The comments sections of Craig Murray's blog often contain references to issues that Craig considers 'off-topic', to such an extent that he has taken to deleting them whenever they appear. It's his blog of course so he can do exactly as he pleases and, to give him his due, he had issued warnings it would happen.
Anyway, in deference to those who have a problem with the official narrative of the events of 9/11 (the most popular 'off-topic' subject it seems) he has posted a piece dedicated to the subject. It does NOT measure up to his usual standards. In fact, as a piece of serious analysis, it is on a par with the average 5 year old explaining to a 6-7 year old sibling just why Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy are stories that simply MUST be believed. As in:

• I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected.

• I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable. 

(which begs an obvious question: "why bother employing 80 men for nine months and 12 miles of cabling when, on the basis of Craig's opinion, one big bang and an oxygen-starved kerosene fire will apparently do the job in a few hours from scratch? - a new demolition method has made it's debute eh? - Hit the building with a plane and/or douse it with kerosene toss a match in and it will collapse at free-fall speed into its own footprint in short order - 100% success rate to date - Craig's friend is clearly afraid for his job)

• The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense. 

 - Duh - amazingly high eh?  but what about that WT7 that wasn't hit by an aeroplane? He has the answer:

• ... Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. 

That's OK then, planes for the twin towers, corrupt builders for WT7  ... and so it goes on, with just the smigeon of a doubt about what exactly hit the Pentagon.

To give Craig his due again, he does actually conclude

"...In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback - the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision." 

He's getting warm here - with his juxtaposition of 'malignant terrorist agency' and 'CIA', it even crossed my mind that he had recognised the CIA for what it is - nevertheless it is progress of sorts. Craig's problem is that, for some reason, he refuses to connect the dots. Does he really believe that CIA funding, training, arming and general manipulation of radical Muslim groups for its own purposes, stopped with the departure of the Soviets? - REALLY?

Does he not understand that the CIA and MI5  have more Muslim 'assets' in place in  (for example) Leeds and Blackburn  - ie people on whom they have extensive files and can influence through one or other of their arsenal of 'make him an offer he can't refuse' methods - than he got votes when he stood for election there?

False flag operations are far FAR more Machiavellian and far FAR less simplistic than Craig appears to suppose. In spite of our esteemed SIS's careful cultivation of that Boy's-Own James Bond (and US equivalent) image, Marquis of Queensbury rules quite simply do not apply.

If such an operation (ie a successful devastating attack - a 'New Pearl Harbour' - that could and would be instantly and credibly blamed on the required evil enemy) WERE judged necessary in order to prosecute the most momentous, pre-planned project of global militarisation, control and much ballyhooed 'Full Spectrum Dominance', in history, does Craig REALLY suppose that Deep State Agencies of the US could not or would not arrange for things to play out pretty much exactly as they appear to have done?

- a bit of agent-provocateuring here - a bit of financing there - a bit of covert obstruction of domestic intelligence/policing functions here - a bit of false trail-laying there - the occasional covert threat here - the odd assassination there - and so on -

IT IS WHAT OUR SIS's ARE THERE FOR for God's sake !!! - It's their raison d'etre - and they are both well practiced and bloody good at it.

You need only the most cursory trawl through the record of CIA involvement in South/Central America, Indonesia, The Philipines etc etc, not to mention our very own European 'Operation Gladio',  to see the depravity they will instigate, promote and foster as a matter of routine in pursuit of their mystical 'National Security Interests'.

So what of Craig's reluctance to connect the dots? I suggest it is related to the syndrome that afflicts all of us when asked to consider the possibility that our Government and its Agencies might be anything other than 'the man who wears the white hat' of those old Western films, and which cocoons us in what John McMurtry dubs the boundaries of the Ruling Group Mind. As I commented on a piece dealing with the same subject which I highly recommend on 'Nobody's' Blog:

Poor Dear Old Craig indeed. He has tasted the Establishment Good Life in the upper echelons of the British Foreign Service. Being cast adrift must be VERY hard to take and I don't envy him in his need to build an alternative career. He knows as well as anyone the price exacted by effectively challenging the REAL Western Establishment Power Structures and he's clearly not about to open a second front by going native over 911 and such - no matter what the evidence says. In a nutshell, it is near impossible to get any man to see something that his livelihood depends on his NOT seeing and Craig is clearly no exception. Or as that Old Paul Simon song has it "... still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

My guess is he will gradually acquiesce in his co-option back into The Establishment and life will thus gradually become more comfortable etc etc as he continues to respect those boundaries, his past (and present??) nuisance value notwithstanding. After all his principle issue (Government complicity in torture) is one which resonates with the public and which is therefore eminently co-optable with a bit of massaging, pious words and the passage of time. He's sending out the right signals for it and he is arguably too dangerous to be kept in the outer darkness. Silence him or co-opt him; those are the two available options. My money goes on the latter - if only because suiciding and premature deaths have been just a tad overdone this past decade or so and have to be held somewhat in reserve for sudden unforseen major threats like a Dr Kelly Mk2 or some such.

So, just what IS the purpose of these 'terrorist attack risk level warnings I ask - somewhat rhetorically?

Since anyone with a modicum of intelligence can calculate that the odds of being harmed by a 'terrorist attack' are in the same ballpark as winning the National Lottery Jackpot two weeks running, just how is our behaviour supposed to change with a 'raised warning level'?

Are we perhaps supposed to pay 10% more attention to bearded males carrying rucksacks - or maybe 22.5% more? - something like that? - I think we should be told.

Anyway in the interests of doing my bit to counter this latest threat level warning so-to-speak, here is a little piece that I'm told first made the rounds at about the time this 'calibrate the Sheeple fear level for purposes yet to become clear' charade of terrorist threat levels first started. It's posted by way of a tonic on the premise that, since you can do bugger all else about their ridiculous patronising crap, you might as well have a damn good laugh at them - and let them know it.

So, with due apologies for the smug Anglo-Saxon stereotypes, here goes:

It appears that the English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from 'Miffed' to 'Peeved'. Soon, though security levels may be raised yet again to 'Irritated' or even 'A Bit Cross'. Londoners have not been 'A Bit Cross' since 'the blitz' in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorised from 'Tiresome' to a 'Bit of a Nuisance.' The last time the British issued a 'Bit of a Nuisance' warning level was during the great fire of 1666.

Also, the French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from 'Run' to 'Hide.' The only two higher levels in France are 'Surrender' and 'Collaborate.' The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.

It's not only the English and French that are on a heightened level of alert: Italy has increased the alert level from ' Shout Loudly and Excitedly' to 'Elaborate Military Posturing.' Two more levels remain: 'Ineffective Combat Operations' and 'Change Sides.'

The Germans also increased their alert state from 'Disdainful Arrogance' to 'Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.' They also have two higher levels: 'Invade a Neighbour' and 'Lose.'

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

US military personnel taking aim at 'the enemy' with their fancy Trijicon ACOG gun sights can do so secure in the knowledge that they are 'shooting for Jesus'. May be that will make the more religiously-inclined among them feel better about killing 'Ragheads'; but what of the locals they claim to be training to do the job for themselves?

The picture is of a group of them - no doubt devout Muslims all - being trained with 'Jesus rifles'. Wonder how they're going to feel about that when they find out?

My guess is that those doing the training will have good reason to feel even less secure in the loyalty and reliability of their charges than they do already.

Stupid? - Pig-bloody-ignorant? - Is there a a word or phrase in the English language that can adequately describe the insufferable sanctimonious arrogance of the US Military, its sponsors and suppliers?

This from ABC News:

... with additional pictures here

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.
The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.
U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious “Crusade” in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.
One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
Other references include citations from the books of Revelation, Matthew and John dealing with Jesus as “the light of the world.” John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions “have always been there” and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is “not Christian.” The company has said the practice began under its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa who was killed in a 2003 plane crash.
The company’s vision is described on its Web site: “Guided by our values, we endeavor to have our products used wherever precision aiming solutions are required to protect individual freedom.”
“We believe that America is great when its people are good,” says the Web site. “This goodness has been based on Biblical standards throughout our history, and we will strive to follow those morals.”
Spokespeople for the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps both said their services were unaware of the biblical markings. They said officials were discussing what steps, if any, to take in the wake of the ABCNews.com report. It is not known how many Trijicon sights are currently in use by the U.S. military.
The biblical references appear in the same type font and size as the model numbers on the company’s Advanced Combat Optical Guides, called the ACOG.
A photo on a Department of Defense Web site shows Iraqi soldiers being trained by U.S. troops with a rifle equipped with the bible-coded sights.
“It’s wrong, it violates the Constitution, it violates a number of federal laws,” said Michael “Mikey” Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group that seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the military.
‘Firearms of Jesus Christ’
“It allows the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, al Qaeda and the insurrectionists and jihadists to claim they’re being shot by Jesus rifles,” he said.
Weinstein, an attorney and former Air Force officer, said many members of his group who currently serve in the military have complained about the markings on the sights. He also claims they’ve told him that commanders have referred to weapons with the sights as “spiritually transformed firearm[s] of Jesus Christ.”
He said coded biblical inscriptions play into the hands of “those who are calling this a Crusade.”
According to a government contracting watchdog group, fedspending.org, Trijicon had more than $100 million in government contracts in fiscal year 2008. The Michigan company won a $33 million Pentagon contract in July, 2009 for a new machine gun optic, according to Defense Industry Daily. The company’s earnings from the U.S. military jumped significantly after 2005, when it won a $660 million long-term contract to supply the Marine Corps with sights.
“This is probably the best example of violation of the separation of church and state in this country,” said Weinstein. “It’s literally pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun against the people that we’re fighting. We’re emboldening an enemy.”

 

The Pakistani daily Dawn - a pro-US paper not known for its antiwar stance — reports that US drones killed over 700 civilians in 44 bombings since Barak Obama took office in January 2009:

PESHAWAR, 2nd January 2010: Of the 44 predator strikes carried out by US drones in the tribal areas of Pakistan over the past 12 months, only five were able to hit their actual targets, killing five key Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, but at the cost of over 700 innocent civilians.

According to the statistics compiled by Pakistani authorities, the Afghanistan-based US drones killed 708 people in 44 predator attacks targeting the tribal areas between January 1 and December 31, 2009. For each Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist killed by US drones, 140 innocent Pakistanis were also killed. Over 90 per cent of those killed in the deadly missile strikes were civilians"

In other words, President Obama has surpassed even his predecessor’s murderous record in Pakistan.

His reward? - The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
George Orwell was right - his '1984' was just a little premature, that's all.

So, as the first decade of the new century closes, "War really IS peace. Ignorance really IS strength and  Freedom really IS slavery" - with the massed sheeple of the Western World still lapping up Big Brother's narrative of the way things are and are meant to be.

Hat-tip to Pulse

These advertisements are turning heads in various UK airports through December and January. Not allowed in the US of course. Can't have people being encouraged to think in the 'Land of the Free' now can we?

The full series including flash animations can be viewed here.

Should fear of an unknown menace detract from the presence of the world´s largest nuclear arsenal?


Is the ability to influence minds more potent than a deadly force?


If violence against civilians defines terrorism, then how do people in a war zone distinguish friendly forces?





Should a democratically elected government use violence to control a demonstration?

General Stanley McChrystal - Commander of US / 'International Security Assistance' Forces in Afghanistan and former commander of 'Special Forces' operations in Iraq - is a convert to 'winning hearts and minds' - or so he would have us believe.

Among one of multiple eye-popping items of double-speak, he had this to say to Stars and Stripes on New Years Day :

“What we are working on is that we’re really focusing on getting counterinsurgency, protecting the people, in the minds of the Afghan people. We are not viewed as occupiers now.”

In light of the relentless toll on the civilian population by the 'Point-Click-kill Brigade' - (or 'Remote Control Warriors' as the US military likes to call them) with their 'Reaper' and 'Predator' drones designed and named especially to 'win hearts and minds' it seems); not to mention Stanley's old buddies who, when there is a smigeon of doubt or they are simply too pumped up to think straight, are inclined to simply execute children in cold blood, Rick Rozoff's recourse to Fyodor Dostoevsky seems apposite:

"A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else."

The 'Gaza Freedom March' has been largely ignored by the Western MSM - No surprises there then.

The march organisers are doing their best to draw attention to the continuing barbaric behaviour of Zionist Israel towards Gaza and the Palestinian population in general.

About 1,400 marchers are currently in Cairo, having been prevented by the Egyptian Authorities from crossing into Gaza. It seems that the Egyptians, having proved themselves useless at fighting Zionist Israel, have decided it would be more profitable for them to do it's dirty work instead. With it's actions against the marchers and the construction of yet another wall (underground this time - see pic above) Egypt has become something of a Zionist poodle - a bit like the UK relationship with the US really. As a perceptive commentator said recently (can't recall where) "With its surrounding Arab countries as 'enemies', Israel has little need of friends" - ouch!

My guess is that all this seriously rankles with the average Egyptian. Their Western supported (not to say dictated to) government is sowing the wind. I wonder if it is ready for the whirlwind?

Anyway, the march has just issued 'The Cairo Declaration' as follows:

• Israel`s ongoing collective punishment of Palestinians through the illegal occupation and siege of Gaza;
• the illegal occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the continued construction of the illegal Apartheid Wall and settlements;
• the new Wall under construction by Egypt and the US which will tighten even further the siege of Gaza;
• the contempt for Palestinian democracy shown by Israel, the US, Canada, the EU and others after the Palestinian elections of 2006;
• the war crimes committed by Israel during the invasion of Gaza one year ago;
• the continuing discrimination and repression faced by Palestinians within Israel;
• and the continuing exile of millions of Palestinian refugees;
• all of which oppressive acts are based ultimately on the Zionist ideology which underpins Israel;
• in the knowledge that our own governments have given Israel direct economic, financial, military and diplomatic support and allowed it to behave with impunity;
• and mindful of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (2007)
  

• Palestinian Self-Determination
• Ending the Occupation
• Equal Rights for All within historic Palestine
• The full Right of Return for Palestinian refugees

1. An international speaking tour in the first 6 months of 2010 by Palestinian and South African trade unionists and civil society activists, to be joined by trade unionists and activists committed to this programme within the countries toured, to take mass education on BDS directly to the trade union membership and wider public internationally;
2. Participation in the Israeli Apartheid Week in March 2010;
3. A systematic unified approach to the boycott of Israeli products, involving consumers, workers and their unions in the retail, warehousing, and transportation sectors;
4. Developing the Academic, Cultural and Sports boycott;
5. Campaigns to encourage divestment of trade union and other pension funds from companies directly implicated in the Occupation and/or the Israeli military industries;
6. Legal actions targeting the external recruitment of soldiers to serve in the Israeli military, and the prosecution of Israeli government war criminals; coordination of Citizen`s Arrest Bureaux to identify, campaign and seek to prosecute Israeli war criminals; support for the Goldstone Report and the implementation of its recommendations;
7. Campaigns against charitable status of the Jewish National Fund (JNF).

You have my support 100%

I find the complicity of the Western World (and most especially the Arab World) surreal - unbelievable - almost like living a dream.

The sheer in-your-face Orwellian inversion of language in almost everything connected with the Israel/Palestine situation when it figures at all in the public utterances of the Western Political Establishment is quite simply breath-taking. How CAN any of them actually believe what they are saying? - I ask somewhat rhetorically. Answer? - THEY DON'T. The High Offices of State in the West require that those appointed or aspiring to them sacrifice any and all principles and considerations of common humanity to the absolute imperative of promoting the OFFICIAL NARRATIVE OF EVENTS (unless there is a 'humanitarian intervention' on the cards of course, in which case their hearts bleed).

That narrative in summary is of a misunderstood alliance of superior democratic, freedom-loving nations valiantly striving to do good in the world.

To describe it as 'Orwellian' does not do justice to its sheer bloody absurdity - and to maintain the Orwellian fiction, we are lied to systematically and kept in a constant state of fearful compliance by the phoney 'war on terror' - War on Terror? - WAR ON TERROR !! - I ask you - Just who the hell do people think have caused more GENUINE terror and death in civilian populations throughout the world than the US/ISRAELI/UK military this past decade?

And to cap it all, the man responsible for more terror, death, bombing and general mayhem than any other individual on the planet for the year in question, has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize! - and what's more actually accepted it with a toe-curlingly embarrassing justification for perpetual 'just' war.


You really couldn't make this stuff up could you? In a rational world any attempt to do so - as a work of fiction say - would simple be laughed at as absurd. But WE are required to live and believe it!

In my dotage I have learned to be thoroughly ashamed of having to hold a 'British' passport. - and when I see puppets like the fresh-faced boy Milliband earnestly trying to patronise me - let alone that reptile Blair - I could be physically sick.

Sorry about the rant. It is cathartic - Not to mention TRUE.

The very best wishes to you and your efforts.

I've been a regular reader of Jean Michael Greer's Blog - 'The Archdruid Report' - since its inception. The guy has a handle on the implications of 'peak-oil/energy' for our globalised industrialised economic/political systems that produces regular keen insights into the way things are likely to unfold. His analyses of human societies' handling of unwelcome change is deeply thoughtful and clearly springs from extensive pondering of the issues it raises. Put all that together with with a certain gift of expression and you have a highly informative and readable blog.

So it happened that I was enjoying his latest piece when I was struck by a couple of jarring notes. They are the subject of this post.

Jean Michael is clearly a gentle man who seeks the best in people. I have no issue with that and admire him for it. But it was his repeated use of the term 'Conspiricist' and his assertion (to paraphrase) that politicians are broadly representative of the populations that they spring from - good and bad - that jarred.

Firstly the term 'Conspiracist'. Like other pejoratives, (Holocaust denier, Anti-semite, Communist, Fascist Flat-Earther etc) its use is generally intended as a debate changer by making those it is applied to appear 'beyond the pale' or 'ridiculous' and thus unworthy of a hearing. So, what is it supposed to mean? and why is it ranked right up there with those other powerful debate changers?

Jean Michael uses it to dismiss those who he sees as proposing wide-ranging or all-encompassing conspiracies as having a significant role in human affairs. Put that way it seems to me that the 'anti-conspiracists' are the ones with some explaining to do. At the most basic level of meaning, it really ought to be beyond dispute that conspiracy by constituent cliques and cabals prior to ANY type of  minuted, publicly accountable meeting or action - from the lowly local club right up to the highest reaches of government decision-making - is actually the driving force behind pretty much any and all collective human endeavour. IOW the Public Agenda is largely driven and determined by hidden, private agendas that are furthered by conspiracy. It is simply the way the world works.

So why is it that the terms 'conspiracist' and 'conspiracy theorist' have become such powerful debate-clinching pejoratives? 

Since it is invariably applied to those suggesting conspiracy and complicity by elements of the State in violence against its own people, I suggest that it has to do with peoples' overwhelming need to believe in the basic good intent of the State, its Government and Agencies. Granted they can be stupid, bungling, incompetent - even corrupt at times, but the idea that they would or could EVER act deliberately and with calculation against the interests of the general population, let alone be involved in persistent gross deception and/or deliberate acts of domestic terrorism, is simply too abhorrent and downright scary to countenance - And that in spite of overwhelming evidence that latter day Western Governments are literally up to their necks in all of those things.

Which brings me to the morality of politicians.

At the outset of a political career and discounting the allegiances that political dynasties impose, I guess the aggregate of wannabe politicians are indeed representative of the aggregate of the populations they spring from. Self-evident really and in that sense Jean Michael is quite right in his assertion. However, it is the attributes required to produces a 'successful' political career that are the nub of the matter. 'Successful' here meaning one that achieves ministerial/cabinet/Privy Council Rank in the UK or their equivalents elsewhere.

I suggest that, whatever genuinely altruistic public-service ideals may originally have motivated a politician or 'public servant', it is the progressive compromise and ultimate abandonment of any such principles that is the sine-qua-non of elevation to the high offices of State. The career progression of such an individual can be likened to the degrees of initiation bestowed by a Masonic Order. Following initial elevation by the masses, any further advancement is by invitation and appointment by superior initiates. Ability and merit may have a bearing on the matter but if so, it is ability and merit in the promotion of the official narrative of events and the State's part in them that is the crux of the matter. Such narratives effortlessly accommodate the divisions between the major political parties which boil down to little more than froth. But on their substance, no departure from orthodoxy is tolerated.

Thus, an alliance of superior, freedom-loving democracies is valiantly striving to fight the evil of terrorism and generally to do good in the world; with its heroic armed forces sacrificing their lives selflessly in multiple distant desert countries that we might avoid having to fight their malign evil in our own lands.

Take a step back and try to look at that as might a visitor from another world - or better yet as a young innocent staring at his naked Emperor. It is so self-evidently absurd as to be risible, yet it IS the basic official narrative of the early 21st century, lapped up by a fearful, insecure and gullible population. It is trotted out endlessly by mainstream political parties and media of ALL persuasions in the manner almost of a religious creed and woe-betide anyone - especially an ambitious politician - who dares question it.

It is the sordid realities behind that and other absurd 'official narratives' that the ambitious politician is gradually initiated into such that, by the time the higher degrees are reached, there is little of principle left in the initiate beyond defence  of the existing power structures at any price. My latest (somewhat seasonal) analogy for the relationship between the State and its general population is that, as a matter of rigid orthodoxy, communication is conducted around an intellectual and emotional framework not unlike that of a parent and 5 year old child but absent any altruistic/parental bond - such that the official narratives of most events of importance are massaged to a level of factual accuracy resembling those of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. In other words - in the interests of an over-riding imperative to maintain 'The System' and protect its corrupt, self-serving interests, we are lied to systematically as a matter of time-honoured and sanctified practice - PERIOD. In the immortal words of that venerable Irish muckraker Caud Cockburn therefore: "Never believe anything until it has been officially denied".

On the narrow subject of 'conspiracy theories' and terrorism, I personally doubt more than about 10% of all so-called terrorist outrages in the West occur without deep complicity on the part of our SIS's and their 'assets' - its called 'calibrating the level of violence and tension the better to further the policy agenda and secure compliance from a fearful population',  and anyone who thinks that an exaggeration - or more likely absurd - should first of all read up on 'Operation Gladio' as a primer before moving onto the more outrageous stuff. The information is readily available; it is just studiously ignored, other than as the occasional butt of ritualised ridicule, by the MSM.

So personally and in spite of JMG's admonitions, I'll stick with 'conspiracy theory' rather than 'coincidence theory' as a consistently superior explanation of events, with States, their Governments and especially their SI Agencies - per Spymaster extraordinaire Robert Cecil and his foolhardy dissident victim Guy Fawkes - as the model conspirators.

For those interested in the reality, systematically hidden and obfuscated by the 'Official Narrative', of major events and the motives driving them,  'Lenin's Tomb' is well worth monitoring. It is run by Richard Seymour whose recent book 'The Liberal Defence of Murder' is an impressive forensic dissection of the pathologies that are manipulated by 'The System' to secure cheer-leading support from otherwise sensible, well meaning people for the West's multiple latter-day imperial wars on those who decline to see things our way.

Richard is something of an activist himself, apparently believing in the possibility of systemic change for the better through political action - and all power to him for that. I, on the other hand, am a crotchety old grand-dad who has finally come to accept that any such meaningful change is - and will continue to be - fought tooth and nail, with all the means at its disposal (which are mind-bogglingly vast) by our present deeply corrupt, self-serving system. The net effect being that meaningful change will only come about through events of a nature even more cataclysmic than say the French or Russian Revolutions were in their day. Which in turn is to say through massive hardship and the destruction of much of what we pompously imagine to be our oh-so-civilised, 'advanced', and superior way-of-life.

Reading the Runes I think I divine the stirrings of just such a cataclysm in the making. It manifests in the 'whistling past the graveyard' posturing of just about every Establishment Spokesman and his dog, in face of the relentless convergence of population growth, environmental degradation and peak oil/energy (in fact peak just-about-everything - especially debt). I'm less sure that the real powers behind the throne are 'whistling past the graveyard' though. Rather, they are quietly, deceptively but systematically preparing for the cataclysm they know to be immanent. For example: there are some pretty self-evident Police-States in the making; Nato/US/Israel now account for 75% of the world's military expenditure (it's called 'defence' dontcha know?); The US garrisons the entire planet with over 1,000 non-domestic military bases and a military command for every corner of the globe (not to mention space and their shiny new 'Cyber-warfare' command) - 'the enemy' is everywhere you see, and they just gotta seek him out. (They simply HAVE to have enemies and if they seem a bit thin on the ground, why then, they'll just coach, arm and manufacture a few, easy-peasy); The 'Military/Industrial-Wall Street Complex' calls all the shots whilst its budgets remain sacrosanct and the general population suffers a  relentlessly grinding decline in its wealth, job/financial security and everything that defines its 'non-negotiable way of life'. The Super-rich get super-richer; Joe Average struggles to stagnate at best; whilst prospects for the vast underclass of globalised humanity ever participating in what the West takes for granted have vanished like the mirage they always were. Meanwhile, the systematic persecution of 'Untermenschen' such as the Palestinians (a grimly appropriate term in this context)  hardly registers on the delicate but purblind consciences of Western Politicians  at all. IOW, if you covet a political career, then there are things; really important things; things vital to the very survival of humanity in fact - that simply cannot be discussed outside an absurd orthodoxy that is rigidly enforced. The Emperor is indeed naked.

AND --- WE - the sheeple are seriously enjoined to believe that all this is part-and-parcel of a 'War on Terror' with a benign, well-intentioned but misunderstood Western Alliance  selflessly seeking to do good in the world !!!!

Jesus H Christ! - talk about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy to a 5 year old ! - and STILL we lap it up. What the Hell is wrong with us?

Anyway, back to Lenin's Tomb and the subject of this post.

"What happened in the Dahiya quarter in Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired upon. We will apply disproportionate force upon it and cause great damage and destruction there," he said. "From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases."

“This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved”. [Emphasis added]

Such genocidal logic, congruent with the promises of a 'Holocaust', was consistently expressed in Israel's methods and targeting, not to mention the uplifting sentiments expressed by IDF soldiers while defacing Palestinian homes. Since the end of Operation Cast Lead, we have had numerous reports into Israel's conduct of the operation, though less attention has been paid to the supposed rationale behind the attacks. The Goldstone Report [pdf] has documented in forensic detail an astonishing level of premeditated and sadistic violence toward civilians. It documented deliberate attacks on hospitals, mosques, and perhaps most chillingly the assault on the al-Samouni area resulting in the calculated massacre of the al-Samouni family. Focusing on 36 specific incidents of such aggression, with detailed consideration of evidence in each case, it concluded that the war had either in whole or in part been against the "people of Gaza as a whole". This was quite remarkable for such a report, produced by a UN team led by a "Zionist" who "loves Israel". It also concluded that "the operations were in furtherance of an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience and for its apparent support for Hamas". As a consequence of such conclusions, the report demanded that Israel should pay reparations to the Palestinians affected by its actions, noting that its internal structures left few avenues open for Palestinians to sue for reparations themselves. It also encouraged the UN to refer the report to the ICC, and called on the ICC to act on legal appeals from the "Government of Palestine". Predictably, the report was subject to a barrage of ignorant rubbish, suggesting that it was the result of a mission biased against Israel (forgetting that its remit actually included studying alleged war crimes by armed Palestinian groups), and that its findings were based "largely on interviews with Hamas" (utter garbage). Numerous rebuttal websites have been set up, including a rather slick one by CAMERA, with the aim of blowing smoke over the findings. But all of this is so much acting out by an increasingly bellicose and shrill minority.

One point that the Goldstone report also emphasised was that the punishment of the Palestinian population was continuing in the form of a blockade, which it considered to be "collective punishment". On Sunday, a new report [pdf] by numerous NGOs including Amnesty, Christian Aid, CAFOD, Oxfam, Trocaire and Medical Aid for the Palestinians looks at the impact of the blockade. Its main conclusions are shared by the International Committee of the Red Cross. It finds that all attempts to regenerate Gazan society and economy since Operation Cast Lead have been frustrated by the ongoing blockade. Most of the $4bn of international donor money has not been spent, not for lack of determination, but because the conditions of the blockade make it impossible to carry out the necessary reconstruction:

"the civilian population and the United Nations and aid agencies that aim to help them are prohibited from importing materials like cement or glass for reconstruction in all but a handful of cases".

The inability to reconstruct damaged homes has left tens of thousands displaced, some living in tents.

"And this is to say nothing of the backlog of need from those homes severely damaged in previous military actions, those new houses left half-built due to lack of materials and existing properties condemned as unhygienic or unsafe to live in that cannot be replaced."

Not only are homes not being rebuilt, but power stations necessary to maintain production, keep hospitals and public services functioning, and maintain sanitary water, remain destroyed. Israel regularly refuses to allow generators into Gaza. And industries are going idle. 120,000 jobs in the private sector were lost because of the blockade. Even before Operation Cast Lead, "98% of industrial operations in Gaza were idle because of the blockade". Because of the destruction to power stations, sewage systems and water piping, 8,000 people lack any access to piped water at all, and the remainder of the population has to suffer sporadic supplies when the power cuts out as it regularly does: water shortages and power cuts are particularly liable to take place during winter. The shortage of clean water is causing a shocking rise in diarrhoea, which is behind 12% of young deaths.

The blockade has reduced the categories of goods entering Gaza from approximately 4,000 to about 35, and those items that are theoretically allowed in (some medicines, basic foods and humanitarian supplies) are subject to arbitrarily shifting restrictions. The blockade had also severely restricted agricultural production, and Operation Cast Lead destroyed 17% of cultivated land in Gaza. Israel's imposition of a depopulated 'buffer zone' "inside of the walls and fences surrounding Gaza" has resulted in between "a quarter and a third of Gaza's agricultural land" being subsumed into the 'buffer zone'. The combined effect of Cast Lead and the ongoing blockade has been to put 46% of Gazan agricultural land out of production.

While southern Israel "blossoms", Gaza is constantly regressing in its ability to reproduce itself as a society and economy. Earlier this year, a leaked UN report said that the ongoing blockade was resulting in a process of "de-development", with "increased aid dependency" among the population - already, 75% of Gazans depend on food aid to survive. The report by Amnesty et al concludes, with language that is becoming all too familiar, that the blockade amounts to "collective punishment". It is worse than collective punishment, and that tag will simply not do any more. Baruch Kimmerling has characterised Israel's war on the Palestinians as 'politicide': an attempt to wholly destroy the fabric of any potential Palestinian state. But, as Martin Shaw has written, the proliferation of -cides with respect to the crimes of war - femicide, democide, infanticide, etc - really adverts to the genocidal logic that they are all too often embedded in. The logic of Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians is dictated by its twin drives to maintain control of Gaza and the West Bank with the long term aim of incorporating both as official Israeli territories, and its determination to remain a 'Jewish state' with a substantial Jewish majority. Either the Israeli state must give up one of these goals (and no one is applying sufficient pressure to make it do so), or it must find a way of disposing of the Palestinian population. Ethnic cleansing is one such means. Imposing conditions such as are intended to make life and its reproduction almost impossible, and unbearable, is another. The war on the population of Gaza is an attempt to break Palestinian resistance by means of destroying, in part, the aforementioned population.

Another typically 'on-the-button' observation from the Jewish jazz musician Gilad Azmon in his latest piece on 'Dissident Voice' subtitled: "Debunking Antisemitism Studies and Yehuda Bauer in Particular". The piece continues:

Anti-Semitism Studies has the potential to be a valuable field of research if it could, for example, elaborate and scrutinize Jewish culture and history in an attempt to grasp what it is that evokes anti Jewish feeling. It could try to establish if there is a Jewish ideological, political or cultural pattern that may be amended. In fact, early Zionists¹ tried to dwell on the subject. They tried to diagnose the ‘cause’ of Anti-Semitsm so that they might learn why it invariably and repeatedly matured into host cultures regarding Jews as a parasitic force. Early Zionists insisted that Aliya would bring about a new productive, ethical and civilized new Jew.

However, contemporary Anti-Semitism scholars have a very different agenda in mind. They build their research on the axiom that Jews are categorically innocent. They then try to understand why the Goyim behave immorally and even murderously. But here is a clear embarrassing catch: considering humanity is comprised of Goyim, Anti-Semitism scholars who attempt to grasp ‘what is wrong with the Goyim’ actually ask ‘what is wrong with humanity?’ This is in fact a legitimate question, unless we leave one conspicuous group out.

As things stand, in the new Judeo-centric ‘academic’ field namely ‘Anti-Semitism studies,’ a Zionist is there to review the Goy as a pathological case. This is slightly odd to say the least. It is even peculiar that such departments exist in Yale and at a London University. However, since academic institutes thrive on corporate donations and other funding sources, we can no longer expect the academic world to lead intellectual discourse or even commit itself to any form of ethical integrity.

Telling stuff eh? and the whole piece really is worth the read time - as is pretty well all the output from Mr Azmon.