Monday, April 28, 2008

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.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

in which the leader of the Red Team wigs out and gives the game away

Never mind the Department of Homeland Security. The spooks are all over this blog like flies on stink. There's tons of 'em - various, and even my own And these are just the ones that don't hide their identity. They either don't care if I know that they're visiting or they want me to know. Either way, I'm bloody spooked. So much so that I've wigged out and shall now spill the beans in an effort to save my skin.

I confess - I am the famous Leader of the Red Team. My mission is to destroy the United States of America. I will now lay down my plan as a testament to my self-impressed genius.

My plan is simple. It consists of two strands. I shall take control of the US money supply and the US media. With the money supply I shall control the economy and impoverish the people. With the media I shall ensure that my otherwise nonsensical 'monetary policy' is seen as an act of God. And as ever, fear will be the key.

Control of the money supply
First I shall establish a privately owned Central Bank. Certainly I shall confuse people by declaring myself 'Federal'. But this will be a ruse. I will be as 'Federal' as Fedex.

I shall achieve this coup by way of threats, bribes and blackmail. Since this bank will be in no one's interest but my own I shall operate in secrecy and have the legislation passed during the Winter recess with no one present in the congress. With this done, every American note in circulation will not be the property of the people of the US but will instead be mine and the government will have to 'borrow' it from me.

The people of America will then pay me interest for the pieces of paper I printed for the cost of the paper and ink. To pay this interest I shall force the members of Congress to introduce income tax, every penny of which will go to me. I shall impoverish the entire population of America. Can you imagine such a thing? To add insult to injury, I shall also demand collateral for these loans. The gold in Fort Knox shall be mine. If you looked up 'chutzpah' in the dictionary there is a picture of me there.

As if this wasn't enough, I shall also dictate monetary policy. The government can have Fiscal Policy. Who needs it? Like I care how crummy American roads, bridges, and hospitals are. Ha ha ha - my brief is to destroy America remember? Monetary policy is all about debt. With control of the media I shall convince Americans that debt is good and that everyone can all live like kings with new Eezy Kredit. But it's a fool's errand. Once they're in debt I will own them. A man in debt is as good as a slave. I know this sounds unlikely but you'll have to take my word for it. I'll sum it up by saying, debt equals fear, and fear is the key.

Control of the media
Me, I shall fear nothing except exposure. To this end, I shall, using my unlimited funds, control the media. The media will talk about everything but my ownership of the money supply and my ownership of the media. Don't think I won't be able to do this. I shall make such utterances the single greatest crime there is.

Certainly this silence will be crucial. But the media is capable of much more than this. Most people know nothing beyond what the media tells them. With control of the media I can point all those who might oppose me in every direction except mine. They will chase all manner of idiotic chimeras. People who haven't a snowball's chance in hell of harming America will be painted as terrible devils deserving of tremendous outlays of American blood and treasure. Madly, patriots will chase everyone from penniless, illiterate peasants in the most god-forsaken hell-holes to penniless but perfectly literate nobodies in tourist beach towns (ahem). They will attack everyone but ME, the man responsible for their impoverishment and the destruction of their country.

But even that will not be enough for me - I'm here to destroy America, so why would I wish for its people to live in peace and harmony? Racial disharmony will be first. It's as easy as a dog-whistle. Only one racial group will be immune. Mine! And that's just for starters. I shall convince American youth they are smarter than their parents and thus tear families apart. I shall promote a dog-eat-dog attitude ensuring that American society is centrifugal. I will crush community and fellow-feeling and everything that was good. Americans will know only selfishness and fear.

So! There you are! I've given the whole game away. Now it's the Blue Team's turn. It's your job to save the United States of America from the Red Team. What's your plan?

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

chaos theory

Every cell in the body is only one cell away from a nerve or from the blood supply. The complexity of the nervous system and the circulatory system (amongst others) is beyond comprehension.

When I was in high-school we learned that atoms were comprised of protons, neutrons and electrons and that these were the smallest things there were. But later we learned that these tiny particles were comprised of smaller particles and those of other smaller particles and so on. There is no end to this process.

If we wanted to measure the coastline of an island we could do so with a large map and bit of string. If we got a 100m tape-measure and measured the actual rocks at the waterline the increase in detail would be huge and the measurement would be greater. What if we measured each rock at ever decreasing molecular levels? The coastline of the island would nearly approach the infinite.

The world, the universe, everything is infinitely detailed. Nothing can ever be measured to a level of infallability. This is chaos theory. Chaos theory says that ultimately the universe is unknowable.

And my point? My point is for those who think they understand the world and are its masters. They are wrong. However great their understanding of the world (by way of human affairs) their knowledge will always be incomplete. As another metaphor, let's say your average mug-punter understands the world in round numbers and that those who imagine they are the world's masters might understand things to three decimal places. Doubtless, this impresses them. And it would impress me too if this knowledge was put to good use instead of impoverishing, enslaving and starving people. But the fact is that those metaphorical three decimal places are not enough.

A butterfly can make a thunderstorm. Were one to kill all the butterflies, sooner or later a bee would do the job. Perhaps one could employ super-computers to predict thunderstorms and spend one's life ducking and weaving to avoid this lethal force of nature. But eventually this effort too will fail. No computer, no matter how 'super', will ever accurately predict the weather.

The thunderstorm above is a metaphor for nemesis. Nemesis is the response to hubris. There is no nemesis for those nominated in the beatitudes. Were the bankers to expend their time, money and energy improving the lot of mankind, the thunderstorms they fear would be just another marvel of nature. They could grab a beer, sit on the verandah and enjoy the show - nobody's favourite pastime.

Speaking of marvels of nature, an image of a tiger fills my head. The bankers choose not to marvel at the tiger. They choose to ride it and subject it to their will. Such a hatred of nature is in the DNA of these masters of the world. But no one can ride a tiger forever. The only creature that can do so is a flea. And it might be a very clever flea too: it can direct the tiger; it can weaken the tiger and prevent it from removing the flea; and when the tiger dies it can migrate to another tiger. But it's still a flea, a flea that imagines it's greater than God. And God spare us such a self-impressed idiotic creature.

And one day the tiger will, perhaps even by accident, scrape off its flea. On a day unpredicted, a single impossible thunderstorm will come out of nowhere and, in a spirit of perfect impartiality, fulfil its role. For the first time in millennia the fourth decimal place will be the one that counts. Thinking twenty, thirty, forty moves ahead in a chess game is not enough for a world that is infinite. This is chaos theory. Not that we really needed it. The Buddha said it all thousands of years ago and he did it with five words - the only certainty is change.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

American guns - what are they good for?

Here in Australia very few people have guns. People in the country who have problems with feral pigs, rabbits and foxes etc can register and possess long arms. Otherwise hand-guns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons are mythical things we see only in movies. And on the hips of cops, sure.

I understand the appeal of guns. I learned guns under my father, a thirty year military man. I've fired all sorts of long arms from pop-gun 22's through to a genuine Rhodesian elephant rifle. It weighed a ton and kicked like a motherfucker. That insane elephant rifle aside, guns are cool.

In spite of this, I have to be honest and say I like living in a country where the probability of being shot with a handgun is as close to zero as is statistically possible. The fear I sense in the US is absent here. The only fear here is of the standard sock-in-jaw variety from drunks in bars. I say all this so you might understand this foreigner who wishes to discuss American guns.

I've followed the American arguments concerning guns and gun control. The arguments from the pro-gun lobby seemed to me to run primarily on the twin strands of rights as granted in the second amendment and the fear of crime. These are American arguments. Here in Australia neither make any sense. But we're not discussing Australia.

Even in the American context I wondered at these twin points. They seemed at odds with each other. The second amendment is about something, but it ain't crime. Here is the second amendment - 'Amendment [II] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'. Is it just me or does this seem to be about the security of a free state by way of a well-regulated militia?

I understood a pro-gun argument based on fear of crime. How far would the gun lobby have gotten with an argument based on the security of a free state? When have Americans not been secure and free? One could argue that under the Fed they never were, but at least until recently the facade was in place. An argument pivoting on crime was the only one that made sense.

But that was then, this is now. Citizens of the United States of America - here's the question - how do you now feel about the security of your 'free' state? The very Bill of Rights we're discussing is just a goddamn piece of paper apparently. Who threatens the security of the free state? It ain't Muslims. The second amendment doesn't say who the guns were to be used against, but the framers of the constitution had just fought a war against their tyrannical rulers. Might this have contributed to them so clearly stating the value of a well regulated militia?

All of those bearers of arms, schooled in the modern mindset of 'home defence', a tyrannical government does not fear you. Singletons waiting at home to defend their property will be comfortably picked off one by one. Tyrannical rulers will only fear you if you are in a well regulated militia. If you sit at home with a gun in your hand, you're doomed.

Says this writer, (and I merely echo your own founding fathers), for your guns to be of any value you will need to form militias. You must abandon defence. You will never win a stand-up fight against the government's greater force, Blackwater included. If your home being violated is the price, so be it. Don't let the tyrants choose the battleground. Seize the initiative. Attack will be your only option - hit and run. You will need structure and you will need strategies. Military training will be of value but only by way of tactics. Current US military strategy will be a weakness - a weakness of the government. The golden rule of the militias must be - hit 'em where they ain't. It will be guerilla warfare or nothing.

And if you're wondering who to hit, may I make a humble suggestion? The first and most important target is the media. If you leave them alone they will ensure you have no support from the populace. Ho Chi Minh was right - without the people's support you will never succeed. Blow up the towers, cut the cables, win the support of your community. Your government must fear you. And you must not fear them.


-A side-note to nutbar racists. Your founding fathers weren't fighting coloured people. Their enemies were other white men. The new tyranny will likewise be white men. Know that even in the absence of racial disharmony the government via the media will attempt to cause it. White people will be provoked, as will everyone else. You can bank on it. Don't be as stupid as the government thinks you are. Strive to find harmony with those who, like you, suffer under tyranny. Racial division will be the death of freedom and must not be tolerated.

Friday, April 18, 2008

discussing the profane

A friend recently mentioned this blog as being one-track. He's got a point. I seem to be perpetually obsessed with things Jewish. This perception is interesting. However it's my opinion that this blog is actually about something else altogether. There's a far more elegant definition that neatly incorporates all the other disparate pieces I write (which inexplicably fail to mention Jews).

This blog is about hypocrisy. It's about the gap between truth and representation. In a discussion of the sacred and the profane, which is to say that which must be said and that which mustn't, I merely ask why might a subject be profane, and says who? If one's prepared to concede that certain topics are profane it stands to reason that a mere discussion of the why and wherefore of that designation, is, in and of itself, profane. Proscriptions of profanity wouldn't last very long if everybody sat around discussing them all day.

Why are certain subjects so defined? Why may they not be discussed? Says I, we may not discuss certain subjects because were we to do so their false nature, the gap between their actuality and misrepresentation, would be laid bare. This is the only reason a subject is profane.

Who has the power to declare a subject profane? The answer is in the question, ha ha - it's the powerful obviously. Things are declared profane to protect a power structure. No subject will be classified profane to protect the weak or the innocent or those subject to the powerful. Not in this world.

Where were we? Oh yes, this blog is one-track and obsessed with things Jewish. The comment is itself an acknowledgement that one really oughtn't to be talking about such things. Which is to say, the subject is profane. Hmm... interesting no?

Try this easy experiment - discuss Jews at a social situation in something other than platitudes. Actually, don't - it's social death. Instead discuss any other group of people. Discuss Muslims. Discuss Roman Catholics. Discuss Buddhists. Discuss Chinese. Discuss Italians. Discuss gays. Discuss stamp collectors. Discuss the Country Women's Association. Say any goddamn thing about any goddamn people - except Jews. This is the profane subject non-pareil.

Somehow, miraculously, the obvious function of what is and isn't profane is turned on its head. Somehow we hold the absurd belief that we may not discuss things Jewish because the Jewish are the weakest, the most innocent, the most subject to the powerful.

Let's get real. What is and isn't profane is defined by the media. Control of the media grants one the power to define the profane. And we may not discuss things Jewish because the Jewish media has declared the topic thus. The power structure that is being protected is Jewish banking, the single most powerful structure in the world.

Wonder at the breadth and depth of the effort that has gone into this designation of profanity. The media, all of it, must sing from the same song-sheet. The other forums of discourse - educational establishments and houses of government - must also obey the rules. The staggering size of this effort is undeniable evidence of the fear of the power structure of public exposure. By their own actions they're telling us that truth and fearlessness can bring the edifice down.

Of course this blog is profane. If it was anything else I'd view it as intellectually dishonest, and chickenshit with it, ha ha. Not here. Not me. And not you either. The weapon to bring down those who would keep you enslaved is right there, waiting for you to grasp it. The weapon is truth. Only fear stays your hand. But it's their fear, not yours. It's been implanted in your head as a pre-emptive shield. In truth, it doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination, a delusion. To merely see it for what it is, is to cast it off. Between darkness and daylight; truth and delusion; fear and fearlessness, you don't need me to tell you anything. The answer is obvious and undeniable, and you knew it then and you know it now. A blink of the eye and you're there.

Monday, April 14, 2008

We're all Amalekites now

Here's a mindfuck from uruknet via wrh. Have a read. Do you think he might be a racist, this Rabbi? Ha ha ha ha.

Amalekites, eh? Wonder at the nature of 'Amalekites'. If you object to the slaughtering of innocent men, women and children, and condemn the mindset from which this springs does that qualify as an attack on Jews? Does that make you an Amalekite? Who but a sub-human shit wouldn't object to it and ask the question? Who then, the fearful and the silent excluded, isn't an Amalekite?

Sure enough the media will be full of calls that moderate Jews condemn such extremist views. Just joking. Only Muslims have to jump through hoops in this fashion. There will be no such calls because the Rabbi's views will never be aired. And silence differs from a nod and a wink how, exactly?

I understand that the Rabbi is an extremist and that the majority of Jewish people do not assert such views. Except for Zionists of course. Zionism was always as precise a definition of murderous racism as has ever existed. The Rabbi is them and they are he. We might also exclude Talmudic Jews. The Talmud is exceeded in its racism only by its secular version the Protocols of Zion. Personally, I recommend to all that they, in a spirit of honest inquiry, read the Protocols and decide for themselves if its description as a forgery rings true. Me, I've decided it's the logical, and perhaps even inevitable, translation of the Talmud into a secular 'how-to'.

Of course, the majority of Jews are neither Zionists nor Talmudic. They're non-religious. Here's where we discuss the flip-side 'ethnic' aspect of Jewishness - but let's just cut to the chase and say it's bullshit. It's arguable whether Ashkenazi/Khazari Jews are Turkic or Caucasian but either way they're about as Semitic as I am. If I was to say they define themselves as Jewish because they chose to hand their definition of themselves over to others I'd be in an unassailable position.

So, if they're not religious and their not ethnically Semitic, what are they? Apart from a people who, wherever they go and whomever they live amongst, choose to remain 'other'? And how is this not racist? How is it that the people they live amongst, who object to this perpetual choosing of 'otherness', cop the racist tag? They're anti-racist surely? If I was to describe the proud Jewish tradition of fighting racism as a sham designed to allow them to continue their own racism would I be wrong? Forget words, only actions count. The proof of the pudding of anti-racism is really simple - you smile as your kids marry the locals and cease to be 'other'. Sure enough, this is fought tooth and nail.

Regardless of historical Jewish assertions of being anti-racist, any people who so define themselves as being 'other' - generation after generation for the last 1200 years - is racist. The Rabbi's prescription of slaughter is merely the standard Jewish form of passive racism pushed to its ultimate conclusion. Again, let's cut to the chase. Let's see if any of the moderate Jews in the media have anything to say about the Rabbi's call to murder.

They'll say nothing, of course. Nor will they allow anyone else to do so. If anyone succeeded at this we'd see how far moderate Jews are from the Rabbi in viewing people as Amalekites. They know an Amalekite when they see one. And they know what an Amalekite deserves. They deserve assassination by media. It was always thus. The Rabbi merely says it out loud.

I call this murderous, racist Rabbi motherfucker (and anyone who's with him) out. If that makes me an Amalekite, dandy. I'll wear the title as a badge of honour. Who's with me? No need to decide. It's the Rabbi's appellation and he's decided for you. If you condemn the racist slaughter of innocents and choose not to be silent, you're it. The Rabbi has already stitched the Amalekite label onto your clothing. There's nothing for it, you may as well stand up and declare - We're all Amalekites now.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Calling All Puppets

Wow. This anti-China campaign is really something ain't it? Who knew the Tibetans were, as the American ABC news said, so 'highly organised'? They're amazing. London, Paris, San Francisco, the Tibetans have put together a stunning media campaign. They should set up an international consultancy. Imagine the wonders they could do for other oppressed people around the world. Think what they might do for the Palestinians! Ha ha ha ha ha - I crack myself up.

But seriously, aren't we all puppets? Perfectly well-meaning friends of mine are concerned about the wickedness of China. They send me emails I'm meant to sign and send to somebody or other. But that ain't nothing. All manner of people are all manner of revved up, hitting the streets, hell-bent on publicly embarrassing the Chinese government. How did this happen? Did they all wake up and individually decide that they must climb out of bed, make a sign, dress in the right gear, make their way across town, and lo-and-behold, there's a thousand other like-minded people there joining them? With the media all wide-eyed with wonderment, surprised and glad that they were lucky enough to catch the action?

Hardly. But let's ask them. I address (uselessly of course) those people who are hitting the streets -

Who organised you to do this? Do you really know what they're on about? Or more crucially what they're not on about? Do you personally give a shit about the people of Palestine? Are you aware of the shit they've copped? Shit that makes what the Tibetans have suffered look like the smallest of small potatoes? And the people that organised you - what actions, what stunning media campaigns, have they organised to help those most fucked-over of people? Anything that wasn't completely fucking useless? Perhaps you did and I blinked and missed it.

If I was to say that you were a puppet of people who will ensure that Israel gets a free ride, do you think that any arguments you might offer would last more than two minutes in the face of the obviousness of what's on the TV and what ain't? Is it possible you're a puppet? Well-meaning, but whatever... Try these simple questions - Who directs your attention? Who directs your actions? Have you any idea?

Ask yourself - Do the Chinese tear up Tibetan orchards? Do Chinese settlers have pogroms beating up Tibetan kids on their way to school? Do they smash Tibetan windows and spray 'Tibetans to the gas chambers' on their houses? Do they shoot Tibetan kids as they sit in school, sleep on their roof, play in a vacant lot? Do they drop thousand pound bombs on apartment buildings full of Tibetans? Do they steal Tibetan water and dump their sewage on the Tibetans living below? Do they bulldoze Tibetan houses with the residents inside? Do they hold 10,000 Tibetans in jail on no charge? Do they have separate roads marked 'Chinese Only'? Do they hold sick Tibetans at internal check-points and deny them medical care until they die? Do they starve Tibetans and crack jokes about 'putting them on diets'? I could go on all goddamn day.

The answer is - No, nor anything like. I'm not going to paint the Chinese a halo. They are guilty. They're guilty of flooding Tibet with Chinese immigrants who have a stranglehold on commerce and view Tibetans as lazy bums good only for a tourist industry that will put foreign currency in Chinese trader's pockets. But between that, and what's going on in Palestine, you hit the streets to protest Chinese mercantilism?

I expect you despise the media. I expect you think they're biased, and really they ought to do something about Palestine. Well, they don't need to. They know perfectly well that you'll be sent out to protest everything but Palestine. Perhaps you'll wonder - maybe the media isn't so bad after all? They did a great job on Tibet. Of course, that's the idea. And you did your bit. Meanwhile, those perfectly racist, murderous fuckers in Israel continue killing more people in a week than the Chinese kill in a year. One more time - Are you a puppet? And to whose tune are you dancing?

cryptic of nobody

In amongst all this vitriol, a diversion! To be honest I doubt anyone here is into cryptic crosswords. But to hell with you, it's all about me. And me, I love the Times crossword. It's sad that in order to satisfy my obsession I must give money to that shit Murdoch. Sure enough I don't. Certainly I have quietly ripped the crossword out of newspapers in cafes (no one ever wants that page) but it's easy enough to arrange to get old papers from somewhere. Crosswords don't date. A Times crossword from twenty years ago will differ from today's barely at all.

Whatever. I find them as much fun to make as to solve. And then they're mine to give away for free. And that's exactly what I'm doing over at cryptic of nobody. The link is to the right. If anyone has been curious about cryptics but unable to figure them out, I'm your man. I shall happily explain them to anyone who's interested. Equally if you have no time for them, I shall think nothing of it at all. After all, who the hell likes cryptic crosswords? Nobody!

Sunday, April 6, 2008

al qaeda - communism, same same

Finally I get it.

I was pondering communism and Karl Marx's complete and impossible failure to address central banking. And a light bulb went off. Al Qaeda, exactly like communism, has impossibly, unbelievably never mentioned central banking.

Think about it. Al Qaeda, we are told, is an expression of Muslim fanaticism. They hate infidels occupying Muslim lands and they hate the state of Israel. And yet they've never attacked Israel. Further, in Islam, usury is a sin. How is it possible that the ultimate expression of Islamic fanaticism has nothing to say on the ultimate expression of usury, which is to say international banking? Surely if one thought usury was a sin, the twelve families that control international banking and central banks the world over would comprise an unparalleled ultimate in sinfulness? Surely central banking would be infinitely more deserving of the epithet 'Great Satan' than its American proxy?

Does anything about Al Qaeda make any sense? Bin Laden was precisely a CIA asset who died seven years ago. Al Qaeda's number three is Adam Pearlman, a previously Muslim-hating Jewish boy from Orange County. Their number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri impossibly tells us to listen to number three. All of them jabber on about everybody but international banking. When they attack, they attack everybody but international banking. Were Al Qaeda for real it would have put a 757 into the US Federal Reserve.

Communism was all about improving the lot of the poor and yet anyone living under communism lived a life of perfect misery. The only people allowed to escape communism were, inexplicably, Jews who went to Israel.

Al Qaeda is all about advancing the interests of Islam and yet no one has suffered more from its actions than Muslims. They're dying and suffering in staggering numbers. Al Qaeda advances the interests of Muslims in no way whatsoever. And Jews, whom Al Qaeda ostensibly hates, seem to dance between the raindrops. The number of Jewish casualties at the hands of Al Qaeda is what, exactly? You may view this as a rhetorical question. Or you may answer it. I'm good either way. Have you thought of any yet? There was that guy on the plane, um...

Let's not forget monetarism, which is the philosophy that explains why everyone needs a central bank. Monetarism as a mechanism for controlling wages and prices is a clunky model of inefficiency. But as a means for impoverishing the population and delivering the maximum amount of money into the hands of the central banks it's a streamlined speed-machine. Likewise communism. As a mechanism of improving the lot of the workers of the world it was a shitfight and a demonstrable failure. However, as a means of reducing the world to chaos and having everyone fighting each other (with central banking untouched on the sidelines) it couldn't have been better designed. And sure enough, was I to apply this description of communism to Al Qaeda I would only need to substitute 'Muslims' for 'workers of the world'.

So choose. Choose between: the Jewish media's relentless idiotic blather about an Al Qaeda that makes no sense; and an infinitely more likely Al Qaeda as a couldn't-be-bettered model of chaos-creation that seems to suit none but the untouchable families who control international banking.

Thursday, April 3, 2008

quick notes on China


Believe it or not, China might just be the freest country in the world. In this man's opinion you can do anything you goddamn want here, except challenge the government. There's corruption, sure. Those who rule have to be bought a drink. (Anyone reading this who wants to pretend that their country isn't corrupt is probably on the wrong blog, ha ha) Otherwise, if you want to turn your street-facing apartment into a noodle shop, off you go. If you want set up a bicycle repair cart on the street corner, or a barber's stool, or a fruit stand, no one will stop you. The results of government crackdowns are occasionally apparent. Traffic is no longer an uninterrupted chorus of car horn beeping. The footpaths are no longer covered in spit. Adult-run gangs of child beggars seemed to have disappeared. Bloody fascists!


There isn't any. Lone women walk the streets late at night. I followed my mad buddy Lulu as she plunged through pitch-black back alleys in Hohai and it never occurred to either of us that anything bad might happen. It's that kind of place. Like anywhere, it's possible to get mugged. I know a chick to whom this happened. And one time I witnessed an attempted mugging in broad daylight in Beihai Park. Everyone was astounded at this extraordinary event. (Funnily enough the sight of a tall laowai, which is to say, me, walking in their direction was enough to cause the muggers to flee. Were all crime so easily put paid to, ha!) I have never heard of anyone being burglarised. I expect it's the complete absence of smack addicts. There is also no public drunkenness. The Chinese are not drinkers. Sydney CBD at night is far more dangerous than pretty much anywhere in Beijing or Shanghai. Apparently in Xian there are lots of bag snatchers. I went there and nothing happened.


My buddy Maya took me to an art district that's been established in an old industrial estate. By way of modern art, urban Chinese are asking who they are. It was terrific. The Chinese art scene blows me away. A few of the pieces were about censorship. I wondered at this. To a far greater extent the exhibition seemed to be about money and sex in the new China. To this end there was an installation featuring a giant gold penis. There was also a statue of lingerie-clad female legs, the upper torso of which was a bas-relief 100 RMB note. And there was a large canvas that consisted of a close-up of a mouth fellating a penis with speech balloons from above asking if the fellator speaks English. Keep in mind that this is a government run art district. Forget under-the-radar, this is all in the open - officially approved vicious criticism of modern China. I expect one could get censored in China. I expect one can get censored here too. The point is...?


I'm starting to wonder if it matters what government you have. Depending on your definition, China is 'communist', or 'fascist', or a kleptocracy, or simply the imperial system of old. A strong case could be made that China is libertarian. Without exhaustive study, I declare that the government seems amazingly unobtrusive. But whatever... China is fresh, alive, exciting - people are unfettered. Anyone who wants to bang on about the superiority of 'democracy', knock yourself out. Every democracy I know has a privately owned Reserve Bank precisely designed to keep everybody in debt peonage. I don't know about you, but nearly everyone I know despises their job and would love to quit. But they can't. They're shackled to debt. They are not free. Oh, all right, they're free - free to choose between "I will ensure the independence of the Reserve Bank" candidate A and "I will ensure the independence of the Reserve Bank" candidate B. Fantastic. Meanwhile, in China, (which the Jewish media assures us is a repressive dictatorship that we must all boycott) people are emphatically not shackled in this Western 'democratic' fashion. Nobody says - the hype about China says more about the hype-merchants than it does about China.

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

three brilliant absurdities

We must embrace total paranoia!

Apparently Al Qaeda has regrouped. They are Smersh and Spectre rolled into one. Funny they can't afford a handicam to film their leader. Funny that their leader seems so uninterested in propagandising. Funny that their websites are all hosted in Texas. Funny that these geniuses of the internet never thought to google their own third in command and discover that he's Jewish and the grandson of a leader of the ADL. But I could go on all day. There's nothing about Al Qaeda that doesn't scream bullshit.

And the latest nonsense? Al Qaeda has regrouped on the Pakistan border and is training people who look white! So spooky is their chameleon-like nature that we'd never notice them standing next to us at the flight check-in! But really, who buys this shit? Newsreaders obviously. As footage rolls of dusty peshmerga who could no more blend in to a check-in line than I could blend in to a madrassa, the talking heads spout the most fatuous, prima facie bullshit imaginable. Who needs proof? Who needs to cock a quizzical eyebrow? Anton Enus - Are you really that thick?

I look forward to our Anton telling us soon that, what with Al Qaeda's genius at people smuggling, the complete absence of Pakistani visa stamps in one's passport is in fact proof that one's been to Pakistan and belongs to Al Qaeda. Why not?

The fact is that there are chameleon-like people out there who plot the downfall of the West. They own the Reserve Bank and the media. Their accusations are precisely projection.

Ha! Now that I think about it, perhaps Al Qaeda's number three Adam Pearlman will recruit some of his Californian Jewish friends to do Al Qaeda's bidding. That's the ONLY way that this arrant nonsense could ever conceivably happen.

Of course the British can't leave

Ha ha ha ha, it just gets better! Basra, which after the British left, broke out in no-holds-barred peace, has now gone to hell. And the villain? Moqtada Al Sadr! We're left to assume that his keeping of the peace for the last couple of years was a ruse. Sure enough, as soon as our satrap Maliki's troops attacked Sadr's men they fought back! Those black-hearted sons of bitches.

In the requisite twofer, we're also given perfect proof of the hopelessness of our satrap's men too. They refused to fight! They went over to the other side! All that time and money we spent selflessly training them! Bloody chickenshit ingrates! How dare they not fight their fellow countrymen as their neocon masters demand. They deserve nothing less than to have the Jewish media inculcate our troops with a the-only-good-Iraqi-is-a-dead-Iraqi mindset.

What an insult to my intelligence. Al Sadr remains peaceful for years, our puppet attacks him for no particular reason and the media presents this as evidence of Iraqi villainy and why we must stay. It's a good thing the media speaks with a single voice. Were even one half-intelligible voice allowed on the telly to explain the bullshit nature of this charade, the edifice of lies would fall faster than the twin towers - thermite charges and all.

Happily we at home think nothing of the fact that until our satrap attacked, there was no fight. Nor do we need to know that the American old guard stepped in, brought in the Iranians in to negotiate and that peace promptly broke out. The old guard is piss-weak but they're fighting. But it won't help them. The banker's plan to ensure that the British stay in Iraq will, with relentless media spin, work a treat. Does the American old guard control the media? Of course not. The owners of the Reserve Banks own it and, as they very well know, the media is the only thing that counts. None may stand against it. Of course the British troops will stay.

The Pottery Barn US economy

Way back when, Colin Powell said that an Iraq campaign reminded him of the slogan of The Pottery Barn (a US chain) - You broke it, you own it. Somehow in Iraq this translated to - You broke it, you acquire the whole chain! Smashing!

And now it's happening to the entire US economy! Fantastic. Alan Greenspan precisely engineers an economic collapse that, when it happens, (and it's barely even begun so far) will make 1929 look like small potatoes, and what happens? Regulation of the US economy is to be put into the hands of the Fed! God fucking spare us! You broke it, you own it? Fucking hell! Words (that don't begin with F) fail me.

By all rights, the US Fed should be ablaze whilst its executives dangle from lamp-posts and surging crowds jeer. Ha, fat chance. Who can hear anything apart from the media's single impossible voice - as impossible as the stars all twinkling to the same disco beat. If anyone wants to hear the type of voices that the MSM should love, but would rather cut their own heads off than publish, visit counterpunch and read Paul Craig Roberts or Mike Whitney. You'd think Reagan's assistant head of the treasury, the father of Reaganomics and associate editor of the WSJ turning radical would be perfect media fodder wouldn't you? Ha ha ha ha - as if!

Once again, the only thing that counts is the media. Complete control of the media means one can do anything. Between reality and posited narrative, only the narrative counts. Believe it or not, the media could make us eat our own foecal matter if they chose to. If a narrative can be imagined to make this happen, it could happen. Hell, after the decades-long job they've done convincing us of that the Fed is a force of nature, it'd be easy.

"And now we go to our resident chef with his new weight-conscious recipe for grilled turd in Szechuan pepper with shiitake mushroom jus. Mmmm, that looks mouth watering!"