Saturday, December 30, 2006

Bush's last triumph hails the end of his era

As Muslims all over the world made their way to Eid prayers celebrating the completion of the annual pilgrimage to Makkah, they heard on the news that the American president had chosen to use the most important day in the Muslim calendar in order to pretend that he had achieved anything of significance in Iraq. Now that Saddam is gone, Bush will be increasingly exposed as the fraud he is. Most people won't regret to see him go anymore than they regret the departure of the erstwhile US-sponsored Iraqi dictator.

The disrespect shown by the Neocon administration to the sanctity of the Islamic festival and the application of international law will come back to haunt them. In their blind arrogance and illusion of invincibility they thought Iraq was a cake-walk, but within precious little time they managed to alienate even those Iraqis who had initially welcomed the interference. Hiding behind a ambiguously worded UN security council resolution the usurpers of the White Hosue trampled on international law which prohibits an occupying force from changing the laws and constitution of a country under occupation and from installing their own government. They gave no quarter, and thus will be given no quarter when their time for reckoning will come.

Bush's haste in completing the execution - and he is responsible, for the Iraqi puppet government will do nothing without his approval - indicates that he fears his troops will not be able to stay much longer to finish the job they were sent to accomplish. Bush wanted to end the Iraq occupation on a triumphant note of having accomplished regime change. From here onwards it will be rapidly downhill, since all the US has managed to create is volatility and instability. And the US departure will not be dignified, nor will a temporary addition of troops generate sufficient control over the situation to pretend that all is well and sorted for the battered soldiers to come home. The surrender of Iraq and the splitting of the country into separate regions waiting to be absorbed by rivalling neighbouring countries, notably Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, will harbour the beginning of the overstretched US military having to disengage and withdraw behind their own borders. Not long thereafter they will, in the paraphrased words of UK foreign secretary Margaret Becket, be held to account by an alliance of countries from Venezuela to China who might not have much more in common than their loathing for American hegemony.

Many countries have sat on the sidelines rather than opposed the United States territorial ambitions because, as a retired Russian general pointed out some time ago, it is much easier to let them bleed themselves to death than fight them openly. Likewise, whilst everybody knows that the dollar has lost its value for good and is going to enter freefall anytime soon, countries still holding dollar reserves want to dispose of them slowly and prevent a run that would hurt them equally. But whatever the detail of how these events will play out, the Iraq adventure into which America foolishly sleepwalked upon Israel's behest, will be the historical marker for the end of the American era in the world. The Zionist cabal, who know their time is up, might want to throw in a wild card with a "preemptive" nuclear strike on Iran, but even this will not change the trend in the long term.

In his hurry to execute Saddam Hussein George Bush has played his final trump card. Now the game is up.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Brainwashed Blair shows true colour

Tony Blair shuttled to the Middle East in order to escape the sleazy image created by cash for honours and the abandonment of the serious fraud investigation into the Saudi arms deal as well as in order to demonstrate his undiminished importance as a statesman after he has been once more belittled, this time in a Chatham House study, as the junior lackey to Bush without any influence on American policy. In return he was merely derided as having been brainwashed and irrelevant as a power broker, remarks which must carry a particular hurtful sting since the were made by the vice-president of the very government US and UK troops installed in Iraq and are sacrificing their soldiers to protect.

Whilst most of the mantra urging so-called moderates to unite for peace in the Middle East is the usual predictable garbage we've come to expect from our prime minister posing as peace-maker and power-broker in the half a century old Israel-Palestine conflict, his speech given to businessmen in Dubai deserve closer inspection. After the apparent contradiction of inviting Iran and Syria to help the US and UK out of their quagmire in Iraq whilst at the same time threatening them, Blair finally laid the cards on the table with a clear indication of whom we have been fighting this war for all along. This is what he said when describing the government of Iran as a strategic threat:

"They seek to pin us back in Lebanon, in Iraq and in Palestine. Our response should be to expose what they are doing, build the alliances to prevent it and pin them back across the whole of the region."

Now we all know that the British have troops in Iraq and that the prime minister must try to safeguard their interests, however impossible a task this seems to become. But that the British are fighting a war in Lebanon and Palestine is definitely news. Hence, when Blair talks about "us" being pinned back in the Lebanon and in Palestine, he can only mean the Israelis, and thus for the first time has admitted that British foreign policy is shaped for their benefit. Iran is a strategic threat because her government has dared to attach the Zionist apartheid regime head on in spite of making the usual excuses before asking for some polite restraint.

That the US administration has been hostage to Zionist interests for a long time is common knowledge. Now for the first time the British prime minister has put on record that the same applies to Whitehall. We shouldn't be surprised, of course, if we look where the money is: Blair's buddy and financer, and special envoy to the Middle East, Lord Levy is an ardent supporter of the Israeli apartheid regime. Don't expect much change though, if Gordon Brown takes the reigns: his backer goes by the name of Cohen. And according to the Jewish Chronicle, David Cameron's party is bankrolled by the Jewish gambling magnate Lord Steinberg. The British government and opposition have been bought, and I can't wait hearing Margaret Becket paraphrasing Madeleine Albright by saying that the deaths of British soldiers in Iraq are "a price worth paying".

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Iran Revolution ends the Holocult

The Iranians may not even be aware of it, but their hosting of the recent Holocaust conference may prove to be the most important milestone in their history since the Islamic Revolution under Khomeini. Western politicians and media certainly grasped the significance of the event, with Germany's premier Merkel standing shoulder to shoulder with prime minister Olmert of the "only-democracy-in-the-middle-east-that-is-not-a-democracy" - the apartheid state of Israel - and with BBC television news presenting the bizarre spectacle of discussing, rather than reporting on, an alleged anti-Semitic conference whilst the images in the background showed traditionally clad Orthodox Jews happily in attendance.

When the Islam-hating Western media attacked the prophet Muhammad under the pretence of freedom of speech, Iran retaliated by testing the limits of those freedoms with its own holocaust cartoon competition. In doing so they stumbled across the most jealously guarded dogma of secular Western society, the Holocult. Whereas questioning and reviling religious beliefs is almost a cornerstone underpinning the mindset of those societies, even genuine historical research into the subject of a subsection of the 60 million who died in the second world war is prohibited and most certainly leads to being ostracised in public: The suffering of the Jews may not be questioned since "if it were to be proven that "The Holocaust" has, in fact, been stage-managed for political reasons in order to promote Israeli interests, then the State of Israel and the United States as public players, and the global Zionist organizations as private lobbying entities would have to accept their share of responsibility for the damage, suffering and hardship they have wrought upon the Middle East and the world and, accordingly, they should be held accountable."

The latter is a quote from communiqué no. 16 of Argentina's growing opposition movement MSRA or Argentine Second Republic Movement, who intend to host a Holocaust conference of their own in order to examine how the Holocaust has been used propagandistically for political ends following the end of World War II. Rather than a one-off event, the Tehran conference is the beginning of the unravelling of the special status that Israel and Zionist Jews enjoy in the world justified by their special suffering at the hands of the Germans. The issue is not whether Jews suffered during World War II but that this suffering has been exploited since in what Finkelstein called the "Holocaust industry". For the last half century, only Jews and retired politicians, the latter in their memoirs, were permitted to voice criticism of Israel and the Zionist lobby. Meanwhile, with some historical distance, many more people are demanding to have a say in the matter, although others, like the Muslim American Society (MAS) Freedom Foundation feel the need to curry favour by stating "True Muslims must never deny the Holocaust" and in the words of Ibrahim Ramey, the Director of their Human and Civil Rights Division: "The evidence of this crime, and the horrible magnitude of this killing, is irrefutable. From sources as varied as Nazi war records, film documentation, and most importantly, the testimony of survivors and witnesses, we know that the mass murder of European Jews was, indeed, the single greatest crime of genocide in the twentieth century." - whereas the communiqué from Argentina questions why, if World War II cost more than 60 million lives in Europe and Asia. mankind's attention is almost solely focused on the suffering of 10% of those victims and millions have been added since then "including almost 2 million Iraqis killed by the Bush Family and their Associates since the First Gulf War in 1991 to date".

Recognising that the label of unique suffering can no longer be worn unchallenged, researchers who questioned certain aspects of the official holocaust story were convicted in political show trials as a warning to others: in France Robert Faurisson or Roger Garaudy, the latter for his substantive book The Founding Myths of Zionism, in Austria David Irving, in Australia Fredrick Toeben, in Germany Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zundel. But with Iran state-sponsoring a conference on the subject and inviting eminent Rabbis to attend, all this effort has come to naught. The topic will not go away and awkward questions are going to be asked.

As a gentile European I may not ask these questions without penalty, but Rabbi Moishe Arye Friedman, chief Rabbi of the Orthodox anti-Zionist Jewish Community in Vienna, Austria, did not prostrate before the God of Zion and did not hesitate to attend the Tehran conference decried by the Muslim American Society as immoral and motivated by racial hatred. In his address to the conference he stated that the founder of the Zionism, Theodor Herzl, already spoke in his first diaries of a number of six million Jews who were allegedly threatened in Europe and that, according to Herzl, the so-called Jewish state would only have a chance if there was a disaster for these six million European Jews, as well as that the Bolshevists and the British government already used the six million figure in their war propaganda against Germany during the first world war. He further talked about the collaboration between the Nazis and the Zionists, and added that he was sure that the last word about the real or actual number of the victims had not yet been spoken, mentioning that in 1990 the number originally specified of four million victims of Auschwitz had been reduced to approximately 900,000 to 1.1 million whilst the six million figure remained unchallenged.

Now to be consistent, Austrian prosecutors would have to charge the Vienna Chief Rabbi with Holocaust denial, but such a trial would further dent the credibility of the laws protecting the official version of events as well as that of the Shoah story itself, repeatedly embellished by Hollywood productions. It is, therefore, highly unlikely, that the Rabbi will be dragged before a court to answer on charges of anti-Semitism.

Meanwhile there are two strands to the unofficial debate about the holocaust: on the one hand historians demand that this episode of history must not be barred from proper scientific scrutiny in order to separate myth from reality. Guiseppe Furioso, for example, asks why there is no documentary evidence of the gassings nor any mention of it in Churchill's memoirs or by any other political figures of the time.

The other, and more potent, strand is the questioning of the Pax Americana or victor's justice established with the Nuremberg Trials and the propagandistic exploitation of Jewish suffering for imperial ends. Just as president Ahmedinejad of Iran convincingly argues that if the Germans tried to exterminate the Jews then they should be responsible for resettling them in their own country rather than making the Palestinians pay the price, others, like the Argentineans, point out that powers like Israel who stole Palestinian land and the United States of America who stole Native Indian land have not moral authority to play world policemen in the name of the International Community.

The tide is changing and the Argentinean press release points to the fact that its effect is not lost on the pro-Zionist camp: "Interestingly", it says, "the Zionist pro-Israeli mainstream media implicitly admits that any such investigation poses a grave danger to Zionism. Amidst all the insults and threats from such newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, in their 13-Dec-06 issue however, they ran an article called Holocaust denial can be dangerous" which concludes by saying that, "...attacking the legitimacy of the Holocaust allows....(attacking) the legitimacy of Israel, which was created by the United Nations as a result of the Holocaust. If the first act didn't happen, then the second act wasn't necessary." In a way this let the cat out of the bag. Israel's days are numbered if the last great "religious" taboo of not discussing the true facts and dimensions of the holocaust is broken, and with the dollar in accelerating decline and US marines taking a beating in Iraq, Iran - threatened with a pre-emptive strike by the United States for alleged nuclear weapons of mass destruction - seems to have successfully managed to cut the Achilles heel of the current Anglo-Zionist world order.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Diana Whitewash

When the establishment investigates itself, the result is predictable. In that respect the 832 pages plus appendices of Lord Stevens' report into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, are hardly worth examining or discussing more closely. Does anyone seriously believe that when interviewed, MI6 officers would have come clean if they had any non-benign involvement in the matter?

Nonetheless, there are lessons to be learned. The greatest and saddest lesson is that for Harrod's owner El-Fayed and Anglophiles like him who always wanted to be part of the British establishment. He should have known better before sacrificing everything in an unattainable quest: The British establishment is a closed shop not open to Muslims, however secular they might be in their demeanour.

Another lesson should be for those trying to expose the corruption and malpractice within the establishment not to waste their time calling for enquiries, whether it be into the way Charles de Menezes was brutally executed by police in a London tube train or into the numerous inconsistencies of the official story around the July 7 bombings in London. As the enquiry into the death of David Kelly and that into the death of Lady Diana prove, they are designed to exonerate the establishment at any cost. They are not the forum for finding the truth. The report explains the absence of camera pictures of the princess' last journey by saying that in Paris in 1997 there were not as many CCTV cameras as there are today in London driven by anti-terrorism measures. I'm sure if Lord Stevens was asked to investigate the July 7 bombings, he would find some other reason why none of these many cameras recorded the alleged suicide bombers last journey.

On the other hand, it seems that the establishment itself has not learned many lessons either. The late Robert Maxwell is said to have opined before his mysterious death and the revelation about his pension fund swindle that for a lie to succeed it has to have an element of truth in it. Now this is where Lord Stevens' investigation falls down like so many others before him. In their arrogance and stupidity the British establishment will not even concede the slightest irregularities.

By ticking the "not to blame" tick box for each and every allegation made against anybody even remotely connected with the establishment and ticking the "not true" box for even the slightest accusation of something not being quite right the report loses all its credibility. Just as there is no perfect crime, there is also no perfect accident where everything from the moment "go" is done right by everybody. By refusing to question some of the actions, like the immediate embalming of the body of the princess, or the unacceptable delays in obtaining suitable medical attention for her when she had clearly survived the crash, the author(s) of the report destroy any credibility it might have had with a critical observer not yet totally brainwashed and bereft of any ability to think independently.

And there is another own goal right at the end of the report where it asserts that MI6 did not know that the Princess of Wales was in Paris the night of her tragic death. However, they did know about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Given their knowledge is so patchy, they should be closed down rather than have their funding increased.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

One rule for Ukraine, another for Lebanon

Masses of people have descended on Beirut and set up camp with the explicit aim of forcing the government out of office. They are angry at a government which let them down during the savage Israeli punitive strikes this autumn and fear that it will not protect them against future Israeli expansionist ambitions. They accuse Siniora, helped into office 18 months ago during popular protests promoted by Western nations, of being pro-Western and anti-Syrian. Since Israel was defeated in the Lebanon the public mood has swung in favour of Hizbollah.

For those whose attention span is longer than the day's CNN headlines, the "orange revolution" in the Ukraine a year ago immediately comes to mind. Popular protests of people camping in the capital Kiev vowed to force the just elected government out of office, stating that the elections were rigged. The US, Britain and other European nations hailed this as an expression of popular democracy, and when the demonstrations, supported and financed by the West, finally succeeded they opened the doors for Western banks and businesses to enter this former Soviet controlled country in what "The Banker" described as a gold rush.

One should therefore think that the US and EU would also welcome the voice of the people in the Lebanon as a milestone on the road of Middle Eastern democracy. Instead, the demonstrations were denounced as "threats of intimidation and violence" by the US, and its UN ambassador John Bolton called it "part of the Iran-Syria inspired coup". As with the Palestinian elections in favour of Hamas, the people of the Middle East have once more misunderstood the concept of Western democracy and voted for the wrong side. In Western democracy you are free to vote for the right parties only, those safeguarding the interests of the West.

UK foreign secretary Margaret Becket, helped to power by her strongly Muslim constituency, is even planning to pay Mr Siniora a visit in order to provide moral support for this beleaguered premier against his own people. It probably isn't too difficult for her to sympathise with him, seeing that her own government is just about as unpopular as it can get.

Comparing the two recent events in world history provides an interesting study in the relationship between propaganda and power politics in the modern era. The myth of freedom and democracy has been dealt another blow whilst the old "one rule for one, another rule for another" has been injected with new life.