Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3209 (since 2010-02-17 01:44:49)


Radical dissident. Retired.


Showing comments 3209 - 3201

  • From 'Avalon' to Madoff: What 'The Wizard of Lies' reveals about contemporary American Jewish identity
    • MOOSER- “…slander and malicious fantasies.”

      You mean like the myth of irrational and eternal anti-Semitism?

    • YONIFALIC- "In truth, I don’t understand why Jews don’t embrace real Jewish history, in which Medieval Jews (including E. European Slavo-Turks) play the key role in the development of the modern world."

      Perhaps because Zionist mythology provides a more effective basis for maintaining the sense of Jewish-Zionist kinship which has served the Jewish elites so well?

    • HOPHMI- "A typically antisemitic interpretation of the Madoff story, which uses the old canard of a Jewish community obsessed with money."

      Obsessed? Canard? Comparing the "Jewish community" to other ethnic groups, would you describe the Jewish community as less concerned with economic success, more concerned with economic success, or about average? Do you consider yourself successful? Why?

    • DAVID SASHA- “As we saw in Avalon, there was a dark side to the rampant assimilation and its attendant materialism….”

      Yes, poor Bernie, corrupted by assimilation and Gentile materialism!

  • The US and Israel: 'An integrated political system'
    • ROLAND NIKLES- "You a fan of Richard Spencer?"

      No, in fact I had to look him up to be reminded that he compared his version of white nationalism to Jewish peoplehood.

      The fact remains that "liberal" imperialists continue to describe opponents of neoliberal globalization as "white nationalists", or the alt-right, or the basket of deplorables, etc. I mostly agree with Rashid Khalidi's views as depicted in your article, however, it was your last paragraph where you stopped presenting Khalidi's views to present your own where you conflate fighting Jewish nationalism with fighting white nationalism, an extremely dubious conflation in my view. Since I view the alt-right as having been blown way out of proportion in order to demonize Trump and others who say they oppose globalization (Trump lied), I can only assume that you are setting the stage for tarring opponents of interventions and globalization as white nationalists. Am I wrong? Are you not for globalization? Do you not view those who oppose globalization and empire as white nationalists? Should be easy enough to clarify your views without attempting to tar me with Richard Spencer.

    • ROLAND NIKLES- "As a result the U.S. and American political systems are on the same page, to the point that it is more accurate to think of them as one integrated political system than in terms of allies, says Khalidi."

      Assuming you meant to say the U.S. and Israeli political systems, I agree and them some. I would maintain that Israeli political economy is integrated within the American led, imperial global political economy. Jewish Zionist elites, particularly American Jewish Zionists, are firmly imbedded within the global 1% which calls the shots.

      ROLAND NIKLES- "Since 1967, the American Jewish community (~7 million strong) has embraced Zionist Israel."

      This is why I have come to believe that Zionism, originally a form of blood and soil nationalism, has changed into Judeo-Zionism, a merger of Judaism and Zionism which unites secular Jews with religious Jews in common cause.

      ROLAND NIKLES- "To the extent that Khalidi is right and the U.S. and the Israeli polity are an integrated political system, fighting White nationalism and fighting Zionism are part of the same fight."

      Rubbish, and sneaky at that! "White nationalism" is the label which folks like you try to pin on those of the 99% who oppose neoliberal globalization. Folks like me. Jewish Zionists are an integral part of the global elites who are pushing for neoliberal globalization, the Wall Street wrecking crew smashing national sovereignty to permit total financial control. So, no Roland, fighting against those fighting against neoliberal globalization is not the same as fighting Zionism. Actually, just the opposite. Those who oppose neoliberal globalization generally oppose foreign interventions, including support for Israel. Those who support empire support Zionist Israel. Israel wouldn't exist in its present form without massive imperial support. So, the reality is that fighting empire and neoliberal globalization and fighting Zionism are part of the same fight.

  • US diplomats say Western Wall is in West Bank, and Nikki Haley backpedals
  • DC and Jerusalem reel over Trump disclosure of ISIS plan to-- hush!-- put laptop bombs on planes
    • ECHINOCOCCUS- "Talking through your hat. Tell me how a resounding victory of the Democrat-Republican-CIA “revolution” helps in any way."

      I think that an impeachment trial would be delightfully disruptive to empire. As for my hat, I have grown rather fond of it so get your own!

    • ROHA- "I don’t think that allowing the Deep State and their media tools to drive out an elected president is a good idea, even if he is a flop as a president."

      Since he betrayed his base, why not? Right now his main value (besides being "not Hillary") is that he is a disruptive buffoon. Perhaps not disruptive enough with his neocon appointees running foreign policy. Now, what could throw a spanner into the imperial machine better than a disruptive impeachment trial? Who knows, maybe he would fight back and begin to do something, anything to appease his base to gain support. On the other hand, perhaps he would invade Syria in force rather than relying on proxies and special ops forces. I don't care. Right now an impeachment trial could only serve to weaken the empire. Bring it on!

    • Page: 32
    • ROHA- "The US electorate is to have its choice overruled."

      For those who voted for Trump, most did because of the promises he made. Since he has betrayed those constituents who wanted to end the warmongering, he is not who they voted for. Throw this jerk to the wolves, says I.

      ROHA- "Not a good precedent to set."

      I disagree. When you betray your base, don't expect your base to have your back! Trump hasn't earned one ounce of support. I think it would set an excellent precedent to impeach Trump while his former supporters cheered! Do you think AIPAC would have his back if he betrayed them? Hell, they would be leading the charge. It is long overdue to hold these jerks accountable for their actions. This is a rare opportunity to do that. Likewise, Bill Clinton should have been kicked out when that opportunity was presented. Think about it. A chastised Al Gore in the White House. Who knows how things would have turned out.

  • Collective post-traumatic stress disorder – Jews, apartheid and oppression
    • DONALD JOHNSON- "I wasn’t talking about YoniFalic with the Nazi reference. I was referring to actual Nazis."

      You made a comment to Hophmi's comment where Hophmi refers to Yoni Falic as an "apparent" neo-Nazi because of Yoni's defense of Heinrich von Treitsche who you never heard of till now. But based upon one Wikipedia entry with quotes you found "damning," you weighed in in support of Hophmi's characterization of von Treitsche as, in your words, "a vicious anti-Semite." Yet, you claim that this has nothing to do with Yoni, you are referring to actual Nazis! Apparently, you are incapable of following the logic of your own quote!

      Are you aware that your comment was very Hophmi like? You know next to nothing about von Treitsche, yet based upon a couple of selective quotes in Wikipedia, you are very comfortable declaring him a "vicious anti-Semite." In the long quote where he talks about the historical Jewish financial function, he appears to me to be referring to the medieval role of Classical (tribal) Judaism, a role which has been rendered obsolete due to modernization. In fact, the restructuring of society and the break down of traditional roles was the source of much Jew/Gentile conflict regarding who gets to do what.

      Von Treitsche was an imperialist and a racist, the two are essentially inseparable, but so was Teddy Roosevelt and the majority of the Western intelligentsia during that era. How racist von Treitsche was compared to his contemporaries would require investigation beyond one Wikipedia entry. And since Hophmi's comment referred specifically and exclusively to Yoni Falic ("WHY IS THIS GUY STILL HERE?"), your comment quite obviously was meant to impact that discussion in regards to Yoni Falic and Heinrich von Tritsche. Why deny it?

    • DONALD JOHNSON- "He seems like exactly the sort of intellectual a Nazi would love."

      That seems a rather harsh judgement based upon one Wikipedia article. I also had never heard of Heinrich von Treitsche prior to this. One could go back in time and quote Teddy Roosevelt, the Founding Fathers and others to similar effect. The Wikipedia entry said that " He accused German Jews of refusing to assimilate into German culture and society...." Does that sound like a Nazi to you? The Jewish problem was LACK of assimilation? Do you know of any contemporary website which talks about Jewish kinship as a problem? A website which Hophmi considers anti-Semitic? Do you? Different times, different language. And what is Zionism and Israel if not the ultimate refusal of assimilation? This is not to defend von Treitsche and Teddy Roosevelt's views on colonialism, etc., but to express concern at the ease with which views questioning the role of organized Jewry in the political economy-- past and present -- are all too frequently labeled anti-Semitic by people like Hophmi who seek to squelch discussion. So, what exactly was the point of your comment other than to join the amen chorus of those whose primary focus in life revolves around the search for anti-Semitism? Are you seriously attempting to engage in historical debate with Yoni Falic regarding Jewish history? Good luck on that! The Wikipedia link follows for reference.

    • YOAV LITVIN- "In order to heal from this pathological cycle of fear and its consequent violence, which detrimentally affects both victims and victimizers, Jews in Israel and elsewhere need to overcome fear conditioning that has been reinstated for ages and transferred from one generation to the next."

      I agree, however, how is this to come about? The psychology of victimhood is an essential component of Jewish myth-history and of Zionist ideology. The people with the resources to implement some sort of mass de-programming are the same ones who profit from the current state of affairs and strongly support the Judeo-Zionist ideology. Until the Zionist leadership as embodied in the Conference of the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and other elite Jews (Adelson, et al) decide to reverse course and upend the ideology which has served them so well, I don't see anything changing. Do you? Really?

  • Ellen DeGeneres gets pushback for promoting Sabra Hummus
    • Suzanne Nossel is a perfect example of the more-or-less total co-optation of Western NGOs by the elites. Nossel bounced between the government and various NGOs, finally landing at PEN. Her policies appear to be that of a Zionist and liberal interventionist. I assume she gets these jobs because she is part of the Zionist network of influence which permeates organized imperial life. When she was appointed to PEN, Chris Hedges resigned from the organization. I link to a brief interview with him on the Real News Network discussing Nossel.

  • Palestinian hunger strike spreads outside prison walls, but JVP says NYT hasn't kept pace
    • ECHINOCOCCUS- "One could almost joke that Zionist and antizionist activities in the US are both owned by the Jews."

      Joke? Jewish Zionists and Jewish anti-Zionists effectively establish the boundaries of acceptable debate and action in the US regarding Israel.

  • Senator on Intelligence Committee says Jews in Diaspora are spies for Israel
    • MOOSER-M "You are saying what Phil really wants to say, but can’t. Or won’t."

      Perhaps. Perhaps not. Funny, I seem to recall you being much more critical of Phil. What changed? Things not work out at "Jews Sans Frontiers"? Your "homies" less than cordial?

    • MOOSER- "That’s it, “Keith”, you keep Phil in line."

      Not me. I think that Phil has to be somewhat careful what he says lest he offend the wrong people. I am under the impression that he may receive a lot of criticism/pressure for some of the things he does say. In many ways he has to walk a fine line. Maybe not. That is just my impression. Finkelstein, Chomsky and Shahak received considerable abuse, along with threats to their employment/funding. Something you or I don't have to worry about.

    • PHIL- "Max Blumenthal described the remarks as “a neocon pushing the trope of dual loyalty.”

      Max Blumenthal is a tribal anti-Zionist who is quick to raise the alarm about anti-Semites and "tropes." It takes an unusual mind to pretend that Israel doesn't avail itself of the benefits of having a Jewish Diaspora. It would be shocking if it didn't.

      PHIL- "I have no idea whether what Cotton says is true."

      Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? In "By Way of Deception," former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky makes quite clear that the Mossad extensively utilizes Diaspora sayanim (assistants).

  • Jews made America great so 'we deserve our influence' on Israel policy, Dershowitz tells Scarsdale synagogue
    • HOPHMI- "More anti-Semitism here at Mondoweiss."

      You have got a lot on your plate, big fella!

    • FROGGY- "Whose data ?"

      Data from sources you trust based upon historically demonstrated accuracy. Also, the data needs to be consistent with other relevant data. Anomalies require explanation. Imperial sources are always suspect, however, frequently it is not the data per se but the weaving of fanciful tales with no data or with obviously misinterpreted data. A good example would be the recent French election about which you and I seem to disagree. Of course, I am in the US and didn't see the debates, etc. Yet, what does the US media say about Marine Le Pen? Basically, they provide no information, no data, they simply label her as extreme right and fascist. Proof by labeling. From the alternate media, I discover that she wants to exit NATO, improve relations with Russia, and condemned Trump's Syrian missile strike. A fascist who at least says she opposes militarism? I believe that is called an oxymoron. Likewise, Macron's support for NATO and militarism seems more of what we tend to associate with fascism. My point being that government/media propaganda relies on labels and persuasion to essentially scare the voters into voting against one of the candidates. These are marketing campaigns, nothing more. The primary reason you have elections is to permit big money to control the government while simultaneously convincing the citizenry that they live in a democracy.

    • FROGGY- "What then is Truth ?"

      That which is supported by empirical data.

    • ALAN DERSHOWITZ- "People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that’s not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington…."

      There it is, right from the horse's mouth. Zionism is a power-seeking ideology.

  • Jake Sullivan seeks to rebrand 'American exceptionalism'
    • ROHA- "When I arrived back in Britain I was astonished to discover that the British government didn't seem to have a policy about immigrants."

      Don't be deceived by the lack of an explicit government policy. The de facto policy of the global 1% seems clear enough. Look at the destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria and what do you see? Chaos! Divide and rule has turned into destroy and suppress. The Western neo-colonial countries are importing created sectarianism into Europe in order to foment internal conflict so that they can implement their agenda in the shadows while the citizenry is in turmoil. That neoliberalism, war and destabilization is a huge refugee creation machine is hardly a big secret. And that many of these people would be pissed-off over what was done to them is not a surprise. The inevitable internal conflict predictable.

    • KAISA OF FINLAND- "I did not know, you don’t know how to search for information."

      Of course I know how to search for information. That is how I know that Finland was allied with Nazi Germany during World War II. Perhaps that explains your Russophobia.

    • KAISA OF FINLAND- "Keith, I did not say YOU are dangerous, but IT is, to think one knows everything.. You have shown many times here that your knowledge of EU is deficient, but you won’t listen anything, because you have already decided you know better. With a person like that, discussion is impossible."

      What is this but your latest and nastiest ad hominem attack on me? I have made more comments on this particular comment stream than on any other. I have made specific references with supporting quotes. You never dispute any specific thing I say, rather you simply denigrate me personally. You have made many inaccurate statements about the nature of the EU and the ease of withdrawing, along with a ludicrous comparison of the Crimea with Gaza. The only source you even provide for your opinions are your former flatmates and the husband of a former friend who is half Greek. As I said previously, your comments consist primarily of anecdotes, inaccuracies, and ad hominem attacks. You claim my knowledge of the EU is deficient, yet provide no example from my comments to indicate that. Instead, you make the childish claim that I think I know everything, won't listen, have already made up my mind, etc. Yet, I haven't seen you attempt to present any facts to support any of your statements. None. I leave you with a quote from 2016 by distinguished economist Michael Hudson.

      "The IMF says it will not reduce Greece’s debt by a single penny. It will keep the debt in place. The problem is the way that the European central banks keep their balance sheets, if it breaks down Greece’s debt owed to the IMF then the countries Germany, France, and other countries whose banks are bailed out will have to take a loss and they refuse to lose a single penny. So the IMF has not made a creative proposal. It has repeated what it said a year ago without changing a single word. It says okay, we’re going to keep every penny of debt in place but we’re going to give you a fudging number. We’re only going to charge you 1.5% interest and you won’t have to pay the debt for 25 years. So you get a debt mark [ ] you won’t have to pay interests for 25 years and we’ll charge you only a little bit of interest.

      There’s only one kicker. You’re going to have to cancel your pensions, write them down, impose austerity, privatize your government, and you’re going to have to shrink your economy so that it will shrink by about 1, 2, 3% a year so that the 1.5% interest that we’re charging as little as it is, is going to absorb all the income growth you have. Every penny of growth of have from the next 25 years you’ll have to end up paying the German banks. Now we know you can’t do it. We know that when you cancel the pensions you’re going to shrink. We know your labor’s on strike. We know they’re going to immigrate.

      But there’s a way out. You can sell your ports, your land, your public utilities, your railroads, your airports, anything you have you can sell to the Germans and at the end of this time you won’t have a single thing and all we ask is that all you Greeks get out of our country, now that we own you. That’s what the IMF is saying. It’s not creative, it’s absolutely brutal." (Michael Hudson)

    • KAISA OF FINLAND- "You are obsessesed Keith.."

      Because I respond to your comments which misrepresent reality? Looks to me like the start of an ad hominem personal attack.

      KAISA OF FINLAND- " and your government pay annually minimum 3,2 billion dollars to support the occupation in Israel...."

      Me and my government? You are holding me accountable for the US foreign policy which I routinely criticize? Dishonestly conflating me with Uncle Sam?

      KAISA OF FINLAND- "...allthough I know, as long as you don’t stop paying..."

      Now it is me paying? Me personally responsible for the foreign policy of the people I vote against and routinely criticize? The foreign policy of the global elites who you find no fault with? Talk about turning reality on its head!

      KAISA OF FINLAND- "You think you know everything Keith, that is dangerous.."

      This is priceless! What a perfect example of ad hominem pilpul. If I disagree with you and correct your misrepresentation of reality, it is because I think I know everything and am dangerous! Does the rest of the world know just how "dangerous" my comments are? Neoliberal globalization is fine, it is my comments which are dangerous!

      KAISA OF FINLAND- "And if you are so angry and hate the world so much, don’t take it on me."

      Because I respond to the inaccuracies in your comments it means that I am angry and hate the world? My criticisms of imperial policy and actions indicate that I hate the world? You do realize that the empire is on a rampage seeking global hegemony, do you not? To oppose imperial madness is to hate the world? As for "taking it out on you," you are the one who has attacked me personally as a hateful, dangerous, know-it-all. Your comments consist primarily of anecdotes, inaccuracies, and ad hominem attacks.

    • KAISA OF FINLAND- "The catastrophe in Greece started, when the corrupted goverment of Greece was not honest with their economical situation."

      The trouble in Greece started when the neoliberal government cooked the books with the help of Goldman Sachs and the EU looked the other way because a debt ridden country provides opportunities for profit. The notion that the EU didn't know the score is faintly ludicrous. Using debt leverage, a form of structural adjustment is being instituted, the Greek people bled dry.

      KAISA OF FINLAND- "It ended up with all EU countries paying for them (Finland about 4 billion Euros)...."

      Finland's 4 billion Euros went primarily to German and French banks, not the Greek people who are having their lives degraded. You don't think these new loans went to the people, do you? This is the old IMF trick of giving money to Western banks and debt to the citizens. We are now at the asset stripping phase when Greece's physical assets will be privatized. Greece is a perfect example of financial conquest and plunder.

      KAISA OF FINLAND- "I must say, I feel safer here.."

      We are all part of the same global empire. The deep state is global in nature and all of these changes will eventually spread.

      KAISA OF FINLAND- "...I’d recommend you to concentrate on issues, you can have an effect on."

      And what issues do you think your Mondoweiss comments have had a noticeable effect on?

    • KAISA OF FINLAND- "It is not one country, but a net of independent countries, who have their own governments, policies, including forgein policy."

      And their own economic policies? Why is Greece pursuing neoliberl austerity when the majority oppose it?

      KAISA OPF FINLAND- "We do not ask Brussel or anyone else what we should think about Russia or Estonia or even U.S.A."

      Indeed, it is nothing more than happy circumstance that the EU foreign policy is virtually identical with empire? Fortunately. imperial policy suits the Finns to a "T". Only to be expected when the corporations and financial people control the levers of power.

    • KAISA OF FINLAND- "And if you hate EU so much, don’t think about it."

      As a citizen of empire living in a globalized world, I have a certain obligation to keep informed about the global political economy. It has become obvious to me that the European Union is a dysfunctional example of neoliberal globalization where the financial system rules. Look at Greece. Look at Italy. France soon to follow? Once these financial interdependencies are established, they are extremely difficult to reverse. As Michael Hudson warns, finance capital has replaced armies in the conquest and subjugation of countries. The nature of the process is new and not well understood by most. Neoliberal globalization is the antithesis of sustainability, hence, a threat to the survival of the species, and should be a concern of all. Ignoring reality is never a good idea.

    • KAISA OF FINLAND- "You are free to move to Russia and experience the Russian reality on your own.."

      What an absurd comment! Why would I want to live in a country surrounded by US bases and targeted for destabilization? For the average Russian, however, life under Putin is much better than life under Yeltsin and his American "advisers." Did you follow my link? I doubt it.

      KAISA OF FINLAND- "...non of them forced and as shown in the case of Britan, you are able to exit too...."

      Has Britain actually exited the EU? They voted to, but the process is long and difficult. And if they actually do exit the EU, it will have been doable because Britain is still on the Pound Sterling, not the Euro. Greece has been screwed by the bankers and has virtually no options. This is your idea of democracy? Italy is also being squeezed and is protesting. Why hasn't Italy left the Eurozone? I provide a quote and a link below. The bottom line is that the EU has elections but no democracy, control residing with the corporations and primarily the financial system. This has nothing to do with me wanting to live in Russia, a preposterous assertion on your part. As for your fixation on Estonia, the only foreign troops in Estonia are NATO troops performing aggressive maneuvers along the Russian border, something the US wouldn't tolerate along either of its borders.

      "A reader might say, “So why hasn’t Italy left the Eurozone?” The problem, as we like to say in Maine, is you can’t get there from here. It would take a bare minimum of three years, which means more like six or more, to re-introduce the lira. It took eight years of planning and three years of implementation to launch the euro, and that was when there was tons less computer code in the various elements of the payment system than now. Italy is not in control of its destiny, since it will take the cooperation of many players, such as international banks, to make the all the needed changes. Even in a negotiated exit with assistance of all the needed parties, this is a complex, time-consuming, and difficult undertaking. If Italy were to attempt to crash out, you’d see results like those in Greece when the ECB cut off its banking system: a near complete shutdown of imports (which in Greece’s case included essentials like food, fuel, and pharmaceuticals), with Greece on the verge of having food shortages after two weeks." (Yves Smith)

    • KAISA OF FINLAND- "So are you supporters of a democracy or a dictatorship..??"

      Democracy, to the degree that it exists. In capitalist countries you have capitalist democracy- one dollar one vote. The European Union is effectively run at the macro level by the European Central Bank. No? Just ask the people of Greece how much democracy they have. I don't know who controls the media in Finland, nor the history of Finnish/Russian relations, however, your demonization of Putin and apparent support for the American led empire, including NATO's expansion and aggression (Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc) indicates to me that you have a cold war mindset. You have certainly mischaracterized my comments. I don't wish to hold this thread open any longer so I will conclude by once again linking to an interview of Mark Ames by Abby Martin describing what the US did to Russia after the fall of the USSR.

    • ROHA- "NATO was cooked up just after WW2 to threaten as a defence against the Soviet Union."

      Defense against the USSR was the pretext for NATO. At the time, the USSR had suffered sufficient destruction/casualties in defeating Nazi Germany that US intelligence (per Chomsky) concluded that it would take at least 15 years before they could mount a major offensive. NATO's primary mission was and remains the organizational instrument of US European power projection. NATO not only puts the European militaries under US command, but channels spending towards the military and militarism. It is specifically intended to counter the desire for de-militarization and peace. It is a step in the direction of a permanent war economy, a form of fascism. The Warsaw Pact was a defensive response to NATO. Following the collapse of the USSR, the US used the Yugoslavia intervention to transform NATO into a US controlled out-of-area strike force in support of imperial warmongering.

    • FROGGY- "What makes you think that the situation would be any different under Le Pen and her party?"

      My understanding is that she is opposed to NATO and the inevitable interventions of this American led, out of area imperial strike force. NATO requires considerable spending on military matters which could/should be spent elsewhere. She is for improved relations with Russia, hardly a bad thing even if Putin also desires peace not war. Better relations with Russia is not possible with NATO's aggressive expansion eastward and bellicosity towards Russia. It is hardly a secret that the empire wishes to weaken or destroy Russia and control China. Finally, she appears to want national control over the economy which would eliminate the European Central Bank control. It is possible to have additional European integration without European Central Bank control. How sincere she is we don't know. I doubt that she would have been as bad as Trump turned out to be. What she could change in any event is questionable. We have reached the point where the political system is more or less controlled by the corporations and financial people, government primarily controlling the population for the benefit of big business and big finance. And let us not forget the extent to which all of the West is influenced by the imperial tradition and imperial mindset. From what I have read, my personal choice would have been Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

    • KAISA OF FINLAND- "I definitely do not believe Europe would be a better place, if the borders were closed and people turned inside to their own National States."

      Good grief, it is a little more serious than that. The European Union is to a significant degree controlled by the European Central Bank run by Goldman-Sachs alumn Mario Draghi who represents global capital. It is, in effect, the codification of financial control of the political economy. Neoliberalism is the order of the day, eventually leading to massive debt servitude and neofeudalism. Germany may do okay, France for a while longer, Finland I am unfamiliar with, however, eventually France will go the route of Greece/Italy/Spain. Newly elected Emmanuel Macron, a former Rothschild's employee, was Francois Hollande's Finance minister which should tell you all you need to know about where France is headed. One could, you know, have relatively open borders without being ruled by the bankers. Canada and the US used to have relatively open borders until this war on terror subterfuge.

    • FROGGY- "Keith, that Diana Johnstone woman is a poseur."

      Well, she is no Bernard-Henri Levy, that's for sure! Jeez, and I thought the entire article was rather good. What a perfect excuse for me to link to an article by Pepe Escobar on this very topic. In a globalized world, perhaps French uniqueness isn't as significant as you believe.

      "Big Business lauds his idea of cutting corporate tax from 33% to 25% (the European average). But overall, what Macron has sold is a recipe for a “see you on the barricades” scenario: severe cuts in health spending, unemployment benefits and local government budgets; at least 120,000 layoffs from the public sector; and abrogation of some key workers’ rights. He wants to advance the “reform” of the French work code – opposed by 67% of French voters – ruling by decree.
      What French voters have – sort of – endorsed is the unity of neoliberal economy and cultural liberalism. Call it, like Michea, “integrated liberalism.” Or, with all the Orwellian overtones, “post-democratic capitalism.”A true revolt of the elites. And “peasants” buy it willingly. Let them eat overpriced croissants. Once again, France is leading the West."
      (Pepe Escobar)

    • MOOSER- "Keith seems to expect left-wing results from right-wing candidates."

      Not me, pal. I didn't vote for the neocon Warrior Princess, you did! I voted for Jill Stein, remember? Rather than acknowledge your vote for empire, you keep trying to put lipstick on your "liberal" pig. Honesty is the best policy, so 'fess up!

    • "There should also be satisfaction in the embassies of all the countries whose governments openly interfered in the French election – the U.S. of course, but also Germany, Belgium, Italy and Canada, among others, who earnestly exhorted the French to make the right choice: Macron, of course. All these champions of Western democracy can all join in gloating over the nonexistent but failed interference of Russia – for which there is no evidence, but part of the fun of a NATOland election these days is to accuse the Russians of meddling.

      As for the French, abstention was nearly record-breaking, as much of the left could not vote for the self-proclaimed enemy of labor law but dared not vote for the opposition candidate, Marine Le Pen, because one just cannot vote for someone who was labeled “extreme right” or even “fascist” by an incredible campaign of denigration, even though she displayed no visible symptom of fascism and her program was favorable to lower income people and to world peace. Words count in France, where the terror of being accused of sharing World War II guilt is overwhelming." (Diana Johnstone)

    • FROGGY- "However, I wouldn’t trust any candidate that is backed by Putin."

      Scared you with Putin, did they? And he is the only sane one of the bunch!

      FROGGY- "Reports of Russian hacking Macron only sreved to further hurt Le Pen."

      I am sure they did. That was, after all, the intent of the reports.

    • MOOSER- "Sounds an awful lot like your early visions of Trump."

      Visions of Trump? Even though I was terrified of the neocon Warrior Princess (and still am), I couldn't stand Trump and voted for Jill Stein. You are the one trying to justify your vote for the imperial "feminist" warmonger. Since Le Pen lost, we will never know to what extent she was lying. A vote for Macron, however, was a vote for neoliberalism and empire. Count on it.

    • FROGGY- "Aye. But the Other One would have been worse."

      Bad, perhaps, but worse? Marine Le Pen is continually described as extreme right wing with no description of her actual stated opinions. People are merely voting for or against a label. Of her policies of which I am aware, she opposes these wars and interventions and wants better relations with Russia. She is anti-globalization. Macron is a neoliberal globalist who supports NATO and empire. Interestingly, both Le Pen and Nigel Farage criticized Trump's Syrian missile strike which the "liberals" and "progressives" applauded. So, I think that we are at a point in time where we have to look beyond the labels and not allow ourselves to be frightened into voting against someone who the empire is demonizing. "Left" and "Right" are becoming meaningless. The new labels are pro-globalization and pro-intervention versus anti-globalization and anti-intervention. A pity that Melechon didn't advance.

    • JAMES- "would be better to call it “1% first” as opposed to ‘america first’, lol…"

      Indeed, the empire has transmogrified from the empire of the US nation-state to the American led globalized empire of the 1%, the corporations and financiers! Make no mistake, this globalized empire represents the power-seeking of the global elites which transcends national borders. Jake Sullivan wishes to be one of their loyal employees who, with luck, hard work and lack of morals, will become part of this despicable group whose vaulting ambition is putting survival of the species in jeopardy.

    • JESSE RUBIN- "Speaking at Columbia University’s Hillel on Thursday night, Jake Sullivan, the Clinton campaign’s last senior policy adviser, captivated the audience at the Kraft Center for Jewish Life...."

      I am sure he did. Hillel, like most of the mainstream Jewish organizations, is supportive of Zionism and empire. Jake Sullivan is yet another Ivy League lawyer who earns his living misrepresenting reality in service to power.

      JESSE RUBIN- "...with President Trump’s pseudo-isolationist “America First” policy...."

      President Trump has no "America First" policy. Candidate Trump had some "America First" rhetoric which was quickly abandoned. Furthermore, the "America First" rhetoric was understood to mean opposition to neoliberal globalization and the wars instigated to pursue global hegemony. Now, however, the Deep State is once again in firm control of imperial foreign policy and war is America's main business.

  • Jewish students at Williams blast Hillel for booting LGBTQ group after it co-sponsored event with JVP
    • PABELMONT- "Accordingly, it seems to me, all students seeking membership in a “Jewish” organization...."

      Why would one wish to seek membership in an exclusively Jewish organization other than to affirm kinship solidarity? For example, if the "Model Railroad Club" is open to all, why seek out a Jewish model railroad club? How would one describe those who sought membership in an exclusively Goyishe organization?

  • 100 senators throw their bodies down to end UN 'bias' against Israel
  • True independence on Nakba Day: accountability and healing as an Israeli aggressor
    • YOAV LITVIN- "Regardless of whether you like it or not, Israelis must be understood in order for Palestinians to achieve justice."

      I think that it would be far more beneficial to analyze the motivations and behavior of American Jewish Zionist elites. Over 90% of Netanyahu's campaign funding came from foreign (read American) sources. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Obviously, these American Jewish Zionists are pleased with the rightward drift of Israeli politics. They also fund settlements and Birthright tours and probably receive some assistance from Mossad. In other words, the psychology of Israelis is to a significant degree the result of propaganda consistent with American Zionist elites objectives. The people in charge got what they wanted and until THEY change, your proposals are a pipe dream.

  • 'I'd rather die than live as a servile slave,' Omar Barghouti told his daughter
    • CATALAN- “But please, can we not go into the whole empire, Rothschilds, Judeo Masons, etc.”

      Judeo Masons? That’s a new one on me. If we are talking about Jewish-Zionist power, we are talking about Jewish ELITE power, not you per se. If it was just you, no one would care. The power I am referring to is best represented by the Conference of Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations which includes AIPAC, etc. And, of course, the Jewish billionaires who influence both Israeli and US policy. Have you not been paying attention to the articles on Haim Saban, Sheldon Adelson, AIPAC, etc? And the topic I and German Lefty was referring to is all of these new laws making it a crime to say things which Zionist Jews have successfully sought to prevent discussion about. Getting these laws passed is an indication of power. Controlling the narrative is a further enhancement of that power. But you knew all of that, why else attempt to re-frame the issue from the political economy to you personally? That the power-seeking machinations of the Jewish-Zionist elite may not benefit you personally is irrelevant.

      This is a slightly shorter version of a previous submittal which did not pass moderation. One has to be very sensitive to the feelings of those with power, some things simply cannot be said.

      To turn the question back on you, do you feel that you are part of a relatively privileged group of people who maintain a kinship identity, or do you feel that you are a member of a persecuted minority? I am going to leave it at that. Jewish kinship and power within the political economy is a somewhat interesting topic, however, it is difficult to discuss due to the reaction I get. Furthermore, I am tired of walking on eggshells to get a comment on this topic past moderation.

    • FROGGY- "I have to admit that I don’t see what they hope to accomplish by passing such laws."

      Power and control. Who is controlling the bounds of acceptable discourse? Better watch what you say, or else. Even criticizing imperial Middle East policy may yet be construed as "anti-Semitic." The new royalty is letting you know who is in charge! Make no mistake, the purpose of these new laws is social control, NOT to discourage anti-Semitism.

    • FROGGY- "Indeed, any criticism of Israel tends to be labelled an expression of «antisémitisme» which is also illegal ."

      It should be noted that all of these European laws prohibiting expressions of "anti-Semitism" or Holocaust denial (broadly defined), are fairly recent. They are not efforts to protect a persecuted minority, rather, they are a demonstration of power by a highly privileged minority. That these laws may increase the incidents of low level anti-Semitism is likely, probably anticipated and perhaps even welcomed by those who cause these laws to be passed.

  • Fake progressives
  • Map map on the wall, who's most existing of them all?
    • JEFFB- "...most importantly control of the immigration policy whose barriers had just induced millions of deaths."

      I assume that you are referring to the Zionist immigration policy which discouraged Jewish immigration to any destination other than Palestine? I am sure you are aware that the Zionists opposed Jewish immigration to the US and Britain? Roosevelt had a plan to save several hundred thousand Jews which was frowned upon by the Zionists. With vigorous Zionist support, perhaps 500 thousand to 1 million Jews could have been saved. At the time, the Yishuv lacked the infrastructure to absorb a significant number of Jews in Palestine, hence, they were de facto denying a significant number of Jews, primarily non-Zionists and anti-Zionist, the chance to live in the Western democracies so that the Zionists could focus all of their energies and money on the redemption of the Jewish people. The Zionists have always emphasized Jewish tribalism over Jewish lives.

  • Gilad Atzmon’s attack against me – the 'merchant of JVP'
    • ROHA- "This is an existential threat."


    • DANAA- "And to make that common cause, the jewish activists will have to learn to check their anti-semitism and holocaust denial charges somewhere in the closet."

      Wow! I agree, however, if that happened, some would consider it an existential threat to the Jewish people! And since it is unlikely to happen, it would appear that anti-Zionism is, to a degree, Zionism's echo. That is, a different version of the affirmation of kinship.

    • MOOSER- "Is there any other readership or commenter you feel Mondo shouldn’t have?"

      Is there a point you are making or have you become a compulsive commenter, making comments just to make comments. 25,834 and counting.

    • MOOSER- "...I really don’t think you and “Yoni Falic” are on the same list...."

      Whew, that's a relief! Now all I have to worry about is Hophmi, Yonah (occasionally) and you. As long as you and Hophmi don't gang up on me, I should be okay.

    • ROHA- "Looks to me as though a dedicated anti-Atzmonite saw a mention of JO’s silly article and jumped in."

      Hard to say what he is. He appears to be a contrived caricature which can be interpreted different ways. Conceivably he could be a genuine anti-Semite pretending to be an exaggerated version of an intolerant Jew. Who knows? Who cares? The only thing which gives him any believability whatsoever is that this whole anti-Atzmon hysteria is so wildly out of proportion, Atzmon and the anti-Atzmonites engaging in a form of symbiotic name calling. Hopefully, this Goodwin character will depart when this thread mercifully ends.

    • MOOSER- "In fact, you might go so far as to say that if Atzmon did not exist, they would have to invent him!."

      Either that or pick someone else on their list. Jeez, you don't think Yoni Falic and I are towards the top of that list, do you? Would Hophmi fight them off claiming he got to us first? What about Goodwin Sands? Mondoweiss is not for the faint of heart, I tell ya'.

    • DANAA- “So, other than “exposing” Atzmon, Greenstein accomplished what exactly?”

      Greenstein, Blumenthal, Abunimah and now Ofir have a personal/professional interest in attacking Atzmon as an anti-Semite. These attacks perform two functions. First, they appear to be the first line of defense these guys use to protect themselves from charges of anti-Semitism, as they all have been. Second, they are sending a message to the Jewish Zionist elites that they are focusing on Israel, not tribal kinship. Both the Zionists and these anti-Zionists are fixated upon anti-Semitism. Remember that Greenstein, Blumenthal and Abunimah also attacked Greta Berlin for anti-Semitic behavior.

    • MOOSER- "It tends, instead, to show you as somebody who uses no discrimination about the information you are accepting."

      What information I am accepting? I don't hang out at David Irving's website, do you? I don't really care if David Irving is an anti-Semite or not, but obviously you have a tribal interest in hyping virtually non-existent anti-Semitism. You keep trying to have it both ways. You can't. Deal with it. Are you calling me a liar for saying that I don't frequent the David Irving website? Well, screw you! Who the hell are you to complain about me? Chump.

    • TONY GREENSTEIN- "Keith selectively quotes Israel Shahak who would have dispatched Atzmon with a flea in his racist ear."

      So now you are channeling Israel Shahak? Pity that Jeffrey Blankfort, who was friends with both Shahak and Atzmon, isn't here to comment. Yes, I do quote Shahak selectively not randomly, in order to make a point. You don't?

      TONY GREENSTEIN- "In fact Shahak was particularly critical of the Zionist myth that there was a seamless Jewish history extending back into time. He wrote (p.50) from JHJR that:"

      Yes, I know and have tried to make that point on Mondoweiss in rebuttal to the Jewish myth-history of the Holocaust as culmination of 2000 years of persecution. Are you implying that the majority of organized Jews don't believe in ageless irrational Gentile anti-Semitism? Interesting. Since we are speaking of Shahak, you must be aware that he believed that Zionism represents a return to the ideology of Classical Judaism. And since the overwhelming majority of organized Jewry as represented by the Council of Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations is Zionist, it seems to me that Judaism and Zionism have become intertwined. Jewish socialism versus universal socialism? Jewish prominence in the Bolshevik movement versus Jewish Bolshevism? Jeez, Tony, you are becoming incoherent. Remember, the whole article is justified as exposing how Atzmon did Jonathan wrong by publishing the questions which Jonathan didn't answer. How far afield must you go with your anti-Atzmon screed?

      TONY GREENSTEIN- "Atzmon is a fringe anti-Semite. we have no need to build his already bloated ego."

      Then why did Jonathan write the article giving Atzmon free publicity over such a trivial incident? Why is your group of tribal anti-Zionists (who scream anti-Semitism at the drop of a hat) so obsessed with Gilad Atzmon? Are you pleased with what happened to Greta Berlin?

      TONY GREENSTEIN- "Those fools who think they are being clever in supporting Atzmon are doing the work of the Zionists."

      Not those fools who, along with the Zionists, promote a wildly exaggerated view on the threat of anti-Semitism, and continue to charge those who disagree with them of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial? Okay Tony, you have shown solidarity with Jonathan in attacking Gilad Atzmon. Time to calm down.

    • GOODWIN SANDS- "Buddy, if you think David Irving’s own personal website is not anti-Semitic but merely “anti-Semitic” then there’s not much I can do to help you."

      I have heard of David Irving, but I am not as intimately familiar with his writings and website, etc, as you seem to be. Interesting how those who recklessly hurl the charge of anti-Semitism seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trolling those sites they claim to hate. So no, I don't libel someone as an anti-Semite based upon what you and your ilk say. Besides, I don't see anti-Semitism as a significant problem, the charge basically an attack club used by those of privilege to attack others who try to analyse political economy and the question of power.

      And Goodwin, you are quite obviously a tribal anti-Zionist attack dog running around calling others anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. You suddenly appear and make 22 offensive comments (so far) on this single thread. What brought you here? The need to attack anyone who doesn't agree with your peer group ideology? So, do you get paid for this or is unjustly vilifying people a labor of love for you? Why don't you go home and change your brown shirt, you have drooled all over the one you are currently wearing.

    • JONATHAN OFIR- "You seem to be troubled by my not having copied in what I first wrote on Michael Lesher’s thread as a warning – in fact, at first I did fully, but decided to paraphrase a bit so as to avoid literally ‘quoting myself’, but I did provide a near exact citation."

      Jonathan, now you are misrepresenting me. I wondered at the lack of a link to your Facebook exchange with Atzmon so that we could get a feel for what transpired that so motivated you to write an article for Mondoweiss of what appears to me to be a tempest in a teapot. I referenced the lack of a link to the exchange, not that you quote yourself. Why the link to CounterPunch, not the actual exchange? So far I have seen nothing which remotely justifies this obsession your peer group (and now apparently you) have with Gilad Atzmon. I have, however, seen what happens to those who refuse to jump on the anti-Atzmon band wagon, Greta Berlin for one. So, Atzmon asked you some questions you didn't like. Big deal. Admonished you for lack of intellectual integrity? Publicly? When? Atzmon says that he never published the story. Is he lying? Or did he make the "lack of intellectual integrity" statement after you "warned" Michael Lesher on Facebook? Right now it still looks to me that you are picking a fight with Atzmon in order to have a pretext to vilify him as a bigot and anti-Semite. And since this will probably increase awareness of Atzmon, you are not really trying to silence him, except, perhaps, by tainting anything he says as anti-Semitic, hence, not quotable. I am guessing that the primary objective involves the internal discipline of the tribal anti-Zionists who seek to control the BDS movement. Those who don't comport with the tribal view are excommunicated and vilified as anti-Semites. The charge of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial the standard clubs used to intimidate people into submission to those who have the power to level the charge.

      JONATHAN OFIR- "Keith, you assume a lot here."

      Pretty easy to set the record straight if I am wrong. You can start by linking to Michael Lesher's Facebook post so we may read exactly what you said and how Atzmon responded.

    • CATALAN- "Only solution – Israel needs to significantly increase the nuclear arsenal and include ICBMs in it."

      Indeed, what better way to demonstrate our shared common values? (yes, I know that you are probably joking/poking) May you choke on your tongue in cheek.

    • GOODWIN SANDS- "You’re citing David Irving’s personal website as where you get your news from."

      Citizen linked to a book review by Adam Bresnick which appeared in the 11/5/2000 edition of the Los Angeles Times. You are saying that "fpp" is David Irving's personal website? Is the book review the same as appeared in the LA Times? Perhaps you would care to comment on the book review rather than using David Irving as a tar baby? Incidentally, not all of us frequent "anti-Semitic" websites like you do, hence, have no idea that "fpp" has some special significance. But the article is what it appears to be: a book review in the Los Angeles Times. Yet more Zionist claims of anti-Semitism where none exist in order to vilify and stifle discussion.

    • JONATHAN OFIR- "Gilad Atzmon thinks that “time is ripe for the rest of us to know what questions Jonathan Ofir would prefer to avoid.” I think more people need to know about Gilad Atzmon’s bigotry and anti-Semitism, under the guise of a ‘peace activist’."

      What actually happened is that Atzmon contacted you to praise your video and request an interview, which you agreed to. After a "background check", you decided that you didn't want to answer the questions. I suspect that your check indicated that most of those in the anti-Zionist group which you hope to influence have a strong antipathy to Atzmon and that cooperating with him in any fashion would be bad for you, particularly if any of your answers tended to agree with his position. Hence, you declined to answer any of the questions lest you be somehow associated with the Atzmon tar baby. And what did the dreaded Atzmon do? Nothing.

      About a year later Michael Lesher wrote on Facebook that he was doing a show where Atzmon would be present. You felt duty bound to warn him. Warn him of what? That even seeming to associate with Atzmon is a big no-no with your peer group? Since you didn't link the exchange, I don't know what you/Atzmon said. Your link was to Counterpunch which doesn't have comments. Honest mistake? In other words, you used the social media to publicly vilify Gilad Atzmon. I suspect that this public vilification of Atzmon is something of a requirement in your peer group in order to establish your bona fides. And how did Atzmon retaliate? He published the questions which you didn't answer on his website which few follow (I don't). Shocking! How dare he! So what? I mean, who cares?

      Why the article on Mondoweiss? I am guessing that not enough of your peer group would be aware of what occurred, hence, the need to publicize your actions on a more popular venue. Interestingly, past experience has taught me that if I make any sort of positive, or even neutral reference to Atzmon, or link to his website, my comment will probably not pass moderation. Fine, no biggie. But you submit an article with links and it goes up, even though you are giving Atzmon publicity. Obviously, the demonization played a significant role, enabling both you and Mondoweiss to establish/reinforce your anti-Atzmon bona fides. Even Phil got a personal attaboy by conflating Atzmon with Pamela Geller. If that protects Phil to continue discussing Jewish power, fine.

      So what we have here is a win-win-win-win situation. You, Phil and Mondoweiss win by reinforcing the anti-Atzmon requirement for peer group membership. The fourth win? Why, Atzmon of course! He seems to be more concerned with self-promotion than with reasoned discussion. Why else the provocative language and questionable venues? And it seems to have worked. I suspect that Gilad Atzmon is much better known than if he had maintained a more reasoned profile. Maybe not. I am also under the impression that he was pilloried by "liberal" anti-Zionists right from the get-go. Even now, attacking Atzmon seems to be some sort of requirement for group acceptance. And those who don't go along pay a price.

    • JONATHAN OFIR- "Keith, I’ll try to be short, and give you full disclosure on some of your wonders."

      Rather than respond to this response to my comment, I am going to go to the bottom of the comments section and make a fresh comment to permit comments to my comment and comments to these comments. I plan on doing an analysis of your article to determine what exactly happened, why you are writing this article for Mondoweiss, and why Mondoweiss chose to publish it, along with an observation on Gilad Atzmon. Ambitious,no? Sound good? Wish me luck!

    • JONATHAN OFIR- "The point of the questions appeared to be that ‘Jewishness’ was the problem, and if I didn’t concede to it, I would probably be regarded as an ‘anti-Zionist Zionist’ or ‘Zionist gatekeeper’ as Atzmon likes to say. I saw where it was going, and I realized that I would lose any way I answered."

      Lose what? Why would answering Atzmon's questions, which apparently you agreed to, have been such a problem? You make it sound like you are a victim under attack. Since these interview questions were prefaced by positive comments about your video, why the fear? It is at least somewhat informative that your listing of Atzmon's questions appear cherry-picked for effect. Below are the first question and part of the second question which appear to me non-threatening.

      "1. Your decision to present your moving appeal in English is a significant choice. Rather than talking to Israelis you talk about Israel. I went through a similar transition, rather than talking to Jews I made a decision to talk about Jews.

      What led to your decision?

      2. I am slightly confused by your attitude to Zionism:

      a. You seem to argue that Judaism and Zionism are distinct entities; is this really the case? Is there a clear dichotomy? Where does Judaism end and Zionism starts? After all, rabbinical Jews are atthe forefront of the racist crimes against Palestinians.

      b. I understand that some rabbinical communities are opposed to Israeli and Zionistcrimes, but they are certainly small in number and have limited influence, don’t you agree?"

      I think a discussion on Judaism versus Zionism versus "Jewishness" could have helped clarify your respective positions. I suspect that your "background check" indicated to you that any association with Atzmon would have negative consequences for you with much of organized Jewry, so you opted out.

      JONATHAN OFIR- "This can be said to be the “soft core holocaust denial”...."

      "This can be said?" Are you saying it or disingenuously implying it? While Atzmon lacks Finkelstein's scholarly prose, their views are at least somewhat similar. There was the historical Nazi holocaust and there is the Zionist constructed Holocaust narrative which they exploit. The insistence that the Holocaust was both uniquely evil and the culmination of 2000 years of Gentile Jew-hatred is part of the Zionist narrative. To question the narrative is not the same as denying the essential facts of the event. I might add that Norman Finkelstein has also been accused of being a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite.

      Atzmon is not alone in trying to analyze the effect of Judaism and Jewishness upon the Jewish state. Israel Shahak felt that "Historical Judaism and its two successors, Jewish Orthodoxy and Zionism, are both sworn enemies of the concept of an open society as applied to Israel. A Jewish state, whether based on its present Jewish ideology or, if it becomes more Jewish in character than it is now, on the principles of Jewish Orthodoxy, cannot ever contain an open society." (p13, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," Israel Shahak)

      There are a few other things, however, I'll leave it at this.

  • Why not a probe of Israel-gate?
    • ROBERT PARRY- "Which underscores my concern about the hysteria raging across Official Washington about “Russian meddling” in the 2016 presidential campaign: There is no proportionality applied to the question of foreign interference in U.S. politics."

      This so called "interference" may be primarily a pretext for demonizing Russia and Putin, psychologically preparing Americans for likely military action against Russia as part of the imperial plan for hegemony or die. No joke. First a disturbing quote, then my comment continues.

      "Writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project of the American Federation of Scientists, Matthew McKinzie of the National Resources Defense Council, and physicist and ballistic missile expert Theodore Postol, conclude that “Under the veil of an otherwise-legitimate warhead life-extension program,” the U.S. military has vastly expanded the “killing power” of its warheads such that it can “now destroy all of Russia’s ICBM silos.”

      The upgrade—part of the Obama administration’s $1 trillion modernization of America’s nuclear forces—allows Washington to destroy Russia’s land-based nuclear weapons, while still retaining 80 percent of the U.S.’s warheads in reserve. If Russia chose to retaliate, it would be reduced to ash." (Conn Hallinan)

      If we take into account this ominous warhead upgrade combined with the use of missile defense systems on Russia's border, the only logical conclusion is that the empire is pursuing a first strike capability. Apparently, starting a nuclear war which it thinks it can win is one of the options on the table. Nice to know that our rulers are suicidal. A concluding quote.

      "Careful studies have convinced the Russians that Washington is investing in and arranging components that have no other function than to devastate Russia and cripple the country’s retaliatory capability. In short, Washington is preparing to launch a nuclear war.

      As I explained previously, the theory behind this insane scheme is that after America’s preemptive strike Russia will be so devastated that Russia would not retaliate with any remaining forces out of fear that Washington would launch a second major strike. Washington also plans to use agents in place to assassinate as many members as possible of the Russian government, thus leaving the government in confusion without leadership.

      Yes, the insane American/Israeli neoconservatives are this determined to exercise hegemony over the world.

      Yes, Washington is sufficiently criminally insane to risk the destruction of life on earth based on the supposition that Washington’s offense will work perfectly and Russia and China’s capabilities will be so degraded that no retaliatory response will occur." (Paul Craig Roberts)

  • New York rabbi links Jewish Voice for Peace to Osama bin Laden and Assad
    • RABBI HIRSCH- "One of the central lessons of Jewish existence is that powerlessness leads to catastrophe."

      Hence, there is safety in communal power-seeking. I am glad that the Rabbi agrees with me that the underlying purpose of Zionism is Zionist power-seeking. And since the good Rabbi has not made Aliyah to the Israel he professes to love, he is talking about Zionist power-seeking within empire itself.

      RABBI HIRSCH- "A people can never put itself at the mercy of the marauding beast."

      Ah, the irrational, evil Goyim! The other. It is necessary to interact with them to achieve your goals, but they are not like us. Best not to get too close. Your first loyalty is to your fellow kinsmen, not to these potentially dangerous beasts.

      Thank you for your honesty, Rabbi Hirsch. It is quite clear that anti-Gentile chauvinism is a core component of Zionism.

  • Mass Dems move to kill anti-settlement resolution, amid fears of BDS and 'exodus from party'
    • What do you all expect? We live in a plutocratic corporate/financial global empire where money rules, which is currently seeking unopposed global hegemony and which is attacking any perceived threat to its global aspirations. To respond to citizen desires would provide hope and encouragement and set a bad example. The Lords of capital are made of sterner stuff. Uppity folks need to be taught a lesson. And things are going to get worse.

  • Trump and the ever expanding Israeli occupation of Palestine
    • CATALAN- "...we have a great economy, tax cuts are on the way....(with the exception of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates)."

      Teasing your fellow commenters, are you?

  • Why I'm keeping my child home from school in Israel on Holocaust Day
    • ROHA- "...the black pall of ignorance and barbarism that is sweeping across the world."

      Speaking if which, have you noticed how the media and liberal commentators are referring to those who oppose globalization as fascists? Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen two recent examples. Both are nationalists who say they would like improved relations with Russia and both criticized Trump on Syria. Has the definition of fascist been changed to someone who opposes militarism? Many of the terms of discourse have been reduced to mere labels used to attack people. Putin as a dictator, etc. I seem to recall Obama referring to Hugo Chavez as a dictator as well. The more meaningful categories seem to me to be those who favor neoliberal globalization and those who oppose it. Liberal/conservative, left/right have lost much of their meaning. "Progressive" is little more than a feel good term, and I have come to fear so-called "reforms", most of which are regressive changes which have been misrepresented to improve their appeal. There is a lot of flagrant misrepresentation going on. A lot of use of emotionally potent labels.

    • KAISA OF FINLAND- "Are you sure that f.ex. the pictures of Vietnam and Hiroshima have not made the European countries to try to prevent such things happening again.. ??"

      Since the USSR, Britain, France and others developed nuclear weapons, I would think that Hiroshima encouraged other countries to acquire their own rather than discouraged it. Additionally, the improvement in the US nuclear arsenal created pressure for others, particularly the USSR, the further develop their own. So, we have gone from several A-bombs to thousands of ICBMs armed with hydrogen bombs. Obama committed the US to a thirty year, $1 trillion upgrade of US nukes. All of this in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which required the nuclear powers to pursue nuclear disarmament. I think that the facts speak for themselves.

      As for Vietnam, The European countries have supported the US throughout the cold war, and continue to do so. The European countries are more-or-less US vassals whose militaries are a part of NATO which has evolved into a US controlled out-of-area strike force. There are NATO forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. Britain and France are heavily involved in US directed destabilization activities in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Germany is involved in the NATO exercises near the Russian border. Europe has historically been an extremely violent place (30 year war, etc), and produced empires which effectively conquered the world. Britain's history in India is just terrible.

      To sum up, I see no evidence that the Western elites have even slightly abandoned militarism, warfare and mass-slaughter in the pursuit of profit and power.

    • KAISA OF FINLAND- "Well ofcourse Holocaust was a horibble thing and it is good to know one’s history to be able to prevent such happenings to happen ever again...."

      Has knowledge of past slaughters ever prevented mass-murder from happening again? Did World War I prevent World War II? Was it the war that ended all wars? Any honest look at history will reveal that mass-murder is the rule, not the exception. War and violence are the tools of those psychopaths who are obsessed with power and become rulers. Even now, nuclear weapons which threaten us all with extinction are maintained on ready alert rather than being eliminated. And are recklessly used to threaten and intimidate. Uncle Sam assures us that ALL options are on the table. So no, I don't think that dwelling on past slaughters will prevent future ones, particularly if the curriculum is determined by the power-obsessed rulers. But it may influence who is doing the slaughtering versus who is on the receiving end.

    • MAYHEM- "...people with views like yours Keith who would happily concur with the destruction of the Jewish state."

      "Destruction of the Jewish state?" Such language! It is very informative of your mindset to know that you would consider Israel becoming a state of all of its citizens, with equal rights for all as a form of destruction. Just how much do you hate the Goyim?

    • ADDICTIONMYTH- " is discussed but they are not tested on it...."

      ANNIE ROBBINS- "i find this hard to believe."

      Interesting. Addictionmyth, can you substantiate this? My normal inclination would be to agree with Annie on this, however, it occurs to me that other factors may be involved. What exactly are they teaching? A more-or-less historically accurate examination of the Nazi holocaust or the ideologically loaded Zionist Holocaust narrative? The trouble with written test questions is what they may reveal about the purpose of the instruction (indoctrination?). If these test questions fell into the wrong hands, as they surely would, what would be the reaction of all those American Gentiles to the profoundly anti-Gentile nature of the Zionist ideology? Talking about "common values" while teaching Israeli Jewish children that all Gentiles (including Americans) are irrational Jew-haters could be a problem. So I can see a reason that there may not be written test questions, but I don't know. And yes, the "not tested on it" surprised me.

    • JANE PORTER- "Why does the West and Israel just focus on the Jews?"

      Zionist power.

    • HOPHMI- "Only on this ridiculous site would Israeli commemoration cast this way."

      Commemoration rituals? More like nationalistic indoctrination beginning at age three! Safe in the Jewish state but murdered in the land of the Goyim! The Goyim, the other, the enemy, forever and always. Irrational and eternal anti-Semitism. Manufacturing Jewish identity through cultivated paranoia. It seems harmless to you because it is beneficial to you. Kinship has its advantages when your "kin" are on top. Support for Israel the tribal unifier.

  • Speaking of Palestine and academic freedom
  • When it comes to Syria, our press is full of moralizing and propaganda, and short on analysis
    • DONALD JOHNSON- "Which logically implies that Assad is innocent."

      No it doesn't. It is a shorthand way of saying that the ULTIMATE responsibility for the death and destruction lies with the empire and this destabilization attempt.

      DONALD JOHNSON- "Which paints a picture of innocent people in a building who are doing things that can’t be criticized by the arsonist. It’s a poor metaphor."

      No, it is a very apt metaphor. There is no way to determine how the people in the burning building would be behaving if the building wasn't on fire and their lives in danger. And the arsonist's thugs are running around chopping heads! What would life in Syria be like if there was no murderous destabilization? How would it compare to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, etc. You don't know. As for all of this talk of Assad's criminality (elected dictator?), you obviously aren't getting your information from the likes of Eva Bartlett or Vanessa Beeley. Or John Pilger, for that matter.

      DONALD JOHNSON- "The actual truth is that Assad is a dictator and the USgovernment and others are trying to overthrow him."

      Why is the empire trying to overthrow him? Because he is a "dictator" and Uncle Sam is a bleeding heart liberal who travels the world doing good deeds? And you honestly feel that you can help to end this murderous imperial intervention by joining the imperial anti-Assad amen chorus? Are you serious? Compare your criticisms of Assad with your criticisms of Obama, Clinton and now Trump. It is easy to criticize others from the safety of your imperial armchair. Things look different when you are on the receiving end of the artillery shells and sharp knives.

      DONALD JOHNSON- "My last post, I think. We are going in circles."

      You are, I'm not. I leave you with an apropos Chomsky quote:

      "There is, evidently, much satisfaction to be gained by careful inspection of those writhing under our boot, to see if they are behaving properly; when they are not, as is often the case, indignation is unconstrained." (Noam Chomsky)

    • DONALD JOHNSON- "...but then you talk about him as though he was innocent...."

      No I don't. Please quote where I say he is innocent. Innocent of what? I have made my point clear. I oppose this imperial assault on Syria, period. I am not concerned with Assad's guilt or innocence in regards to all of these pretexts for intervention, some of which may be true. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I don't care. I am not going to side with the arsonist in critiquing the behavior of those inside the building which the arsonist set on fire, something you insist upon doing. These are pretexts for adding more fuel to the fire. It is hardly a secret that Israel would like to see an endless bloody stalemate in Syria, as would the empire. Why continue to contribute to the imperial demonization meme?

      DONALD JOHNSON- "A Syrian who had been tortured by Assad or who had lost family to Assad would not see him as a victim."

      Who said Assad was a victim? It is the Syrian people who are the victims of this imperial intervention. Just as it was/is the Afghan people, the Iraqi people, the Libyan people, the Yemeni people, etc. Yet, you continue to focus on Assad versus the "rebels", the empire barely mentioned. The empire could end the carnage unilaterally. What exactly Assad could do to end it, other than defeating the Jihadists, is unclear. Perhaps you could provide detail? Also, you might want to be more concerned about imperial use of torture rather than focus on Assad, particularly since your information sources are unreliable. The empire is on a murderous rampage, yet you focus on the "crimes" of the victim government. Your responsibility is to the actions of empire, not Assad, Gaddafi, Saddam, etc.

      DONALD JOHNSON- "If I adopted your approach, it would sound as though I think Assad is morally justified in what he does and for that reason we shouldn’t intervene."

      You are once again misrepresenting me. You are the one who keeps mentioning Assad, not me. I am the one who emphasizes imperial responsibility for the death and destruction, not you, except perhaps in passing to justify your ongoing misplaced demonization of Assad based upon unreliable information. Your analysis is that of a member of the loyal opposition, with a capital "L" and a small "o". You are carving out a niche to the left of the NYT, yet still safely within the bounds of acceptable liberal discourse. You criticize empire belatedly even as you join in the anti-Assad amen chorus. But this isn't about Assad, it is about American militarism and the destruction of yet another Third World country.

    • DONALD JOHNSON- "But you can say this without denying the reality that many Syrians have been victimized by the Syrian government."

      Before or after the imperial intervention? Before or after the British supported the Muslim Brotherhood way back when? Before or after Western imperialism prevented normal development of these countries? What right does the arsonist have to criticize the behavior of those inside the building he set on fire? You have no moral standing to criticize the behavior of those under imperial attack. Doing so reeks of white man's arrogance. Particularly when doing so reinforces the imperial justification for intervention. And it does.

      DONALD JOHNSON- "In fact, if anything the refusal to say this probably detracts from the credibility of some on the anti imperial left who otherwise make good points about US involvement."

      Just the opposite. As citizens, we are primarily responsible to criticize the behavior of our own government which we theoretically have some control over, not some foreign government we are not responsible for and have no influence over. This is particularly true when we are attacking the foreign country in question and criticism amounts to little more than reinforcing the imperial narrative. Neither one of us has expert knowledge on Syria and are dependent upon a propagandistic media engaged in imperial justifications for the current warmongering. I will not, on principal, jump on the imperial narrative bandwagon and criticize any country under imperial assault/destabilization. Our primary goal should be to stop the current imperial attempt to remake the Middle East, not to demonize the leadership of one of the countries under assault. Neither of us is in any position to pass judgement on Assad, particularly in view of the empire's current dangerous warmongering.

    • DONALD JOHNSON- "Anti imperialism is not enough if you aren’t antiwar. The pro Assad and also the pro rebel groups on the left are all advocating war."

      What an outrageous distortion of reality! I am anti-imperialist and anti-war. The only way to end the war is to get the empire to cease its warmongering! Are you suggesting that people under armed attack from imperial proxy forces (not "rebels") not defend themselves? Take off your blinders and look around. Afghanistan has been destroyed, yet remains under attack. Iraq has been destroyed. Libya has been destroyed. Yemen is under genocidal assault. Somalia and South Sudan are under attack. Did Assad do all of this? Who then? The empire is on a bloody rampage throughout the world (Ukraine, etc) to destroy all opposition to imperial hegemony. You didn't notice? You weren't aware of non-stop US warmongering following World War II to present? You don't see a pattern? You are unaware that the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan created the Mujahideen and recruited Osama bin Laden to lead them? That the Mujahideen begat al Qaeda begat ISIS, and that they are (unreliable) imperial proxy forces who receive massive imperial support? Why are you ignoring the elephant in the room? I know you mean well, but providing "balance" by saying that the "rebels" kill civilians too, not just Assad, is, in reality, tantamount to imperial apologetics. I lay responsibility for ALL of the death and destruction on the empire. Uncle Sam is a serial mass-murderer and habitual liar. The business of empire is war. Regrettably, as a mere citizen it appears that there is little that I can do about it. We are, after all, a militaristic corporate oligarchy.

  • Tillerson and Haley's trash-talk on Iran was brought to you by Sheldon Adelson
    • HOPHMI- "What statute is that again? Oh yes, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

      Nonsense, the Constitution says no such thing. The Citizens United interpretation of money as free speech was a travesty and a perfect example of the power of money to shape the political process and Supreme Court opinion. Money is economic power and the US has morphed into a corporate-financial oligarchy. Your depiction of this as "citizen" Adelson engaging in democratic activism is preposterous. A quote for you.

      "Ten years later, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis made the elementary Aristotelian observation that Americans “must make our choice. We may have democracy,” Brandeis wrote, “or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

  • Hasbara-steria: Netanyahu ministers charge NYT with 'journalistic terror attack,' hunger striker with 'suicide terror attack'
    • ELJAY- "Choosing to die by starvation is now considered a form of terrorism. Huh."

      The absurdity and outlandishness of some of the responses to this minor event are rather striking, aren't they? What next? Terrorists who shamelessly attack the heels of Zionist boots with their face? I suspect that much of this is all for show, just like the "settlers" who were "cruelly" expelled from Gaza in front of cameras in a staged exhibition. This whole thing is probably designed to make the NYT look fair and courageous to liberals.

  • The bulldozers of Shavuot, 1967
    • CITIZEN- "In more macro context: What say we all about “revisionist history”? In the context of “history is written by the victors”?"

      History is written by those "professionals" employed (either directly or indirectly) by the elites. As such, virtually all of history is really myth history. Facts presented and interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the elite narrative. Historians who deviate will face consequences. More honest telling of historical facts usually comes from dissidents and non-historians. Chomsky used to be good before he started accommodating parts of the imperial narrative.

  • The war for 'The New York Times'
    • SIBIRIAK- "Rather than deal with the difficulty of assessing what happened in Khan Sheikhoun, which is controlled by Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate and where information therefore should be regarded as highly suspect...."

      Focusing too heavily on the guilt or innocence of Assad regarding the use of poison gas tends to divert attention away from the overarching reality of what is occurring. Uncle Sam is a serial mass-murderer and habitual liar who has no moral standing to judge others or intervene. There is no such thing as a humanitarian empire. The empire supports these rebranded al-Qaeda offshoots who act as imperial proxy forces. The empire bears primary responsibility for ALL of the death and destruction in Syria. Additionally, the empire is also increasing its involvement in the Saudi attack on Yemen and resultant starvation which is occurring there and in Somalia too. Both Syria and Somalia were among the seven countries targeted for destabilization by the neocons in 2003. The responsibility is obvious for those with eyes to see. Trump is now responsible for policies which have resulted in the starvation deaths of thousands of Yemeni and Somali children, and will result in the starvation deaths of many thousands more. A long quote and link to Thomas Mountain re: Yemen and Somalia.

      "The USA, according to Defense Secretary “Mad Dog” Mattis, he who ordered the use of chemical weapons in Fallujah, Iraq, is about to take a major step towards direct intervention in support of the Saudi Arabia war on the Yemeni people.
      Never mind the tens of thousands of Yemeni children already dead and buried from the US backed Saudi enforced starvation blockade of food and medicine to the Houthi homeland.
      Already moves are underway to increase direct US military involvement in Somalia, the other key link in controlling the “Gate of Tears”. First comes Mad Dog Mattis calling for an increase in airstrikes, then on the ground coordinators, “training officers” and in the end, direct military intervention by the US, as Somalia itself continues to be rocked by insurgency and famine. What possible good can come from an aerial onslaught on the Somali people by the American Luftwaffe, whose so called “smart bombs” seem to inevitably find targets containing Somali women and children.

      Famine to the left of Bad Al Mandab, famine to the right of Bad Al Mandab, it seems a famine policy is being enacted by Pax Americana and its lackeys at the UN when it comes to the Horn of Africa." (Thomas Mountain)

  • Bill Kristol celebrates 'normal' foreign policy -- with Russia replacing Iraq in the new 'axis of evil'
    • PHIL- "This is why I say that the deep state in Washington is the Israel lobby with all its militancy."

      The Saker has an interesting analysis on this very topic. I mostly agree with some significant reservations. It is somewhat long with considerable food for thought, always a good idea. I provide a quote and link.

      "The reason why I decided to tackle this issue today is that the forces who broke Trump in less than a month are also the very same forces who have forced him into a political 180: the Neocons and the US deep state. However, I think that these two concepts can be fused into on I would call the “Ziocons”: basically Zionists plus some rabid Anglo imperialists à la Cheney or McCain. These are the folks who control the US corporate media, Hollywood, Congress, most of academia, etc. These are the folks who organized a ferocious assault on the “nationalist” or “patriotic” wing of Trump supporters and ousted Flynn and Bannon and these are the folks who basically staged a color revolution against Trump." (The Saker)

  • Love of Israel + Defense of Trump = Meshuggeneh
    • MOOSER- "I’d like to know what I should be good at."

      Making lots and lots of comments? And try to remember that "Trillary" has two "l"s. Or, simply refer to the orange warmonger as "The Rump."

    • MORT KLEIN- "...on average, blacks are much better dancers."

      And, on average, they are good at house cleaning too!

    • MOOSER- "He doesn’t mention a one."

      Perhaps he thought that they were so obvious that they didn't need mentioning? Plus, it doesn't look good to boast outside the tent. Obvious "facts" on the inside, tropes on the outside.

    • PHIL- “Trump is in danger of becoming a great man.” Shmuley Boteach says."

      Becoming a "great man" by increasing hostilities resulting in more death and destruction? Well, Boteach is consistent. He is good buddies with Rwanda genocidaire Paul Kagame. And Trump has been transformed by Merlin, the Deep State magician. His one redeeming feature has been eliminated by fusing him with the Princess of Darkness. The result? President Trillary Hillarump, the new neocon buffoon of darkness! Just when you think that things couldn't get worse they do. Hey, how about that new MOAB we dropped on Afghanistan? Yet another example of our responsibility to bomb (R2B). Franz Kafka as prophet?

  • Allegory of the 'tough neighborhood'
    • CITIZEN- "Whither Saudi Regime?"

      Indeed, the crocodile tears Hillarump shed over those dead Syrian children is the height of hypocrisy in view of what US/Saudi Arabia are doing in Yemen. The empire continues to engage in "humanitarian" mass-murder. A quote and link from Gareth Porter.

      "As Yemen's population has teetered on the brink of mass starvation in recent months, the United States has played a crucial role in enabling the Saudi strategy responsible for that potential humanitarian catastrophe.

      Both the Obama and Trump administrations have prioritized the US's alliance with the Saudis and their Gulf allies over the lives of hundreds of thousands of Yemenis under imminent threat of starvation.

      Although the UN agencies have offered no public estimate of the number of Yemenis who have died of malnutrition-related conditions, it is likely that the figure is much higher than the estimate of 10,000 killed directly by the Saudi-coalition bombing. United Nations agencies have estimated that 462,000 Yemeni children under five years of age are already suffering severe acute malnutrition, putting them at serious risk of death from starvation and malnutrition-related disease.

      The Saudi coalition has pursued a war strategy of maximizing pressure on the Houthi resistance by destroying agricultural, health and transportation infrastructure and by choking off access to food and fuel for most of Yemen's population. The United States has enabled the Saudis to pursue that strategy by refueling the Saudi-led coalition planes bombing Yemen and selling the bombs. Equally important, however, the US has provided the political-diplomatic cover that the Saudis need to carry out this ruthless endeavor without massive international blowback." (Gareth Porter)

Showing comments 3209 - 3201