Thursday, January 29, 2009

Pilger McGowan Chavez and m_astera.

I suspect that North Americans might not be too familiar with the journalist John Pilger. I'm utterly familiar with him, what with him being a fellow countryman. For mine he's one of the greatest Australians ever. He pretty much tops my list of People Who Aren't Bullshit. I'm a cynical bastard but I've yet to see Pilger set a foot wrong.

Pilger started in Vietnam with his documentary, The Quiet Mutiny. Even now, forty years later, it's still a mindfuck. He makes clear that the Vietnam War didn't end because of the hippy movement, but because the US military was on the verge of total collapse due to widespread revolts and mutinies. The 'fraggings' of officers weren't occasional occurrences, they were well on their way to becoming the norm. But even they were nothing compared to the number of ships and army bases back home that saw complete revolts. For mine, The Quiet Mutiny might just be the only truly anti-war movie ever made. It's not for no reason that you never heard of it, and instead only get served up the usual pro-war anti-war movies.

(And the flipside of this discussion is Dave McGowan's Laurel Canyon series which convincingly posits the hippy movement as a CIA psy-op designed to split the opposition and have everyone stoned and otherwise wasting their time with innocuous shit. Go read it, because afterwards nothing is ever the same again.)

Vietnam aside, Pilger has been everywhere and always with a sharp eye for bullshit. He's never been a stringer, or been embedded, or otherwise run around at someone else's say so. He follows his own nose seeking out injustice and oppression. In this regard he is perfectly catholic. He's covered Palestine, South America, South Africa, Neocons, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Chagos Islands, Timor, the treatment of Australian aborigines, the rise of fascism in the UK, and every time he goes straight to the heart of the matter.

He will never give a platform for motherfuckers to spout their shit. He pins them down and makes them look like the fools, liars, and psychopaths they are. I'll never forget John Bolton tearing off his microphone and stomping out mid-interview pathetically muttering something about 'communist'. Pilger's latest two pieces over at his website about Israel and Palestine are easily the most vicious things I've seen written in the Western Press. And the word 'vicious', when used to describe those seeking the truth is, in my mind, the very highest compliment.

Anyway, there I was in front of the teev and Pilger's brilliant documentary The War On Democracy came on. On Foxtel, believe it or not. It's a perfect primer on the CIA's relentless campaign to crush democracy in Central and South America. We see the smashing of Guatemala, the campaign against Cuba, the death of Allende and the rise of Pinochet, the School of the Americas, on and on. Death squads, torture, massacres, the raping of nuns, the shooting of priests - it's relentless. Members of the CIA actually discuss what they did in terms of it being a 'terror' campaign. They say it, right there on camera, without even a hint of 'Oh shit, did I just give the game away?'

And sure enough, Chavez of Venezuela has his place in The War On Democracy as today's version of Arbenz, Allende, or Ortega. He's another in a long heroic line of democratically elected leaders who are not there to serve a wealthy oligarchic minority. Astoundingly, he's there to serve the sweeping majority who know that without that leader their lives will be an horrific nightmare of fear, deprivation, and death and suffering.

And just like all those who went before him, Chavez is invariably portrayed in the bloc-media as a villain. Back in the day, Arbenz, Allende, and Ortega all had their names blackened by way of the epithet 'communist' - never mind their rejection of communism, their adherence to democratic principles, and the fact that they were wildly popular with all but the tiny oligarchy whose hatred of the masses knew no bounds. Did this newly enfranchised majority get airtime in the US? Of course not. The people of the US got a single message, the message of the motherfuckers. These leaders were communists who 'hated us for our freedom'.

Okay, so that's the current buzzword for Muslims. But it's the lot of the English language to be raped over and over, so that we might shake our fists at those the psychopaths want to throw down. Against all sense and logic, 'Muslim' is now a dirty word. Sure, that's how it works.

How now to portray Chavez? 'Communist' is devalued. No one would buy it. Nor is he a Muslim. So what might they call him? How might they go about blackening his name? And don't be mistaken. They did precisely this every time previously. Because that's how it's done. The CIA has the funds, it has the time, and God knows they have nothing better to do than convince you (yes, you reading now) that it's right that Chavez is a villain who should be brought down.

And now I'm going to break some hearts. Forget the CIA guys in Pilger's doco telling us that, yes, they ran a terror campaign. Whilst it's true that they gave the game away, they also sent us a message. The message is - 'We are ham-fisted and obvious. You can spot us easily. Just look for the guy who is a dead giveaway.'

Thanks CIA! I'll keep it in mind. I'll completely banish from my thoughts the concept that the CIA might be adept as appearing as the very opposite of what they are. Perish the thought that heroic icons of the right-thinking, such as Frank Zappa, Jim Morrison, CSNY, and all those other bards, poets and philosophers, could be spooks. (If you haven't read McGowan's Laurel Canyon, go read it. Sheesh). The CIA could not possibly be clever enough to have those who might otherwise resist their plans perpetually tripping and/or stoned, with the odd moments of sobriety spent endlessly blathering about peace, love, and understanding. (As opposed to taking sledge-hammers to B-52's and that sort of thing).

Yeah, yeah, sarcasm aside, the above is precisely what happened. They manufactured the LSD and we all know it. And Operation Mockingbird, wherein writers, journalists, and talking heads in every branch of the media were suborned into acting as contracted propaganda agents for the CIA, was blown open years ago. There's no excuse for being confused anymore. Sure enough mockingbird doesn't exist now. Not under that name at any rate. But if anyone thinks that the programme to fuck with our minds stopped with the Church commission, or whatever, you're a fool. There is no way in hell that the insane efforts that took place in the fifties, sixties, and seventies aren't taking place right now. It's neither impossible nor unlikely. I declare it as a deadset certainty.

And what would they look like? These efforts to appear right-thinking, to appear poetic, to appear as someone we should revere as Jim Morrison-style wordsmiths of the new age? Would they repeat themselves and form long-haired pop bands and release a bunch of vinyl LP's? Or would they get with the times and hang out on the internet? Ha ha ha - As sure as eggs is eggs!

Don't forget, the point isn't to preach to the converted. They're already preaching to themselves and can be safely left to it. No, the targets will be us, those who dissent. The purpose of the exercise will be a) to push their memes, and b) to disguise it by way of appearing right thinking - the very sort of person we will all admire and think brilliant things of. And regardless of how savvy we think we are at spotting bullshit artists, some of us will fall for it.

And how would I go about it? It's the old 'what would I do if I was a motherfucker' game. Me, I'd start with the big blogs that had the most readership. Places like WRH, AntiWar, Rense, SOTT, CounterPunch, etc. Sure enough, they're not under my control and might see through me and ban me. Oh well, I did my best, time to move on.

Who else gets big readership and is clearly after the truth, and otherwise against the CIA programme? What's the vibe there? How might I fit in? First comes schmoozing. Toujours Le Schmoozing. Also it pays to be active. This is a paid gig so I'd have to earn my dough. Me, I'd make lots of comments and dominate the discussion. There's no point being shy and retiring. I'd have my own blog sure, but it's not so easy dragging people away from blogs run by the truly charismatic. Mostly I'd just be a major presence in the comments.

And of course, I'm going to fit in. There's no point being there otherwise. If I get it right, I'm going to be admired for my beautifully written versions of whatever today's psycho-babble equivalents of peace, love and understanding are. Of course. Ain't no point otherwise. That's the way it was done then and that's the way it is done now. People will be in awe of what I say. They'll admire the beauty of my soul. Or what I show them of it anyway. I will be Jim Morrison, Frank Zappa, and CSNY all rolled into one. And did any of them talk about their spook backgrounds? Of course not.

The trick will be to keep it simple. Not too many memes. Perhaps just one. If I overdid it, I'd give myself away. These people are sharp, remember. So, I just stick with Chavez. He's the purpose of the exercise and everything else is limited-hangout cover. Okay, but how to distinguish myself and otherwise counter savvy people who know a bit of history? The ideal don't-argue would be to live there. Or, more correctly, to be 'based' there. I couldn't pretend since everyone has a hit-counter telling them where the hits are coming from. Fine, I now have the skeleton of 'being-there-and-knowing-what's-what' on which to flesh out my case. Instant credibility and the perfect all-purpose argument, good for whatever.

And besides, it's not like I wouldn't have company. I'd have Company company! Venezuela is crawling with spooks - NAD, USAID, State Dept, you name it. You trip over a gringo there and it's odds-on he's a spook. And me tapping away at a keyboard wouldn't take up too much time, so I'd make myself handy distributing funds, meeting people, organising. These coups don't run themselves you know! It was always this way. Over and over.

Astoundingly hardly anyone would put the obvious two and two together: CIA agents exist; coups happen; CIA agents misrepresent themselves; CIA agents get sent to countries that are the targets of coups; Venezuela is a coup target; I am in Venezuela; I'm a gringo who hates Chavez. But forget that - as if a spook would write as prettily as me?! Impossible! Ha ha ha ha. That's all it takes. Simple simple shit.

Anyway here's the message in case anyone has missed it - Chavez is a communist, a terrorist, a corrupt tyrant, a wicked villain, he hates us for our freedoms, his people hate him, he's banned the media, he's stolen women's kidneys - he is precisely that fellow that we must hate. Won't somebody do something to stop this rampaging monster?

And so it goes. Are we surprised? It was always this way. Go watch The War on Democracy. But don't view it as a discussion of some isolated thing from the past. Plug it into now. Plug it into you and where you're at, right now, today. Because you're it. The propaganda is for you.

Welcome to m_astera.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

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."

Thursday, January 22, 2009

your own genuine Obama shrine

Obama is a place and I've been there. It's a middle size town in Fukui prefecture on the West Coast of Japan. It's chock full of Buddhist temples, and one of them is where I went to spend the rest of my life, or seven days, whichever came first. And in this picture postcard temple was a picture postcard shrine called a butsudan. It was pretty much the centre of the temple.

It occurred to me that if some bright spark in Obama started manufacturing genuine Obama shrines they'd make out like bandits. There'd be a photo of Barrack Obama there with candles either side and a little space out the front for offerings of rice, fruit, and cakes etc. An Obama we can believe in! And how better to express your belief than by praying at a shrine that's not only for Obama, it's from Obama.

I don't see why anyone should have a problem with this. Obama is just like all those other things we have to believe in. He said so himself - 'change you can believe in'. Ayah! Another belief, and we have so many already! Anyway, since it's all about belief, you may as well do it properly and have a shrine. A genuine Obama shrine!

Anyway there it was on TV - millions of believers, their eyes full of tears. Reality? Banished. What I saw on TV was so like what one sees in the born-again hallelujah halls it was spooky. And everyone said the same things. It was like listening to a mantra. The American dream was true after all! A black man as president! In our lifetimes! We never thought we'd see the day! If only my grandfather had lived to see this!

Mantras are good. They work to neutralise the brain and stop distractions entering. And who needs to be distracted by little things like Obama's years working at a CIA front company, or his cabinet appointments of the same old warhawks, bankers, and dual citizens, and never mind his abject kowtowing to AIPAC. Between wake-up-and-smell-the-catfood and warm-and-fuzzy, it's a no-brainer. And God bless the no-brainers, say the powers that be. In no-brainers they trust.

And in amongst the 24/7 adoration on the TV, not a single soul had a single word of doubt. No sentiments along the lines of - 'I'll believe it when I see it'. God forbid anyone should stand up and say, 'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss' (or perhaps that should be - Meet the new puppet, same as the old puppet?) What's American for 'Burn them at the stake?' 'Burn them like a steak', I guess. Grain fed, of course.

But really you have to go hats off to the PTB. Obama is a stunning move. And really breathtaking in its cynicism. An African American gets dropped into the Presidency at the precise moment that the whole thing goes tits up. It's like handing the car keys to the teenage boy just as the rings, the diff, and the gearbox are all about to shit themselves. And when it starts grinding metal on metal, guess who gets the blame?

Otherwise, for those not already drugged into stupefaction Obama is the perfect Soma. But never mind Aldous Huxley, how about George Orwell? Honestly, what sort of regime would have a stern looking fellow as its pin-up boy? Is Ronald McDonald stern? Orwell never worked in marketing obviously. Those who've given the world Obama, get marketing.

Speaking of meat products, humans are smarter than cattle. This is obvious since we eat them, and not the other way round. But perhaps 'smarter' is the wrong word. Let's put it this way, are cattle capable of belief? No - but we are. And unlike those stupid cattle there's no way we're going to be led to the slaughterhouse unless we believe it's the right thing to do. And finally, with McSmiley Obama we can all believe again. Those who had lost faith have found it anew - the disillusioned, freshly re-illusioned.

The masses that George Bush had united in disbelief are now back on board. We are one, they all chant. Obama, we'll follow you to hell and back - for that smile, those adorable kids, those reassuring words - anything. And those doubters? Those enemies of the American dream? A black man is president! We waited our whole lives for this! Send them to wherever enemies of the state get sent. It's the least they deserve.

And as the miseries become legion: bankruptcies climb; old neighbourhoods become deserted; the hunger-driven discontent rises; law and order breaks down; the cops go berserk; and reality just generally goes to hell, the freshly minted believers will turn to their leader for solace. They'll light some more candles, put out a votive twinkie, and let the mantra fill their head banishing all distraction. A black man is president! I never thought I'd live to see the day! The American dream is true!

Monday, January 19, 2009

"Now we see if your Shaolin Being Sensible style can withstand my Wudang Shan Complete Idiot technique!"

I'm not sure what I'm on about here. But why don't I start with Bruce Lee? He was really something. Even if all he'd done was master fencing, regular Western boxing, and Wing Chun Kung Fu, he'd have been legendary. But he went beyond these and came up with own style, Jeet Kune Do. Did anyone ever wonder where Jeet Kune Do went? How come when you wander down to Chinatown there's no Jeet Kune Do schools? What was that all about?

I'll admit I'm no great expert on the martial arts. If anyone who is an expert wishes to pick holes in the following, fine. The comments are below. But let's carry on. As I understand it, Jeet Kune Do was not a martial art as such. It might be more accurate to describe it as a way of thinking, a philosophy. Jeet Kune Do did not have any kata (or what my school called 'form'). Nor did it have any particular stance. It did not say A is followed by B is followed by C and that this is how things are done. Whilst it didn't reject these things, it rejected the concept that 'this is how you must think', or perhaps that 'these are your limits'. Jeet Kune Do declared that there are no limits.

The logic here is simple. In fighting an opponent why come at him in a predictable fashion? Think of all those chop-socky movies you saw with the villain fighting in Praying Mantis style, switching to Kwan Lun Toad style, followed by Kung Pao Chicken style, etc etc. Each of these would be clearly demonstrated and invariably accompanied by the appropriate hissing, mad facial gestures, and the hero's announcement of, 'Oh, I see you know place-name-creature style!' Well that's the movies for you. Everything must be explained so that the punters know what's going on. But who would do that in a real fight?

In a real fight it would pay to have your opponent on the back foot with no idea what you're going to do next. Loosely that's what Bruce Lee was on about with Jeet Kune Do. Discard anything stale or predictable. Throw out limitations and constraints. Use whatever works. (And if I, great sage and equal of heaven, may add my own thoughts - keep your balance. Lose your balance and you're fucked. Bruce Lee would probably roll his eyes and say, 'Well, duh!', but let's carry on.)

This style of thinking need not be limited to physical fights. It's useful for all sorts of things besides smashing Mark Regev's teeth in. I know it's poor of me to have thoughts of violence fill my head every time he's on the television, but I just can't help it. As much as one would like to find oneself in a state of harmony with all people and things and become the Buddha it's a remote prospect. Meanwhile, here we are in the real world where arseholes like Mark Regev aren't any kind of exception. Instead they're as common as muck and seem to rule the air-waves and dominate the discussions. So repulsive, obnoxious, and omnipresent are they that right-thinking people turn away in disgust and leave them to it. Funnily enough, that's the whole idea.

In terms of argy-bargy of this nature, I started out on indymedia. Indymedia was founded in a spirit of right-thinking. It would be an open forum (emphatically unlike the mainstream media) wherein all things could be discussed by whomever. However, if a thing like this can be corrupted by the usual suspects, it will be, and it was. Everything connected with Israel became off-limits. Above and beyond all else the bloc-media is about totality. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a bloc (stands to reason, no?) What indymedia failed to realise is that openness of this nature is also an openness to those who would deny that very thing. Totality will always strive for totality.

But there I was, however many years ago, unaware that this was how things were and attempting to have sensible discussions. What a waste of time. There were no sensible discussions to be had. I was talking to individuals who would pretend to be half a dozen people, all of whom would agree with each other. Arguments consisted almost entirely of ad hominem with the routine only being broken up by bare-faced lying, straw men, words-in-mouth, limited hangout and everything except argument-rebuttal-conclusion.

It's all so obvious now of course. The people I was arguing with, in spite of insisting that everyone follow the rules of decorum, didn't give a fig for the rules or for decorum. Back then I was confused. Why were these people here? What was their purpose? What did they hope to achieve? Without having a definitive answer, I'm inclined to think that they were there in a spirit of 'rejection of all that is not me', if that makes any sense. They were not there to explain the rightness of their views nor to have anyone come over to their way of thinking. Imagine a vampire movie where all the people have been turned into vampires. As they celebrate their victory, someone pipes up at the back, 'Yeah, but who are we going to eat now?' Damn!

The metaphoric vampires aren't there to convince anyone of anything apart from the fact that this topic is verboten. Yeah, well fuck that and fuck the hoops they hold up and demand I jump through. I refuse to follow some motherfucker's diktats. If proof is demanded I will ignore it and make my next point. I will leap from topic to topic. If the subject is Hamas rockets I will talk about: the ringworm scandal; the denial of compensation for Holocaust victims; Ehud Olmert bragging about telling the idiot son what to do. It's not their conversation. It's mine. And yes, the 'conversation' will not flow. Nothing will make sense. I will not make sense. Whatever is expected of me, I will refuse to deliver it.

Why not take this to its ultimate point? Why even fulfil the role of opposition? Why not simply be more them than them, if you can dig it. Subsequently I shall be the uber-fascist, the uber-racist, the motherfucker unvarnished. I shall strip away the niceties and say what they really think. I shall be Ariel Sharon screaming bloody murder and calling for the deaths of all who oppose me. What are they going to do? Agree with me? Oppose me? Who are they fighting precisely? Themselves?

I've done this on indymedia and was met with the same thing every time. Complete silence. Weirdly enough, the automatic response is a feeling of social rejection. 'I'm being ignored and no one wants to talk to me.' This is wrongheaded. Truth of the matter is that the motherfuckers have been put on the back foot. The conversation they thought was theirs has been seized from them. It now belongs to someone else and they don't want to be a part of it anymore. Excellent. And sure, the niceties of discourse have been trashed. But these niceties, as far as the motherfuckers are concerned, are things to be taken advantage of. Why stick with a thing that only serves your opponent?

And the last thing I'm going to do is take them seriously. If a thing is expected of me, I'm not going to give it to them. Nothing. Subsequently all they'll get from me is comedy. The role of the fool is a very powerful one. Comedians can get away with murder. Anyone who wants to get huffy over a joke they don't like is going to look like a dickhead. Remember, the point of the exercise for them is not to convince me. They're there to play to the crowd. Well, two can play at that game and we'll see who makes who look stupid.

Okay, so I'm crowing about myself. Cock-a-doodle-doo. But then again Bruce Lee wasn't exactly shy and retiring neither. Mind you, being cocksure and philosophical aren't mutually exclusive. No mistake, Bruce Lee was a philosopher. His dictum 'Be like water' shouldn't be written off as simplistic. It ain't. You cannot grab water. You cannot push it around. And as any body surfer knows, God help you in a dumper. Did you know that one cubic metre of water weighs a tonne? And okay sure, people build breakwaters and canals and pipes etc, but in the context of arguments, these constructs are illusory. If one refuses to concede their existence, they don't exist. It's as simple as that. Whatever rules there are, have invariably been laid down (like pipes are laid down) to suit those who did the plumbing. Like that's a surprise.

And me, I never signed up for this or any other bullshit academic version of Marquis of Queensbury.

Fuck other people's rules. I have my own. And if the defenders of genocide and the racist motherfuckers of this world don't care for how I go about things; my idiocy; my rude manner; my glee at heaping shit on them; my slippery refusal to be pinned down; or whatever fucking thing it is that they don't expect from me, to hell with them. I ain't going to give them what they want. Instead I'm going to dance around in my yellow stripey go-go suit with no form, no style, and no idea of what I'm going to do next. And if they don't get the gag what do I care? I laugh my head off regardless.

Friday, January 16, 2009

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!

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Jonathon Livingston Stinkbug

Is there a purpose to life? Hmm... has anyone ever asked that question before? Maybe I'm the first, ha ha. And then there's stinkbugs. I wonder if a stinkbug ever asks this question? I shall call this curious fellow Jonathon Livingstone Stinkbug.

Are we familiar with stinkbugs? For those who groove on the Linnaean system they are family Pentatomidae, order Heteroptera. There's at least 5,000 different species and they're found on every continent on the planet. Their means of surviving environmental depredations, or more specifically predators, is very successful. They nail a predator with a really foul smelling liquid and otherwise taste like shit. Whilst I've never eaten one, I've smelt them and they're nasty. The smart money gives them a wide berth.

I saw a perfect demonstration of this when I was out on the balcony talking to my local grey butcherbird. I do all the talking sure enough, but he sings me a song and it's fair deal all round. And there we were when a big fat stinkbug landed less than a metre from the both of us. Both our heads turned and I waited for the coming inevitable violence. Nothing doing. He knew precisely what sort of bug it was and went straight back to the very important question of whether I had a bit of ham for him or not.

I knew not to touch the stinkbug because back when I was six or so, some other six year old said something along the lines of 'Don't touch it! It's a stinkbug!' Humans are clever like that. They can tell each other things. Butcherbirds don't have that facility. The only way any butcherbird learnt not to eat a stinkbug was by eating one and learning the hard way.

To hell with the butcherbird

Forget the butcherbird now, there's something extraordinary going on here. Stinkbugs are spectacular survivors and none of them are within cooee of extinction. But their mechanism of survival is arse-about. They don't ensure their own survival so much as they ensure each other's. The only way a butcherbird learns to leave them alone is because a stinkbug gave his life.

So, for our heteroptera philosopher, Jonathon Livingstone Stinkbug, between the two questions of, 'What is the purpose of life?', and 'What is the purpose of death?', one is a no-brainer (which is just as well since they are bugs of little brain). For our Jonathon, the purpose of death is to ensure life. Not for himself of course, but for every other stinkbug. And weirdly enough, in answering the latter question he goes some way in answering the former.

Obviously I'm drawing parallels here. Parallels with humans, natch. And if we're talking about humans we have to address the question of choice. Stinkbugs don't have a choice. And we do. Sure enough, we make choices all the time. Social Darwinists choose to emulate the predators of the world. As I've discussed before, that says less about Darwin than it does about them being self-serving motherfuckers. But it is what it is, and the human world is full of predators and the predated.

The occasional spook aside, if you're reading this blog it's my melancholy duty to inform you that you belong to the latter group. You are the predated. But happily Darwin says that there is more than one way of dealing with predators. Mostly we choose to emulate those creatures that run with a herd. We let the predators take the weakest whilst muttering, 'There but for the grace of God go I.' Or to put it another way, 'Please God let them eat somebody else, not me.'

Frankly this is piss-weak. It's not so much a thought, as a non-thought, the product of a brain seized by fear. As has been discussed in the comments section here recently, any herd that runs from predators could, if they chose to, stomp the shit out of them. But only if they stopped and thought about it, if they weren't possessed of fear, and crucially, if they acted in concert.

The predators know this of course and have ensured that the possibility of people acting in concert is nigh on impossible. The means of mass communication are subsequently in their hands. No voices of resistance or of organisation will be permitted. And yet here we are on the net, talking freely. But the net is purposely designed to be a cacophony. It's as precisely flooded with crap as the mainstream media is - millions and millions of people on facebook blathering about Paris Hilton and her foo-foo dog. But still, the potential is there and this is enough to warrant its destruction. Right this minute Australia's very own Senator Stephen Conroy is doing his damnedest to shut it down. It's all for our own safety, of course.

To hell with the herd

Let's not obsess on herds and the possibility, or lack thereof, of the herd acting in concert. I have no doubt that such resistance will take place. To a certain extent it already is. Not forgetting of course, that history is replete with such movements being co-opted and led by agents of the predators. The French Revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, Eastern Europe's various colour-coded revolutions, all run by the usual suspects and all designed to ensure that no harm comes to the top predators. As ever, the wolves lead the sheep in throwing down their shepherds. Three cheers - free at last!

Back to the stinkbugs now. They emphatically do not act in concert. Numbers ain't their bag. Their whole strategy functions on the sacrifice of fearless individuals. Certainly, they do not choose to be fearless. Their weeny grain-of-sand brains aren't up to it. But that's not the point. Our brains are up to it. We can choose. And we can be that fearless.

How might this plucky individual embody the strategy of Jonathon Livingstone Stinkbug? How might one, as a singleton, stick in the collective craw of the predators of the world? To be honest, actions such as this are quite common. We need merely look to the suicide bomber.

Suicide bombers sacrifice themselves in order to kill their oppressors. But suicide bombing has the precise opposite effect of that intended. As ever, the depiction of an event trumps its reality. With the bloc-media owning the rights to the meaning of a suicide bombing, they will achieve nothing useful, will enable the sowing of further seeds of fear and hatred, and most importantly will allow the bloc-media to portray the oppressed people (which the suicide bomber was ostensibly trying to help) as murderous madmen who deserve death. Everytime a suicide bomber does that thing, the motherfuckers clap in delight.

To hell with suicide bombing

What's needed is something unimpeachable, something that cannot be portrayed by the silken media voice of the predator as an excuse for more predation. Since it's me talking here, there is only a single thing that cannot be slurred, twisted, or impeached. And that thing, sure enough, is selflessness. If there's nothing in it for the person sacrificing himself, and no harm comes to others, how might that person's actions be misrepresented? Certainly the bloc-media will try but it will be a sure case of shit uphill. People know selflessness when they see it.

Has anyone heard of Norman Morrison? How about Thích Quảng Đức? No? Their names don't ring a bell? Funny that. In spite of their being two of the most extraordinary men in history they're almost perfectly absent from the media. It's not for no reason that the media ignores them. For mine, when the media ignores a subject it's a clue as to what they fear. The media voice of the predators would no more tell you about these men and what they did, than Achilles would say, 'Hey, did I tell you about my heel?!'

Somehow I doubt that either of these men were inspired by a stinkbug. But regardless, that's effectively what they did. They jammed themselves in the craw of the predator and ruined his fucking day. And yep, they did this by setting themselves on fire and being burnt alive. Are you recoiling in horror? Precisely, that's the whole idea. But over-the-top shock value aside, no one was harmed but themselves. The message was unambiguous and as loud as could be. Certainly they blew the minds of the punters but I expect they also blew the minds of the predators. True full-tilterama selflessness taken to the nth degree in this fashion is a real mindfuck.

To hell - with details

As usual, the devil is in the details. Let's skip the selflessness. This is actually the biggest hurdle but for the sake of the exercise, we're just going to take it as read. Beyond that first biggie, if the message and the means of delivering it aren't considered, all will be for nought. Like I said in a piece, Bloody Sunday, over at the cinema blog - If a monk burns in a plaza and no one sees, will it have done any good? (Actually, may I recommend that people read that piece? Sure it's a film review but it's not really a film review so much as a discussion of non-violent resistance, and the crucial aspect of it that the bloc-media unsurprisingly would prefer went unacknowledged).

Let's tackle our first question - Who are we aiming our action at? Our two heroes above were looking to shame the US military. And hats off to that. But we here are a little bit beyond that. The military is merely a servant. We want the masters. We want the bankers.

Here in Oz, the Reserve Bank of Australia is smack dab in the middle of Martin Place, which is smack dab in the middle of Sydney's CBD. Apart from the wee hours of the morning, Martin Place rarely has less than a hundred people in it. Most of the time there are thousands there, with more handicams and mobile phones than you could poke a police baton at. Perfect.

Okay, so it's filmed, uploaded to youtube, forced into the media with everyone seeing it. And?
'Man! Some guy burned himself alive in Martin Place!'
'Beats Me!'

Worthless. You may as well have slathered yourself with guacamole and sung the Yah Di Buckety song. (Well, if you're going to be meaningless, you may as well be funny). If you don't want to be meaningless, you need a message that makes sense and a place it can be seen. Welcome to the internet. The internet is a big place sure enough but people could be directed by way of a thousand flyers scattered about with a url printed on it. Nothing else, just that. After all, you don't want to give the game away early. And later, after the TV crews arrive and bail up the ashen faced witnesses, they'll stare into the camera and say, 'I don't know man, it seems the answer is on this piece of paper. It says...'


Okay I admit it. I've taken huge dapartures from the simple brainless method of the Stinkbug. But the fundamental principle is right there and the aim is unchanged. It's still a simple act of selflessness for the sake of others. And when the politicians get on the telly (with their sad faces on) and say, 'We don't want anyone copying this individual' you'll know they're scared. Something just got stuck in their craw.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Buy Nothing Day? Bank Nothing Day!

When I had an income I used to buy Adbusters magazine. Adbusters is a good magazine, albeit in a oxymoronic fashion. They're anti-corporate, anti-consumerist, and are the chief proponents of 'Buy Nothing Day'. Me, I took this sentiment to heart and made every day Buy Nothing Day, Adbusters included. Do they still exist Adbusters? You'd have to wonder about a product that urges you not to buy any products, theirs included. Perhaps they should have called it 'Buy Nothing Except This Magazine Day', ha ha. But then Adbusters never did have a sense of humour.

Self contradictions aside, their broad point was perfectly valid. Corporations are soulless inhuman entities that will only ever view people in terms of dollars. In many ways, they're just the old company-store gag writ large, and with a marketing division. Fuck the lot of them. If somebody took corporations out the back and shot them, I'd bring the beers.

But corporations aren't intrinsically wicked. There's no reason a corporation couldn't be as good as their marketing says they are. Conceivably they could make good and useful products that make the world a better place; they could make all their staff into shareholders and pay them a decent wage; they could also pay decent prices for any raw materials purchased in the third world; they could... hell I could go on and on describing some fantasy corporation that will never exist. Not in this world. If such a creature did exist, the other corporations would have to kill it if for no other reason than it makes them look bad.

Daydreaming aside, the point I'm getting at is that corporations are not intrinsically wicked in the way that (apropos the last piece) banks are. By banks I mean the banks that we're all forced to use, those based on a system of usury. Usury is their operating system and every aspect of them is built on it. On top of usury's intrinsic wickedness, there's also its undeniable no-future pyramid scam idiocy. Truth be known the former is derived from the latter. It's like how pork is considered wicked on account of its propensity, if stored without refrigeration, to kill people.

So if we object to corporations and can withdraw our custom by way of a Buy Nothing Day, why can't we do the same for banks? Why can't we have a Bank Nothing Day? Well, I'll tell you, because it's actually very simple. It's because this option is a non-option. Or to put it another way, an abject impossibility. When it comes to banks, you can either use them or you can fuck off and die. Banks, which should be merely just another service provider, ain't. They are utterly singular. They are the only service provider that your own government demands you must be a customer of.

Take me for example. I actually did this. I took all my money out of the bank, shut down my accounts, and cut up my credit cards. If you wanted to tell me I'm nuts, I'm not going to argue with you. Hell, I'll agree, I am nuts. It all seemed like a good idea at the time what with me imagining that I'd be spending the rest of my life in a Zen temple. But that didn't work out and here I am back in the white man's world, a mad bastard who refuses to go back to the bank.

Mind you, it's all very well for me, what with being single with no kids. People who do have kids don't have this option open to them. But that's somewhat short-sighted - I don't actually have this option open to me either. My life is precisely as impossible as yours would be. Not having a bank account bars me from just about everything. Working, or more exactly working legally, is impossible. Not only are there very few employers willing to pay cash but the only way to deal with the tax department is via a bank account. Likewise no government monies can be paid or received without a bank account. I have several reasons for refusing to take the government's money but not least amongst them is the fact that they demand I be a bank customer.

It's not just things monetary that one is barred from. I cannot get a driver's license either because I don't have enough ID's. One needs three pieces of identification to get a driver's license and the one that I'm missing is a bank account. They've got it stitched up these fucking banks don't they? My own government acts as their stand-over man insisting I give them my money.

So what's to be done? Apart from following me into oblivion? There's Islamic banking, sure. Good luck with that one. Can a punter walk into an Islamic bank and open an account? Not where I live. What of those non-money exchange systems that one hears of people in country areas using? They have various names - hours, echoes, etc. These are a perfectly brilliant idea and are the living embodiment of non-usurious money. Invariably there is no 'money' as such. They are often merely a 'credit' in a public central register. If one works an hour (say, mowing Mrs. Farquhar's lawn) one is credited with an 'hour'. It's debt free and functions on a simple labour-equals-credit basis. The richest person in town, rather than being an object of envy, would be admired by all on account of the fact that he/she has done the most for the most people.

Otherwise, perhaps people could get together and just make their own bank. Is there any reason why this can't be done? Find a building, renovate it with a big fuck-off safe, and declare yourselves a no-interest, 100% reserve, non-fractional bank. Hell, run it on Islamic principles. The appeal to customers is that unlike every other bank, it cannot collapse and will never have a bank run. The sales pitch to new customers would function as a quick lesson in the history of banking.

Mind you, it occurs to me that the regular bullshit cartel banks would view such a creature as the anti-christ and would do whatever it took to kill it. Perhaps it would be best to keep it low-key, very low-key. Before I ran off to the Zen monastery, I attempted to talk all of my friends into quitting the city and running off to the country to form some variation of commune (not that I care for the word). I failed obviously but had that succeeded a simple let's-keep-it-to-ourselves version of the above private bank would have made a lot of sense. It would have been a variation of 'keeping your money under the bed' albeit with some crazy big bed with a dozen families in it. Don't worry, it's just a metaphor. Actually it would just be a well-hidden safe in which everyone kept their money, and all administered by, I don't know, several senior trustworthy people. Individuals could know how much money they had, and otherwise keep an eye on things, by checking a public computer kept in the lavanderia/meeting house. Well that was my plan anyway. (BTW - the name of this place, had it come off, would have been selflessness. Sigh)

The key to each of the above is people acting in concert. The word 'commonwealth' just popped into my head. It's been abused to the point of death now, but in principle it's a worthy idea. It's meaning now, as in 'The Commonwealth of Australia', is so far departed from its roots that it's laughable. The state owns it, and the state, such as it is, belongs to the bankers. The bankers, sure enough, don't view the word 'common' as meaning 'shared'. They view it as meaning 'of, or belonging to, serfs'. And for them, the punchline to the 'commonwealth' gag is 'all flows to us', ha ha. Well, fuck them. We can steal it back. But only if we can act in concert. Easier said than done, sure enough. The success of the banks and their corporate whores in turning Western society into an atomised, centrifugal collection of self-obsessed greedheads has been almost total.

Without any mechanism by which we can act in concert, we're fucked. We're just a bunch of John Connors hoping we don't fall afoul of Arnie or any of the other terminators. Well not quite. John Connor didn't have the internet (Hollywood hates the internet, doncha know). We have it, but what does that mean? We can communicate sure, but can we act in concert? Nup. We don't have the numbers to do anything global. We could do something if we were local, but we ain't. Never mind, we've found a quiet corner and we can all swap ideas. So enough of me and mine, you tell me yours. Buy Nothing Day is a doddle. How do we do Bank Nothing Day? Over to you...

Saturday, January 3, 2009

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.