And as we run into Xmas, isn't there lots of neat stuff happening at the moment? An untouchable, Bernard Maddox, falls. Where might his money have gone? Could be anywhere, says James Petras, of a fellow he acknowledged a few paras earlier as a zionist. In fact, says Petras, for destroying the upper class, Maddox is a hero and deserves to be sent to Israel. No really! He actually said that.

Otherwise I can't help thinking of Zim Shipping moving out of the WTC a fortnight before its collapse. Who'll give me odds that we soon see our Bernard swanning about in Tel Aviv? Along with those Jewish billionaires he 'defrauded'. If I said that the Rothschilds are giving everyone their take-it-or-leave-it marching orders, would the argument fall at the first hurdle?

The wars in the Middle East are as much about destroying the US military as they are about destroying the Middle East. And the Rothschild's Fed is destroying the US economy. So why don't we just say it? The US is in the process of being destroyed. Or let's put it this way - If the US was being destroyed by the Rothschilds (say), wouldn't the penultimate act be to destroy the wealth of the American ruling class and spirit away the assets of the Jewish Billionaires? It works for me.

Anything else going on? Assorted cables were cut in the Middle East. Again! One cable sure. Two, a mind-buggering coincidence. Three, a flat out impossibility. Last time it was actually eight cables, believe it or not. This time let's see if this current number of three doesn't climb. Me, I'm still convinced that this cable cutting is big. Dry runs are one thing but eventually it'll be the real deal. Is this it? Well, yours truly, great sage and equal of heaven, seems to have misplaced his hindsight spectacles. I'll find them eventually, and get back to you.

Otherwise Canada's Harper pulled a swifty, crushed a no confidence motion, and is now ruling without parliament until the New Year. Wow, that sounds drastic doesn't it? In Europe, Greece has dissolved into riots with the question being, when does Europe follow? Israel is set to invade Gaza. All they need is the right international distraction. Actually Israel has lots of war plans. They're just itching to have Lebanon, Syria, and Iran all 'Get Some!' Netanyahu is exactly the kind of guy who'd climb in a chopper just for the joy of machine gunning running peasants. 'Get Some!'


But I'm being premature surely - they'd never pull anything over Xmas. Xmas is sacrosanct ...really? To whom? Try to picture an attack on Xmas day. Can you imagine that? How about the Rothschilds? Might they imagine it? I don't see why not. They're imaginative people. Perhaps the most imaginative who ever lived.

One thing's for sure, if anything happens on Xmas day we'll know that this is it. A monster false flag on Xmas itself would count as a 'fuck-you' so huge that it could mean only one thing - the time is now and the New World Order is upon us. A Xmas day attack would be the spit-on-the-crucifix that makes all the other crucifix-spitting look like a ho-hum daily event in Palestine.

There'll be no questions about this in the media of course. They will be the fear-and-anger sound system that goes to eleven. If you ask them why not just make it go to ten - or any other thing - they will just look at you blankly. They will have us all know the rightness of bombing, killing and otherwise inflicting misery and suffering upon whomever. Muslims I expect. Muslims revere Jesus as much as Christians do, but never mind. That will be spun somehow - spun so that we in the West will be so angry that we'll get all-kinds-of-Old-Testament on... Hell! You tell us! We're good!

A Xmas day attack will be the end of as-we-know-it. The plans of the CFR, the Bilderbergers, and their Rothschild sponsors do not call for more of the same. The plans call for more-for-them and less-for-us. The population must be thinned. The pretence of democracy will be over. The death-and-mayhem chaos must be total. Many, many will have to die. From this chaos will rise the Rothschild's lovely one world thingy. We will have peace, love and understanding - with lovely Rothschilds uber alles. 'Oh, thank God, peace at last.'

But that's only if they blow shit up on Xmas day. If nothing blows up, ignore everything I just wrote. What was I thinking of? Madness. Just forget the whole idea and have a lovely Xmas. And you can look forward to the New Year safe in the knowledge that you've at least another year of freedom. So! Merry Xmas! I hope you and your families enjoy a day of love and laughter. And me, I'm off to the beach for the traditional Xmas day surf.


PS. If this is it, and the internet ceases to function and we never meet again, can I just say how nice it was to have met you all! It was all absolutely brilliant.

Lots of love, nobody, ha ha.

no starvation here

Have a read of this masterful (but very long) piece on the politics of food by Stan Goff over at counterpunch, Without disagreeing with him or detracting from his brilliant article, I should like to add a note of specificity.

Goff speaks only vaguely of who is responsible for the coming mass global starvation. It's an elite corporate oligarchy or something or other. I wonder at such vague descriptions. Somehow, these loose terms unite people who, one would have thought, have little in common. Certainly I understand wealthy people acting in each other's interests as an abstract thought. And yet in a discussion of 'who', I'm meant to accept that the captains of diverse industries, in diverse countries, possessed of diverse faiths, languages and cultures, and united only in their wealth, will unanimously agree to the rightness of starving to death countless millions, their own countrymen included.

Apparently, in the face of all that defines people, wealth alone is sufficient to bring all manner of people together to perpetrate a crime unparalleled in history. Am I the only person who has a problem with the likelihood of this?

See if the following doesn't make infinitely more sense. Above the corporations is international banking. This is controlled by a dozen families. They own the US Fed, the Bank of England and the reserve banks of every industrialised country in the world. Between them they have more wealth and power than all the corporations combined. The corporations are the monetary policy maidservants of the banking families. None may stand against them. If a US president opposes them he will cease to be the president. If it profits them to crash the US economy, they will crash the US economy. If the world population is something other than what suits them they will starve billions of people to death. The corporations get with the program or they... well, they just get with the program. There isn't really any choice.

Unlike the disparate wealthy corporatists, the families are perfectly and utterly united. They don't view themselves as having anything in common with the people who will starve. They don't even view them as people as such. They have a lot in common with Israel though. Israel is their country - they made it as a testament to their greatness. Rothschild, in a rare slip, couldn't help himself and put his name on the piece of paper.

For those who don't care for such lines of thought, keep an eye on the media and see if the words 'food shortage' and 'Israel' are ever uttered in the same sentence. Don't roll your eyes and mutter about Israel being a first-world nation. The US is a first world nation, isn't it? And as you read this, US food shortages have already begun. Meanwhile back in Israel, between the imperatives of portraying Jewish people as victims and the need to encourage Jewish immigration and ensure the legacy of the bankers, the latter will win. There will be no food shortages in Israel.