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!


kikz said...

loved it!

all is well...
getting better daily.

off to bed w/me.


the Silverfish said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
notamobster said...

brilliant again, nobes. you've a rapier wit, sir.

nobody said...

Silv, you troublemaker!

I can't put that in! I can laugh at it and admire the, ahem, thoroughgoing scientific principle ha ha, (and hell, I can might even agree with it) but I can't post it!

Skye, if you're reading, can you please give the Fish a damn good thrashing? And if he enjoys it, give him another one for good measure.

And thanks Kikz and NaM. I'm glad someone got a laugh out of it apart from me.

nobody said...

Hey Folks,

The mighty Gallier sent me the most extraordinary comment. He did the right thing and posted it under the germane article, that being the Islamic Banking thing, but sadly after it had been pushed down the page by the next two pieces. So I cut and paste it here so that people can read it. Thanks Gallier.


Hello nobody, today there was a very good reader email at whatreallyhappened. I think he hit the nail on the head. I take to liberty to copy that mail verbatim here, because it will be lost there tomorrow and it should be saved in public view (for the interested):

Here it is:

READER: Were the Jews doing this kind of stuff to the German government in 1930? If so I can understand why the Germans were so angry at them.

One of the last Chancellors of the Weimar Republic, Dr Heinrich Bruning, said in a 1937 letter to Winston Churchill that;

"I did not and do not even today, for understandable reasons, wish to reveal that from October 1928 the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith, and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany."

Upon Mr Hitler's accession to power 30 January 1933 something happened between then and 24 March 1933 when the `glorious` headline - Judea Declares War on Germany - appeared in London's Daily Express newspaper.

I suspect that the Zionist bankers promptly turned up on his doorstep and asked him to deliver on their having so lavishly funded his Party the previous 4 years and 3 months.

What would bankers be wanting if not the restoration to them the right to issue the currency at interest ? We know that Mr Hitler had loans issued interest free for the normal things that people want, and that debts would also be interest free.

Interest free policy resulted in the inflation being less than 2% between 1934 to 1941, but spiked to 4% in 1941, and came back down to remain at little more than 2% until war's end.

All of that means that he would have told them something like,"I thank you for your support for all this time, but financial policy will be decided by me".

Which is why six years on, that economic boycott which was the subject of that Declaration was transmuted into the gold that was WW2, for after war's end Germany was restored to the private banks, since for the next five years inflation in Germany gyrated wildly.

The private Zionist bankers had won the war, but at the cost of 60,000,000 lives. But that was other peoples' lives, us, the human cattle.

Skye said...

I would give him a thrashing ny dear Nobody, but unfortunately, he enjoys such things far too much. I'll just have to make him wait and hope for one, that's the best I can do! wink wink

Anonymous said...

nope, wasn't me. but i am still around, just behind the scenes now.
working on taking out the nswp and other nazi cowards, but in a more permanent basis.