Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3436 (since 2009-07-31 17:35:15)


Anarchist at large, people are more important than property, period


Showing comments 300 - 201

  • counterattack! Minnie Driver, Natalie Portman
    • The invasion and bombing of Lebanon was a repeated display, it did not just happen once Richard but several times. When people are the victims of an invasion they have a right to self-defense, it is the same self-defense that Israel claims for itself (and I might add it is now the premium excuse falsely made for the wars and massacres of choice that Israel has made, both foreign and domestic). Those who claim other means can be used to address overt and indiscriminate aggression launched by Israel against both the Palestinians and the Lebanese is the luxury of people who have not been victims, or it is a totally disingenuous excuse for condemnation.

      Israel's use of military force is totally indiscriminate between civilians and any opposing force. As an example, in the 2006 invasion Israel started by selective bombing, but soon reverted to indiscriminate bombing of the civilian population. Why? Because this is all they know, from repeatedly doing it to the Palestinians - their expertise is in killing women, children, and old people - bombing domestic residences and vital services. It is not in bombing installations and valid targets.

      It is a total disregard for innocent human life, and is done because they have convinced themselves of the inhumanity of who they bomb - calling them "animals and cockroaches. " If you go to the Spielberg archive and listen to the charges against Der Sturmer and its chief contributor Julius Streicher -

      "The Jewish people ought to be exterminated root and branch. Then the plague of pests would have disappeared in Poland also at one stroke."

      "The Jew is a devil in human form. It is fitting that he be exterminated root and branch."

      "The Jewish rabble will be exterminated like the weeds and vermin..."

      Now compare these statements that have been made with those against the Palestinians - animals on two legs, cockroaches (vermin), devils walking the streets, a plague, etc. These are statements about a people (similar statements made about the surrounding Arab countries), not about an element of the people, and there is an exercise not only against the Palestinians in the OT but even the Israeli citizenry.

      Hence the right of the Lebanese to self-defense, as expressed by Zinn is not merely solidarity with an isolated Hezbollah, they are over a third of the population in Lebanon. All the people of Southern Lebanon were attacked, not just some official force - however, this is par for the course, as reflected in the recent attack against the Palestinians in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. It is actually old news, it is escalating and it needs to cease.

    • "I was very upset when he signed the solidarity with resistance statement around Lebanon in 2006. (Meaning solidarity with Hezbollah.) He is smarter than that, or was."

      That is commendable Richard, what you did for Howard. He is just as smart as he ever was Richard, and what does that make you? You are a shill for anything Israel does Richard, that has a way of deteriorating the mind after a period of time. As Israel sinks further into the abyss so will you, you have turned you're brain off and have lost you're moral bearing. As I have said before regarding the indiscriminate supporters of Israel, no matter what atrocity - your mind has sunk into the abyss of the deep South, and soon you will be doing this -


    • So the point is Richard? This rogue nation cannot even handle a precursor to the BDS, which has not even been invoked yet. It is just a demonstration that Israel plans on full speed ahead with the genocidal process, that there is no alternate plan, so BDS might as well just commence now.

    • Richard, not only "civilians" live in Sderot, but kibbutz which are primarily a military enclave are also there. It is also true that many assaults upon Gaza found their way through Sderot. Unfortunately, this is what you get when you have not been there (not to mention other bases and military factories, which curiously reside in civilian areas which are mostly a mix of the poor and the Israeli Palestinians, the two being synonymous most of the time).

    • I always like this nonsense about Gaza firing "missiles" which are not much more than large firecrackers, and have damaged little and killed even less. What about before any "missiles" were fired, what were the excuses for the atrocities on Gaza? These are a relatively new phenomena that Israel has been keen to capitalize on. I remember the reports from journalists that covered the massacre from afar (that is whole other issue, which speaks loudly for the underhanded methods and genocidal fervor of the attack), when they entered the prefabricated news registering rooms these little laughable large firecrackers were piled up for them to see - apparently Israel thought they had a propaganda bonanza with them, but in reality it caused most reporters to chuckle under their breath about how ridiculous the display was.

      In EVERY ceasefire it has been Israel that has broken it, and provoked a response. Which is just a testimony to how much Israel is "pursuing peace."

    • How does Israel distinguish itself from fascism Richard? We distinguish ourselves from fascism by not supporting the fascist activity rife in Israel, how do you distinguish yourself Witty? Israel has constantly cried for BDS in numerous activities which it is involved in - see what has gone beyond this in the medieval siege Gaza. In fact, that is a new record in modern history - to sanction an occupied people which is a direct affront to all responsibilities to the occupied, however telling you this Richard, or Israel is like spitting in the wind.

    • Yes, this has become apparent with Portman. I became aware of it when she spoke about being so pleased to support the IDF and their activities, I will spare you the context, but it shocked me.

    • "...the recent indiscriminate bombing and murder of over 1400 civilians – most of them children." SHOULD HAVE READ - a good portion, over 300 being children.

    • First, lets get something straight, Israel started the political ball rolling with its "brand Israel" blitz. So this was already turned political by those (Israel and its supporters) who wish to put lipstick on a pig, that does not change the nature of the pig.

      "“As a filmmaker and member of the Academy, I can tell you that this is nothing less than a call for the complete destruction of the Jewish State,” Hier said."

      No, it is that Israel must stop its current course or destroy itself and the Palestinian people.

      "“Film is essentially about telling global stories, of exploring the complexities and contradictions of the human condition. Any attempt to silence that conversation, to hijack the festival for any political agenda in the end, only serves to silence artistic voices,” Reitman told THR. Jewison told the trade the protest “smacks of anti-Semitic bigotry.”"

      No, it really amounts to telling the truth, or telling bold faced lies. A lies does not necessarily mean twisting what is displayed, but not displaying or saying anything at all - it is the absence thereof (sound familiar?).

      “The entire world was formed through military victories and defeats,” Barad explained by phone from St. Louis. “Every state since the beginning of nations has been formed this way, but only Israel is continually disclaimed from its legitimate right to exist.”

      This is the 21st century, not the 17th, 18th, 19th or even the 20th. Other nations have distanced themselves from the old colonial process, not perpetuated it (at least not in the old form, this does not address neocolonialism). International law is in place, Conventions have been adopted (notably by Israel in this context). Every year almost the UN meets and confirms its original rhetorical vote which says back to the 67' borders and the right of return in light of the current global commitment to not continue in the same murderous process. Indeed, some of the very conventions were adopted because of the Holocaust - they were not written as an excuse for a Holocaust hegemony excusing even the initial target group saying "but for you it is OK." Genocidal process will always be resisted, this is what you are witnessing, and by Israel's actions it seems to think it can do anything it wants with impunity.

      "Israel, like every other democracy, is not perfect. "

      Israel is not a democracy for everyone, only for the few. The rest are either ethnically cleansed, a slow genocide (accelerating at an alarming rate), or last class citizens - it is an apartheid state, in fact, as numerous witnesses from South Africa have testified - it is worse than Apartheid. Gets your facts straight.

      "But their interests lie in making their nation a better place, not making it disappear [Israeli filmmakers]."

      "Interests" are not enough, it is in fact becoming worse, and is heading toward a fascist abyss. You can see this by the electoral activity, the promotion of draconian bills against the minority Palestinian population in Israel and their neglect and persecution, the siege of an entire people (Gaza) to the point of starvation, the recent indiscriminate bombing and murder of over 1400 civilians - most of them children, the acceleration of land theft, the list is almost endless. However, it is becoming better, for the ethnic Jewish population - that's it.

      The rest of the letter by Barad is just more of the same hasbara bullshit, it is like listening to Dershowitz or Daniel Pipes - complete nonsense, total skewing of history or what must derive from examining other countries. Things like the Palestinians have to pay for what other Arab nations did, in contradistinction to all known law international or domestic - as an example. He would not stand for five minutes in a debate, nor would his mentors.

  • Jane Fonda gains support even in wobbly lobby
    • You're going to keep using this on Richard aren't you potsherd. You see Richard, you have to stop using these reflective statements or they will come back to haunt

  • Mortensen: Israel uses Toronto to 'whitewash illegal and inhumane actions'
    • Yes, I am also trembling All hoaxters, liars, plagiarizers and off the wall wackos are supposed to make us stand in awe, in awe. Never mind that they cannot stand up to a single debate, Ed wants to plunge headlong into the area where his sick "mentors" fear to tread. All they can do is write silly books that are supposed to chill academic freedom.

    • There is plenty to criticize of all of those cities Witty, you do not ignore the past or present condition of a city - they acknowledge their past warts and all. Sorry there is no statutes of limitation on murder and theft on the grand scale of ethnic cleansing. Just like there is not for any other settler state, especially one still involved in the process - you cannot split off one city from the country. The cultural center can be acknowledged after it acknowledges its past and present status, and the only reason why it does not acknowledge the past is because it is presently taking place on a grand scale in the country.

    • Oh I see, the resistance on one immediately means the acceptance of the other, eh Witty? So that the immediate running to the side of Israel on its atrocious activity must mean the rejection of the goals of the USA. That is about as convoluted as saying you oppose the centralism of China, so that immediately makes you a capitalist. Sorry, life is a bit more complicated than that. However, the immediate acceptance of Tel Aviv with no recognition of its past means that you automatically accept its way of coming into being (ethnic cleansing and currently practicing apartheid). To ignore an ongoing process which is Rife in the country, and a state of being brought about by that process in Tel Aviv is to embrace reality.

  • At Gaza rates, West Bank evacuation would cost $140 billion
    • They prefer chocolate Jesus -



    • Potsherd you are right, it is the "forever-never."

    • The other issue that just does not wash is that Hamas, which has been under siege, bombed, selectively assassinated and so needs to stop those rogue elements that fire rockets and there are no "excuses." However, the fouth most powerful forces in the world, which routed several armies and attacks other countries at will, just cannot handle their own settlers and make them behave. Complete and utter bullshit.

    • I always get a kick out of these demands "if we move." It is like saying we stole the land and murdered the people and than built, now you're going to have to pay us back for the effort. It is like Madoff saying "now that my Ponzi scheme has been exposed and I have been penalized, you are going to have to pay me for all of my hard work." However, in this case, because there was complicity by both European governments and the USA, being accomplices they may have to pitch in.

  • J Street's game is to build Jewish political capital for Obama
    • In my view J Street is merely a device used to stop the almost inevitable backlash against AIPAC. It is taking in hand, similar to Chris said of "gentler" appearance. I say this because it is impossible to establish any position from the "lack thereof." Silence is not a good arbiter of ones position. If a group is going to distance itself even from the mild form of criticism displayed in the Declaration it is suspect indeed.

      Dan makes a good point on the indiscriminate financial support of Israel, of which he has never received a reply. I think that siding with J Street is just a desperate attempt to find something of value that will effectively challenge AIPAC. The neocon support of Israel is not merely represented in 35% of the Jewish community, it is a reciprocal tool that has been groadly used to influence all of ME policy. Just like the lobby is not merely a minority of the Jewish community, but has a much larger base as Walt and Mearsheimer amply make clear in their book The Israel Lobby. J Street's position just obliges it to "compromise" more and more with time, till at its core it becomes indistinguishable from the old AIPAC with merely a new face.

  • The Toronto Declaration hits Canadian airwaves, continuing the debate
    • I apologize, sometimes I race through here doing five things at once, I know I am newer to this site and just in case someone thinks I make a habit of this see the full article I posted long ago with full credit given to Jonathan Cook on my site. I will try to be more careful and not speed through so fast -


    • I met this girl on a blog one time, she was a rather virulent antisemitic...she had a name for Google, she called it "Jew-gle." I told her she was wrong.

    • Oh, what perspective is that supposed to give me carnas? A non-descript burning of a library - is that supposed to be the mad Muslim jihadis? Do you know how many agents of Shin Bet are planted, not to mention complicit Fatah which will do anything to obey their Israeli masters? If it was those "mad Muslims" it is an isolated incident. While you're at it carnas, I am sure you can show me that this minister can go to the advanced Israel and walk in any shul and start "preaching the gospel" and there will be flowers thrown at his feet and he will be given candy.

      Now compare this to a decades old, state sponsored process of expelling Christian Palestinians - proof of it everywhere, physical, material, non-stop persecution, large walls which choke off their businesses and communities. imprisonments, no future for their children, etc. I am sure the library burned twice with no identification of perpetrators can match this right? I don't think so.

    • While further listening to this Simcha Jacobovici character he is nothing but a total liar on almost every point he presents. Take one example, the idea that the primary persecution of Christians is from the Muslim community - what utter hogwash. What a mouthpiece for Israel, speaking as politically charged as he can against a simple declaration.

      Let me elaborate briefly about the above example, the idea that it is Muslims persecuting and driving out Christian Palestinians. On the contrary it is Israel which is purging Palestinian Christians. For tourists and pilgrims, getting in or out of Bethlehem has been made reasonably straightforward, presumably to conceal from international visitors the realities of Palestinian life. I was even offered a festive chocolate Santa Claus by the Israeli soldiers who control access to the city where Jesus was supposedly born.

      Seemingly oblivious to the distressing historical parallels, however, Israel forces foreigners to pass through a "border crossing" -- a gap in the menacing gray concrete wall -- that recalls the stark black and white images of the entrance to Auschwitz.

      The gates of Auschwitz offered a duplicitous motto, "Arbeit macht frei" (Work makes you free), and so does Israel's gateway to Bethlehem. "Peace be with you" is written in English, Hebrew and Arabic on a colourful large notice covering part of the grey concrete. The people of Bethlehem have scrawled their own, more realistic assessments of the wall across much of its length.

      Foreign visitors can leave, while Bethlehem Palestinians are now sealed into their ghetto. As long as these Palestinian cities are not turned into death camps, the West appears ready to turn a blind eye. Mere concentration camps, it seems, are acceptable.

      The West briefly indulged in a bout of soul-searching about the wall following the publication in July 2004 of the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion condemning its construction. Today the only mild rebukes come from Christian leaders around Christmas time. Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, was foremost among them this year.

      Even those concerns, however, relate mainly to fears that the Holy Land's native Christians, once a significant proportion of the Palestinian population, are rapidly dwindling. There are no precise figures, but the Israeli media suggests that Christians, who once constituted as much as 15 per cent of the occupied territories' Palestinians, are now just 2 or 3 per cent. Most are to be found in the West Bank close to Jerusalem, in Bethlehem, Ramallah and neighboring villages.

      A similar pattern can be discerned inside Israel too, where Christians have come to comprise an ever smaller proportion of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. In 1948 they were nearly a quarter of that minority (itself 20 per cent of the total Israeli population), and today they are a mere 10 per cent. Most are located in Nazareth and nearby villages in the Galilee.

      Certainly, the continuing fall in the number of Christians in the Holy Land concerns Israel's leadership almost as keenly as the patriarchs and bishops who visit Bethlehem at Christmas -- but for quite the opposite reason. Israel is happy to see Christians leave, at least of the indigenous Palestinian variety.

      (More welcome are the crazed fundamentalist Christian Zionists from the United States who have been arriving to help engineer the departure of Palestinians, Muslims and Christians alike, in the belief that, once the Jews have dominion over the whole of the Holy Land, Armageddon and the "End Times" will draw closer.)

      Of course, that is not Israel's official story. Its leaders have been quick to blame the exodus of Christians on the wider Palestinian society from which they are drawn, arguing that a growing Islamic extremism, and the election of Hamas to lead the Palestinian Authority, have put Christians under physical threat. This explanation neatly avoids mentioning that the proportion of Christians has been falling for decades.

      According to Israel's argument, the decision by many Christians to leave the land where generations of their ancestors have been rooted is simply a reflection of the "clash of civilizations", in which a fanatical Islam is facing down the Judeo-Christian West. Palestinian Christians, like Jews, have found themselves caught on the wrong side of the Middle East's confrontation lines.

      Here is how the Jerusalem Post, for example, characterized the fate of the Holy Land's non-Muslims in a Christmas editorial: "Muslim intolerance toward Christians and Jews is cut from exactly the same cloth. It is the same jihad." The Post concluded by arguing that only by confronting the jihadis would "the plight of persecuted Christians -- and of the persecuted Jewish state -- be ameliorated."

      Similar sentiments were recently aired in an article by Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily republished on Ynet, Israel's most popular website, that preposterously characterized a procession of families through Nazareth on Eid al-Adha, the most important Muslim festival, as a show of strength by militant Islam designed to intimidate local Christians.

      Islam's green flags were "brandished", according to Klein, whose reporting transformed a local troupe of Scouts and their marching band into "Young Muslim men in battle gear" "beating drums". Nazareth's youngsters, meanwhile, were apparently the next generation of Qassam rocket engineers: "Muslim children launched firecrackers into the sky, occasionally misfiring, with the small explosives landing dangerously close to the crowds."

      Such sensationalist misrepresentations of Palestinian life are now a staple of the local and American media. Support for Hamas, for example, is presented as proof of jihadism run amok in Palestinian society rather than as evidence of despair at Fatah's corruption and collaboration with Israel and ordinary Palestinians' determination to find leaders prepared to counter Israel's terminal cynicism with proper resistance.

      The clash of civilizations thesis is usually ascribed to a clutch of American intellectuals, most notably Samuel Huntingdon, the title of whose book gave the idea popular currency, and the Orientalist academic Bernard Lewis. But alongside them have been the guiding lights of the neocon movement, a group of thinkers deeply embedded in the centers of American power who were recently described by Ynet as mainly comprising "Jews who share a love for Israel".

      In fact, the idea of a clash of civilizations grew out of a worldview that was shaped by Israel's own interpretation of its experiences in the Middle East. An alliance between the neocons and Israeli leaders was cemented in the mid-1990s with the publication of a document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". It offered a US foreign policy tailor-made to suit Israel's interests, including plans for an invasion of Iraq, authored by leading necons and approved by the Israeli prime minister of the day, Binyamin Netanyahu.

      There is only one problem in selling this image to the West: the minority of Christian Palestinians who have happily lived under Muslim rule in the Holy Land for centuries. Today, in a way quite infuriating to Israel, these Christians confuse the picture by continuing to take a leading role in defining Palestinian nationalism and resistance to Israel's occupation. They prefer to side with the Muslim "fanatics" than with Israel, the Middle East's only outpost of Judeo-Christian "civilization".

      The presence of Palestinian Christians reminds us that the supposed "clash of civilizations" in the Holy Land is not really a war of religions but a clash of nationalism's, between the natives and European colonial settlers.

      Inside Israel, for example, Christians have been the backbone of the Communist party, the only non-Zionist party Israel allowed for several decades. Many of the Palestinian artists and intellectuals who are most critical of Israel are Christians, including the late novelist Emile Habibi; the writer Anton Shammas and film-makers Elia Suleiman and Hany Abu Assad (all now living in exile); and the journalist Antoine Shalhat (who, for reasons unknown, has been placed under a loose house arrest, unable to leave Israel).

      The most notorious Palestinian nationalist politician inside Israel is Azmi Bishara, yet another Christian, who has been put on trial and is regularly abused by his colleagues in the Knesset.

      Similarly, Christians have been at the core of the wider secular Palestinian national movement, helping to define its struggle. They range from exiled professors such as the late Edward Said to human rights activists in the occupied territories such as Raja Shehadeh. The founders of the most militant wings of the national movement, the Democratic and Popular Fronts for the Liberation of Palestine, were Nayif Hawatmeh and George Habash, both Christians.

      This intimate involvement of Palestinian Christians in the Palestinian national struggle is one of the reasons why Israel has been so keen to find ways to encourage their departure -- and then blame it on intimidation by, and violence from, Muslims.

      In truth, however, the fall in the number of Christians can be explained by two factors, neither of which is related to a clash of civilizations.

      The first is a lower rate of growth among the Christian population. According to the latest figures from Israel's Bureau of Census Statistics, the average Christian household in Israel contains 3.5 people compared to 5.2 in a Muslim household. Looked at another way, in 2005 33 percent of Christians were under the age of 19, compared to 55 percent of Muslims. In other words, the proportion of Christians in the Holy Land has been eroded over time by higher Muslim birth rates.

      But a second factor is equally, if not more, important. Israel has established an oppressive rule for Palestinians both inside Israel and in the occupied territories that has been designed to encourage the most privileged Palestinians, which has meant disproportionately Christians, to leave.

      This policy has been implemented with stealth for decades, but has been greatly accelerated in recent years with the erection of the wall and numerous checkpoints. The purpose has been to encourage the Palestinian elite and middle class to seek a better life in the West, turning their back on the Holy Land.

      Palestinian Christians have had the means to escape for two reasons. First, they have traditionally enjoyed a higher standard of living, as city-based shopkeepers and business owners, rather than poor subsistence farmers in the countryside. And second, their connection to the global Churches has made it simpler for them to find sanctuary abroad, often beginning as trips for their children to study overseas.

      Israel has turned Christian parents' financial ability and their children's increased opportunities to its own advantage, by making access to higher education difficult for Palestinians both inside Israel and in the occupied territories.

      Inside Israel, for example, Palestinian citizens still find it much harder to attend university than Jewish citizens, and even more so to win places on the most coveted courses, such as medicine and engineering.

      Instead, for many decades Israel's Christians and Muslims became members of the Communist party in the hope of receiving scholarships to attend universities in Eastern Europe. Christians were also able to exploit their ties to the Churches to help them head off to the West. Many of these overseas graduates, of course, never returned, especially knowing that they would be faced with an Israeli economy much of which is closed to non-Jews.

      Something similar occurred in the occupied territories, where Palestinian universities have struggled under the occupation to offer a proper standard of education, particularly faced with severe restrictions on the movement of staff and students. Still today, it is not possible to study for a PhD in either the West Bank or Gaza, and Israel has blocked Palestinian students from attending its own universities. The only recourse for most who can afford it has been to head abroad. Again, many have chosen never to return.

      But in the case of the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel found it even easier to close the door behind them. It established rules, in violation of international law, that stripped these Palestinians of their right to residency in the occupied territories during their absence. When they tried to return to their towns and villages, many found that they were allowed to stay only on temporary visas, including tourist visas, that they had to renew with the Israeli authorities every few months.

      Nearly a year ago, Israel quietly took a decision to begin kicking these Palestinians out by refusing to issue new visas. Many of them are academics and business people who have been trying to rebuild Palestinian society after decades of damage inflicted by the occupying regime. A recent report by the most respected Palestinian university, Bir Zeit, near Ramallah, revealed that one department had lost 70 per cent of its staff because of Israel's refusal to renew visas.

      Although there are no figures available, it can probably be safely assumed that a disproportionate number of Palestinians losing their residency rights are Christian. Certainly the effect of further damaging the education system in the occupied territories will be to increase the exodus of Palestine's next generation of leaders, including its Christians.

      In addition, the economic strangulation of the Palestinians by the wall, the restrictions on movement and the international economic blockade of the Palestinian Authority are damaging the lives of all Palestinians with increasing severity. Privileged Palestinians, and that doubtless includes many Christians, are being encouraged to seek a rapid exit from the territories.

      From Israel's point of view, the loss of Palestinian Christians is all to the good. It will happier still if all of them leave, and Bethlehem and Nazareth pass into the effective custodianship of the international Churches.

      Without Palestinian Christians confusing the picture, it will be much easier for Israel to persuade the West that the Jewish state is facing a monolithic enemy, fanatical Islam, and that the Palestinian national struggle is really both a cover for jihad and a distraction from the clash of civilizations against which Israel is the ultimate bulwark. Israel's hands will be freed.

      Palestinian Christians are not really a threat to their or their state's existence, but be sure that Israel has every reason to continue persecuting and excluding Palestinian Christians as much, if not more, than it does Palestinian Muslims.

    • On the contrary the BDS will spotlight the participants in Israel and give them a stronger voice. Their recognition as leading the way will become apparent first to the world, and than to the Zionist cadre in control in Israel. Just like in South Africa the voice of Tutu was magnified by world participation in BDS, and Ronnie Kasrils came to prominence after his affiliation with the ANC after the Shapeville massacre and on to high ministerial position. So the idea that BDS will weaken and hurt the opposition is ludicrous, it strengthens them and they rise to prominence. The only individuals who harm the resistance in Israel is the Zionist opposition - just like they are beginning to try to do to Neve Gordon, so the argument of it harming the BDS adherents (which can also be highly targeted) in only contingent on the murderous, apartheid, colonial and genocidal opposition.

    • The argument of Jacobovici is the same argument of Benny Morris, and the implicit argument of all Zionists (without stating it as plainly as Morris) - "just like America look at all the good that came out of the genocide of indigenous population, the same thing is happening in Israel - look at all the good that comes from here (see the previous post here with the Israelis dressed up like American indigenous)." The implication is to the "backwardness" of the Palestinian population, and the violent nature of the population akin to the "savages" written in the USA's Declaration (but "all men are created equal"). "So you see," their argument is, "if we did not genocide the Palestinians none of these wonderful things you see coming out of Israel today would have transpired."

    • Obama's concentration on the "expansion" is nothing but the tacit approval of all that stands. It is a green light for the Israelis to have a race in establishing more "untouchable" facts on the ground. It is Obama's complicity with the entire forward moving process of Zionism, the "opposition" is nothing but a sham because there is no punishment with teeth for defiance. The entire act is nothing but a good cop bad cop scenario. I want you to remember this post - in the end Obama will walk away saying "there is not shame having failed, look how many before me failed, I tried."

    • Plainly Richard is nothing but Zionism lite, he - that is his ridiculous "position" is nothing but a rubber stamp for Israel to do as it pleases, period.

    • For those who want to say there is not a sophisticated whitewash going on from Israel, saying everything is fine, forget the occupation. Excerpt from Klein interview -

      "Klein: Well it has to do with the fact that the Israeli government openly uses culture as a military tool. Though Israeli officials believe they are winning the actual war for land, they also feel that the country suffers because most of what the world hears about the region on the news is about the conflict: militarization, lawlessness, the occupation, and Gaza. So the foreign ministry launched a campaign called Israel Beyond the Conflict which involves using culture, film, books, the arts, tourism and academia to create all kinds of alliances between Western countries and the State of Israel, and to promote the image of a normal, happy country, rather than an aggressive occupying power. That’s why we are always hearing about film festivals and book fairs with a special “Israel spotlight.”

      And so, even though in general I would totally agree that culture is positive — books are positive and film is positive and communication is wonderful — we have to understand that we are dealing with a state strategy to co-opt all of that to make a brutal occupation more palatable. There are other things that also fall into that category: the State of Israel has an open strategy of enlisting gay and lesbian rights and feminism into the conflict, pitting Hamas’s fundamentalism against Israel’s supposed enlightened liberalism as another justification for collective punishment of Palestinians (never mind the ever-growing power and intolerance of Israel’s Ultra-Orthodox Jews). It’s a very sophisticated strategy. That means we have to come up with equally sophisticated strategies that defend culture and human rights on the one hand, but that, on the other, reject all attempts to use our work and our values to whitewash the ugly reality of occupation and segregation."

    • "Their criticism of this spotlight on Tel Aviv is telling: Tel Aviv is situated within Israel proper, neither on occupied or even disputed territory." From CBC comments

      This is either immense stupidity or tremendous hubris, these people constantly pull their so-called "facts" out of thin air. I guess they just depend on the ignorance of some readers.

  • English skinheads wave.... Israeli flag!!!!
    • Just as a matter of reference for you Chis, most of what you say is very insightful. However, when you say -

      "...the vast majority of organized Jewry is Zionist to one extent or another..."

      Actually when it comes to those in power it is a very small minority that wield a lot of influence, and that is partially due to a system whose chief aim is to curry elites (it is always exploited by the rich and powerful). What this small cadre wants you to believe is that "the vast majority of organized Jewry is Zionist," and by embracing it you just further their agenda. Think about it

    • As an example, internally in Israel you have Avigdor Lieberman as the "Foreign Minister," this is the face which Israel chooses to wear for the outside world, neither a surprise nor shocking considering this nations course (the external eventually begins to reflect the ugly internal). On his world-wind tour of Latin America and Africa who did he bring with him?

      Certainly, at least as a matter of appearance he has not followed in the footsteps of lets say - Golda Meir who was more deceptive, but reflects this twisted fascist agenda in countries which are known for their puppet Western governments and oppression.

      "Lieberman is planning to bring with him dozens of businessmen, most of them arms dealers, as well as security advisers and representatives of the military industries. But perhaps it would be better for the foreign minister to follow in Meir's footsteps and put more agricultural advisers and medical and education experts in the center of its diplomatic stage, rather than arms dealers."

      This is what I have highlighted on my blog -


      While some wish to go after cultural aspects with BDS, I plan to go right for the jugular. Israel insists on selling its defense and "technological" expertise to budding and old dictatorships and those interested in oppressing portions of their populations with National Security States (see India). It packages its occupational oppression of the Palestinians, and its way to camouflage such through media deception to the waiting world. Using experimental weapons on the Palestinian population as a large guinea pig laboratory, as well as its oppressive "deterrent" operations for maximum exploitation.

      So there is no mystery why Israel gets support by "like-minded" tyrants the world over, including the USA which was awash with Israeli "experts" during the thick of the Iraq war. Or those who wish to eavesdrop on their respective populations against domestic law (although in its advanced stages in the states, that is, because it had been going on so long, both houses and the Supreme Court put their stamp of approval on the indiscriminate spying).

    • The fact of the matter is that many Israel supporters have plunged head long into the war chant party of violence on the right, as Israel itself descends into the fascist milieu. Hence my taunt above at 1:57AM. It is a very alarming process, just as deep as the Zionist bedding down with Christian Fundamental extremism. Unfortunately this has been a pattern for many years, just like the symbiotic relationship with the USA as the worlds only superpower - no matter what course it takes, and cheering for the atrocities as well as "consulting" and supporting the process of empire.

      It appears there is no moral compass when it come to Eretz Yisrael for the Zionist contingency, and this is the case with both the left and right of Jewish supporters for Israel - one plunging itself into violent extremism near the seat of power (the right), the other never able to find an argument that is effective (on purpose) for stopping the egregious process (the left, and afterwords crying and ringing their hands - Richard among others). So it is only quite natural that the process sinks to the lowest point of humanity amidst a skinhead-like fascist quagmire.

    • Bingo Queue, you heard and remember correctly!



      They might have found new allies here, after all the murderous racist, apartheid, colonial aims of Israeli Zionists match perfectly with skinheads. Better strike while the iron is hot, here is some new support for them.

    • Yes, Richard should know Saleema, because we all know he constantly goes to anti-Zionist, anti-apartheid, and BDS

    • Yeah yeah wondering, and everyone who quotes someone is supposed to make them complicit. Even Ben Gurion is antisemitic because he is quoted on neo-Nazi sites. Your arguments are completely ridiculous.

    • On the contrary, they are in like company.

  • NYT's misstates casualties in Lebanon war
    • Here is an interesting idea Witty, why don't we tell Israel to get off Israeli Lebanon's land and also stop stealing resources (water)? Than tell them that they should probably stop provocative flights over Lebanon which was prohibited by the cessation of conflict agreement. Stop sending agent provocateurs into Lebanon and spies. Sound like a good idea?

    • Sure Witty, since when did you care about lying? There is no lie, however POW's are permissible, kidnapping civilians and innocent people (Palestinians and Lebanese), than imprisoning them for years for colonial purposes is a much more egregious offense. In fact, it systemically undoes the country which practices such abuse - and in case you are still clueless, that is Israel.

  • 'LA Times' says Toronto has lit a 'prairie fire' against a 'pariah' state
    • It is the same, there is NO difference -


      "The general rode for sixteen days
      The horses were thirsty and tired
      On the trail of a renegade chief
      One he'd come to admire
      The soldiers hid behind the hills
      That surrounded the village
      And he rode down to warn the chief
      They'd come to conquer and pillage

      Lay down your arms
      Lay down your spear
      The chief's eyes were sad
      But showed no sign of fear

      It is a good day to die
      Oh my children dry your eyes
      It is a good day to die

      He spoke of the days before the white man came
      With his guns and whiskey
      He told of a time a long time ago
      Before what you call history
      The general couldn't believe his words
      Nor the look on his face
      But he knew these people would rather die
      Then have to live in this disgrace

      What law have I broken
      What wrong have I done
      That makes you want to bury me
      Upon this trail of blood


      We cared for the land and the land cared for us
      And that's the way it's always been
      Never asked for more never asked too much
      And now you tell me this is the end

      I laid down my weapon
      Laid down my bow
      Now you want to drive me out
      With no place left to go


      And he turned to his people and said dry your eyes
      We've been blessed and we are thankful
      Raise your voices to the sky
      It is a good day to die."

    • Zionist protagonists with their lies and non-contextual statements want to magnify the supposed atrocities of of their victims, and demonize them with the same brush that was applied to them in Der Sturmer for ostensibly the same purpose of belittling their extermination of the Palestinian population. So you have individuals like Ed who cannot deny the distinct parallels between South African Apartheid and Israel trying to say these colonial racists were not so bad, without the slightest reference to their rightfully condemned activity.


      Than you have Witty that must smother the moral voice of anyone who suffered genocide (even to greater degree than the Holocaust) because there is a moral authority which arises from another voice. I have faced this repugnant cadre in academic circles, which belittle the unthinkable so they can reign supreme with their Holocaust hegemony.


      When the facts are examined none of these defenses stand, nor do they give any authority for what is being done to the Palestinians. The so-called arguments do not excuse an apartheid system that was rightfully shut down by world BDS, nor do they dismiss the indigenous genocide of N. America.

    • However, you would be remiss if you did not recognize, as I said in the previous postm that Israel's "rights" are connected at the hip with its bigger brother the Euro/American alliance which has the "inalienable" right to do as it chooses with other nations - because everyone knows, they own the world. So, what you see here -


      That this is just connected to this (below), same process all over the world -



      "Israel's struggle for peace is a sincere one. In fact, Israel desires to live at peace not only with its neighbors, but also and especially with its own Palestinian population, and with Palestinians whose lands its military occupies by force. Israel's desire for peace is not only rhetorical but also substantive and deeply psychological. With few exceptions, prominent Zionist leaders since the inception of colonial Zionism have desired to establish peace with the Palestinians and other Arabs whose lands they slated for colonization and settlement. The only thing Israel has asked for, and continues to ask for in order to end the state of war with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors, is that all recognise its right to be a racist state that discriminates by law against Palestinians and other Arabs and grants differential legal rights and privileges to its own Jewish citizens and to all other Jews anywhere. The resistance that the Palestinian people and other Arabs have launched against Israel's right to be a racist state is what continues to stand between Israel and the peace for which it has struggled and to which it has been committed for decades. Indeed, this resistance is nothing less than the "New anti- Semitism".

      Israel is willing to do anything to convince Palestinians and other Arabs of why it needs and deserves to have the right to be racist. Even at the level of theory, and before it began to realize itself on the ground, the Zionist colonial project sought different means by which it could convince the people whose lands it wanted to steal and against whom it wanted to discriminate to accept as understandable its need to be racist. All it required was that the Palestinians "recognize its right to exist" as a racist state. Military methods were by no means the only persuasive tools available; there were others, including economic and cultural incentives. Zionism from the start offered some Palestinians financial benefits if they would accede to its demand that it should have the right to be racist. Indeed, the State of Israel still does. Many Palestinian officials in the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization have been offered and have accepted numerous financial incentives to recognize this crucial Israeli need. Those among the Palestinians who regrettably continue to resist are being penalised for their intransigence by economic choking and starvation, supplemented by regular bombardment and raids, as well as international isolation. These persuasive methods, Israel hopes, will finally convince a recalcitrant population to recognize the dire need of Israel to be a racist state. After all, Israeli racism only manifests in its flag, its national anthem, and a bunch of laws that are necessary to safeguard Jewish privilege, including the Law of Return (1950), the Law of Absentee Property (1950), the Law of the State's Property (1951), the Law of Citizenship (1952), the Status Law (1952), the Israel Lands Administration Law (1960), the Construction and Building Law (1965), and the 2002 temporary law banning marriage between Israelis and Palestinians of the occupied territories. " "

    • We need an encore of Max's Feeling the Hatred in Tel Aviv -


      The real "cultural mix" in the city with aprox. 4% Palestinians, what a joke. These asses still refuse to acknowledge their ethnic cleansing, and are adamant about not even mentioning it. Terrorizing the Palestinian Israeli tiny minority in the city. If you have been there you have seen it, and if you visit the occupied territories there is no mistaking the genocidal thrust. The place is a joke.

  • Jewish Voice for Peace tries to open debate around Toronto Film Fest, other Jewish orgs (including J Street) look to shut it down
    • Hey Ed, you know why I do not address you? It is because idiots like you are a dime a dozen, with you're pre-canned spam. It would be like conversing with a retard, you're repugnance and frivolous lying trash will bring down Israel with a resounding crash.

    • Hey Ed give my regards to the reprobates at CAMERA, tell about your meaningless lying verbal diarrhea you spewed on this site.

    • Well of course Sin Nombre, if the present course continues they can just almost totally exterminate the indigenous Palestinians. Than they can be just as "legitimate" as other settler states.

    • There is no difference between the below link and what is happening between in Palestine today, even the methodology is the same -


    • Everyone wants to isolate the legitimacy of Israel from the entire framework of what is happening in the Middle East, however Israel is nothing but a continuation of an entire process of colonialism which is taking place in the whole region. The Euro/American alliance set the framework by the artificial lines of national demarcation, what is taking place in Israel and elsewhere is merely the adjustment within the framework which the "dominants" established.

      In rubber stamping the legitimacy of Israel you doom the world to the same course of exploitation and might makes right which is currently wreaking havoc on the planet. It is your acknowledgment that all of the atrocities must stand in their most virulent form, indeed, they must be "improved." Israel is the eye of the storm and is nothing but a visible focal point, the confluence of interest in promoting empire further in the 21st century.

      No matter what corner of the globe you go to dominants are being established in order to secure the continued interest of the few. Those who strangle trade and erect walls of rules which do nothing but pit a tiny portion of the world against the rest and primarily enrich only a few in the process. This is why the "system" is currently collapsing as we post - it is an entire world order gone awry.

      As long as people only think in term of what they presume is "their community" interest only, without the acknowledgment of the context there will be no peace in any area of the world. Israel is only a reminder in this region that the "powers that be" will do what they please, no matter who is murdered and destroyed in the process - and that there is no rule of law except that which is convenient to the dominant force." At the focal point of Israel it says "we have a right to have a racist and apartheid nation, in contradistinction to all know international, domestic law or established tort."

      Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.

      A Zionist Israel is not a viable long-term project and Israeli settlements, land expropriation and separation barriers have long since made a two state solution impossible. There can be only one state in historic Palestine. In coming decades, Israelis will be confronted with two options. Will they peacefully transition towards an equal society, where Palestinians are given the same rights, à la post-apartheid South Africa? Or will they continue to view democracy as a threat? If so, one of the peoples will be forced to leave. Colonialism has only worked when most of the natives have been exterminated. But often, as in occupied Algeria, it is the settlers who flee.

  • Profile in courage: Gideon Levy makes 'In These Times,' not 'the Times'
    • The two state solution is already dead, now it is time for a single state democracy. This will be recognizable to the world, as the Palestinians claim their rights just like the South Africans

    • As the West began it's "conquering" path through the Middle East, it was the job of some to study these cultures that they assaulted and enslaved, they were called orientalists. It was the job of the orientalist to so categorize and define the existence of the people, that the conquering power could exploit to the fullest extent the population(s).

      These orientalists at the beck and call of conquering powers began to describe the people as if they were totally other - different in every sense from the refined, intelligent and noble people who fancied themselves their superiors and therefore masters. If one looks at the time of the crusades there is very little different by way of demeaning description, and in the same way this was used as an excuse to conquer and "civilize" these backward and ignorant mass of humanity - create a "New Middle East."

      The people who were the object of exploitation were narrowly defined, as if their aspirations were other than human. That they did not have the same love for their families and their children that the Judeo/Christian betters have, and they do not have the same sense of community, but on the contrary that they cannot be reasoned with and are barbaric - violent, and without mercy.

      Yet millions of them live among people in the United States, in this very diverse culture. If they are so different, so backward and retarded, such violent people, than how are they living among us in such peace? If you travel through these countries in the Middle East you find great diversity, community and care, indeed, a more ancient and noble civilization.

      What is amazing in this scenario is that the people who promote this view claim to be the heirs of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and it's natural offspring of humanism. Many confess to be in the Judeo-Christian tradition which claims to believe that man is created in the imago dei, the image of god which claims the dictum "love your neighbor as yourself." Yet they "officially" spread this spurious lie through an elite which deceives their people, and an ignorant mass which believes their lies.

      So those who claim to drink from this enlightened spring of humanism, the use of reason to claim the highest pinnacle for mankind, vilifies and creates death and destruction in these lands. As if there is some impenetrable wall that separates us from other human beings, like we have been thrown back 200-300 years without the abilities of modern communication. As if there are no commons, and that we do not live in a world enriched by a multiplicity of cultures!

      People who embrace these concocted views of empire have no idea what a living contradiction they are. They have allowed extremist elements in the seat of power, a rancid and bankrupt Christianity of fundamentalist - apocalyptic, within Judaism a murderous element called Zionism - all wielding influence within the halls of power. A group of modern day orientalists in the employment of an elite that is enamored by money alone and listens to a homicidal corporatocracy. All trying to lump a billion plus people into a monstrous category that must be destroyed.

    • Sometime I really get tired of the constant bullshit - these Zionist think they can just pronounce something with conviction - no matter how far fetched it is from reality, and everyone is supposed to be "awed?" what they rely upon is the gross ignorance of the general population - why they come here and make these silly pronouncements is beyond me, perhaps they like well deserved verbal abuse.

  • 9/11 cast my Jewish identity
    • Here is what you should have all learned a long time ago -


      "I'd sell your heart to the junkman baby(2)
      For a buck, for a buck
      If you're looking for someone to pull you out of that ditch
      You're out of luck, you're out of luck.

      The ship is sinking
      The ship is sinking
      The ship is sinking

      There's a leak, there's a leak in the boiler room(3)
      The poor, the lame, the blind(4)
      Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
      Killers, thieves, and lawyers!(5)

      God's Away, God's Away
      God's away on Business.
      God's Away, God's Away
      God's away on Business.

      Digging up the dead with a shovel and a pick
      It's a job, it's a job
      Bloody moon rising with a plague and a flood(6)
      Join the mob, join the mob
      It's all over, it's all over.
      It's all over.

      There's a leak, there's a leak in the boiler room
      The poor, the lame, the blind
      Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
      Killers, thieves, and lawyers!

      God's Away, God's Away
      God's away on Business.
      God's Away, God's Away
      God's away on Business.

      Goddamn there's always such a big temptation
      To be good, To be good
      There's always free Cheddar in a mousetrap, baby
      It's a deal, it's a deal
      God's away, God's away, God's away On Business.

      I narrow my eyes like a coin slot baby,
      Let her ring, let her ring

      God's Away, God's Away
      God's away on Business.

    • Or, you could look at a different case scenario with the same results. In fact, it is absolutely amazing how settler states say the same things and act the same ways without variation. As I have said before, the logic of both Israel and apartheid-era South Africa can be found in their common origins as settler states. In both cases, the settlers CREATED MYTHS, semi-religious or explicitly religious, including that GOD HAD PROVIDED THE LAND for them and that the land was unoccupied upon arrival, a very, very common theme in every settler state, whether it's the United States, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. In both cases, the settlers portrayed themselves to be VICTIMS against natives who were described as SEMI-BARBARIC OR INTOLERANT. Given the permanent state of siege, every settler state AGGRESSION came to be DESCRIBED as a DEFENSIVE ACT, an approach also common with the United States. By way of example, for South Africa, incursions into Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe or anywhere else always against alleged TERRORISTS were justified as alleged defensive actions.


      This is why religion must be moved as far as possible from any governance of any nation. Not that this was the original Zionists founders idea, but it was used - it is ALWAYS used to create these atrocities.

    • I have to be honest, this is all so ridiculous and obviously manipulation ridden by any standard, that it is inconceivable to me that people believe such nonsense. It is interesting that the indigenous population of the Americas made a judgment call about these types of religions - they have created a god in their own image so they can be excused and supposedly rewarded for what they have done and are doing (this does not mean that I hold to indigenous religion either), like -


      This also does not mean that I believe the fairy tales in any so-called holy book, it is just the teaching that is so repulsive.

  • When do we get to talk about the one-state solution?
    • The "occupation" is a facade, it is really a form of slow genocide, which is beginning to accelerate. There is NOTHING lawful, hence my question of legitimacy. Israel is an army with a nation, not a nation with an army.

    • Perhaps they are trying to convince themselves...

    • So Ed, have you taken your pills today? lol Like I said else where they spew their screeds and lies, for whom? I don't know - Green Footballs is calling Ed.

    • ALSO...And why the two-state "solution" is always an illusory dead end.

    • The one state solution, to be really frank, is the ultimate test of legitimacy of Israel. If there were legitimacy in the current Palestinian/Israeli relationship and their treatment of the Palestinians, and no ulterior motives of final routing for an Eretz Yisrael , one state would not be as repugnant to the Israelis. However, since they want to wipe them out or off the land - both their "citizen" population (over 50% in polls say they do) and the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, they refuse to contemplate a single state solution (however contrived). They merely want a two state solution not for merely benign ideological purposes, but because they have a racist and genocidal agenda - this is why they constantly verbally caress only a two-state solution.

    • "At least the media likes this guy enough to let him speak." No, he is a chosen mouthpiece, just like generals who are "experts" speak on a given war in the media.

      Look at the reality, the reality on the ground speaks of a single state solution, period. The fantasy is the two-state solution which never will come to fruition.

    • And what is treason among liars, murderers and thieves? It is no treason at all, but coming into the light of what a normal course of what a democratic country is supposed to be. In the meantime you have an apartheid and genocidal course, and this is what has been practiced in the two-state mantra while the condition of one (the Palestinians) grows dim, and the enrichment of the other (Israel). Let treason reign.

    • ImTirtzu is stuck on autopilot like every Zionist is, he is just repeating word for word what he said elsewhere. A true spammer.

      The only course that will swallow whole the Zionist atrocity is one state. This is why the Zionists fear it the most, and they squeal with such displeasure over its consideration. When one state becomes the goal it is the familiar refrain that has been defeated before, in civil rights movements and BDS - it is something the world will recognize and can grasp onto striving for a truly democratic whole. The two state solution is the disingenuous charade that keeps this Apartheid beast alive, it is safe as long as it can cover itself with a cloak of seeming "progress" while it consumes every last vestige of Palestinian life.

  • More on Jimmy Carter and one-state
    • Julian, you can have 97% of the two dollars in the front of my wallet, just don't ask for the real 97% of everything in my

    • You spelled that wrong Richard, it is not "peace process" it is "piece process." Every time the Israelis sit down in "good faith" so-called negotiations, they take another "piece" of the land.

  • Norway divestment & Toronto film fest protest continue to get attention
  • Somewhere over the rainbow, Harvard neocons fly
    • You know, I don't blame people for disagreeing with me, part of the problem is that what passes as education in the country really sucks - it is a form of dumbing down. It is important for people to know that these things iam talking about and what others are "just now" focusing on has been going on for a long long time. The system we have in the USA has been functioning like this for a long time, and mere elite franchise - and it is the nature of this system which opens wide exploitation to the few because this is who it serves. It does not serve you, it is a joke, it is a choice between bad and worse - but it is something that has been taking place since the beginning -


      For more plain language (above link).

    • Most people do not want to know about true American history today, they would rather believe the myths given in their textbooks about history. They would rather believe myths that serve the powers that be, but are harmful to those who seek after truth.

      From the very beginning America, the myth of America - a land free of want and the disparity of the old feudal world, just did not exist. There were landed estates given to a few by the British crown, by 1700 the real estate in all of New York belonged to less than a dozen men - in 1760 fewer than 500 men in five colonial cities controlled most of the commerce, the banking, the mining, manufacturing and most of the news papers and journals on the eastern seaboard - and they owned most of the land.

      America from the beginning was not an egalitarian, middle class society. Property qualifications (1787) left almost half without land, and the ones who wanted to hold public office had such standards that few could qualify. The men who got together to write the constitution were successful planters, bankers, slaveholders, merchants - who else could give the time to sit four months in Philadelphia? Many were linked by kinship and marriage, by previous office holding, by military and diplomatic service.

      They wanted three things - a stronger central government for trade and interstate commerce, in order to deal with other countries, and last but never mentioned by your teachers - to put down insurrections and rebellions among the common population, because the majority of them were restless. They tried to take over state governments, there was broad agitation, AND THE WEALTHY WANTED TO FORM A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS! NATIONAL CONTROL.

      Most of the common population (85%) were involved in farming, small farmers, tenants, indentured servants who could work their way out of debt from a creditor. These people suffered under heavy rents, ruinous taxes, and low income. Many, to pay debts, mortgaged their future crops which put them into further debt. Papers during this period complained about "increasing numbers of young beggars in the streets."

      Economic prisoners crowded the jails, and many believed that the revolution was not fought for any good reason - except for the rich. This resulted in rebellions that caused death and imprisonment.

      They wanted to protect "their property" in certain ways - laying taxes, establishing a currency, fixed imports and duties, uniform laws on bankruptcy. Debts allowed speculators to buy securities that they bought for pennies on the dollar, and they were refunded at face value (they made a bundle). Slavery was another form of "property" to be protected in the constitution.

      The framers were worried about worker rebellions, so they brought forth armies to quell insurrections. This was used later when the army was used to break union strikers of the railroads and factories.

      The electoral college was supposed to be the bulwark against popular sentiment. They were all supposed to be propertied people who would debate who would become president. Senators were not directly elected by the people until the 20th century! The Supreme court was hand picked by the president and ratified by the senate.

      When they talked about "people" involved in government process that was a very limited population - most were disenfranchised by lack of property, literacy tests, long distances required for voting - and women were denied totally suffrage. Indians had no vote, and about one fourth of the population was disenfranchised because they were held in bondage - and of course, the black population was not allowed to vote till the passage of the 14th amendment.

      There has been much debate about when the United States took its fateful voyage from that of People's Revolution to one of Empire. Some have posited it early as the Spanish American War, others have placed this departure after WW2 and the build-up of the National Security State. I place it before and immediately after the American Revolution.

      In fact, I maintain that with the "founding fathers," and their statements regarding the nature of the New Nation, that this was their aim even before the Revolution. In other words, all of their documents, their recorded statements, the inflaming of the passions of the people, that their aim was an empire to span the world. So you are going to read something here that you were never taught in your traditional classroom.

      You can see it in the descriptions that they attribute to the new country, take for instance some of the statements of George Washington. Who characterized the new country as an empire as "God's American Israel," and that their "mission" was to be a "trustee under God of the civilization of the world." You find abundant similar statements out of the founders of the republic.

      Consider that all of the leaders were men of means, and that in the penning of the Constitution there was not one statement which accrued to the benefit and protection of the people - having to be forced in amendments by the people where initially not one "father" voted in favor of such protections for the people, it had to be forced on them. In fact, in the very deliberations found among those who wrote the constitution, the father of the said document, James Madison who spoke in the Federalist paper #10 of the "leveling impulses" that had to be discouraged among the people.

      Shay's rebellion, from whence did this rebellion arise? You would think that we were the ideal country by what is portrayed in school text books. No, the revolution did not bring about an egalitarian society. Most were farmers and servants trying to raise themselves out of oppressive debt, in such soil Shay's rebellion took place. Heavy rents, ruinous taxes, and low income were the lot of most 10 years after the war for "independence." Food riots, beggars in the streets, insurrections attempting to take over state governments.

      After Shay's rebellion was put down, there were some very telling words spoken by General Henry Knox to George Washington - " They see the weakness of the government; they feel at once their own poverty, compared to the opulent, and their own force, and they are determined to make use of the latter in order to remedy the former. Their creed is that the property of the U.S. has been protected from the confiscations of Britain by the joint exertions of all, and therefore should be the common property of all."

      So the empire expands first internally with the genocide of the indigenous population, and than within proximity over sea, and finally internationally to the present day. The 19th century United States: Louisiana Purchase, War of 1812, acquisition of the Florida's, Mexican War and Oregon territory, establishment of Caribbean and Pacific interests, and the subsequent emergence at the end of the century, with the Spanish American War and Philippine conquest, of the United States as a global power. We end at 1904 with a United States fully involved in Asia (Open Door Policy) and having acquired an overseas empire based on Spanish possessions from the original Columbian-era out thrusts (Caribbean and Philippines).

      Empire came in the name of "Interventionism." Although US investment and influence had grown through the 19th century, European ties remained of greater importance for most Latin American nations. However, beginning in 1898, a few key events catapulted the US into a much greater role in the Latin American arena. The War of 1898 [Spanish-American War], the US gained real estate in the Caribbean. We took over Puerto Rico from Spain. Historians debate the exact mix of causes for the war, however it was the expansion of the Empire, plain and simple.

      We can progress through the expansion of the Empire, unable to stop and thrusting itself and the people into two world wars, where America begins to don the mantle of Empire from it's European counterparts. To the present with over 700 military bases throughout the world, devouring what it can as swiftly as possible to the present day Middle Eastern debacles. The cost of the whole sordid affair being the enrichment mostly a the few elite whom this government is an exclusive franchise for, and to the destruction of people domestically and abroad.



    • First of all Cris, the "goy-Jewish" issue are YOUR words, not mine , see -

      "...the dumb goy peasants in the provinces..." at your 5:09 entry. So, do not feign that the words are mine, they are not, they are your words of choice. For your information I find both Christianity, Judaism or theism of any type equally ridiculous, a set of myths which is nothing but a process of exploitation of the people - giving some stamp of approval from a deity to work the will of a few, whether it be manifest destiny or some process of redeeming land.

      No one hates the founders Chris, it is just a matter of rightfully defining their amply clear positions and acts, and they were not Christians in a process of founding a Christian nation. Yeah the rich white slave owners, who were a moneyed elite, wanted to create a nation that did not involve their own self-interest - absolute nonsense. Also, Western or Christian "civilization" is a contradiction in terms, because the West is anything but civilized - don't get me wrong, it claims to have a civilizing process but is anything but civil. When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilization he replied - that would be a good idea.

      What brought sustainable prosperity to the people was the people, apparently you know little of American working class history. If it were up to some "system" it would still have everyone working 18 to 20 hours a day, seven days a week - both adults and children, and when they were exhausted or fell ill they would throw them out like so much trash with a bare pittance bearly enough to survive.

      As for any "money powers" that was a reciprocal decision between your ruling elites and the banks (centralized), because they wished to exploit the people as much as the banks and sought to establish their polyarchy. They are there (banks) at the beck and call of an elite to enslave their own people, this is why they sit with rapt attention and gaping mouths whenever the Fed speaks.

      I have read Jefferson clearly, is this the same equalitarian Jefferson the who said - “our new fellow citizens are as yet as incapable of self-government as children.”

      It was not just Schiff who financed the revolution (after all, he was American), it was all of Wall Street. Moneyed interest has always profited from war, and wherever the money came from it has always financed both sides - just like the USA has been in the habit of financing both sides of wars repeatedly. Notwithstanding your shallow and puerile understanding of the Communist revolution, and the Bolshevik mantra which was used to help kill six million Jews (because they were all bankers and Bolsheviks, right?). Outside of this, your historical quip is about as accurate as your "central government" quip, however I have to hand it to you, at least you are consistently wrong.

      I might also add, and I have said it here before - it is people like you, that have some weird fantasy about the mystical nature of the country's founding (super patriots) that are more apt to jump to large Jewish conspiracies regarding cabals, etc. That is because you do not have the foggiest idea about how the nation was founded, the founders, or how our current course is just a continuation of the demigods you see as founders. Extolling mystically inspired "perfect" documents like the Declaration which calls all men created as equal, but refers to the Indian "savages," Constitutions which are racist and elite which would have nothing but the isolation of the people from their government as "perfect" (the Bill Of Rights written later but turned down by every wonderful founder to the man, and only adopted after great force though the state legislatures - more of a relent because they knew without it their Constitution would not fly), a placation device of "representation" as some sort of perfect form (the Romans thought the same as some do now, and to the day they have never supported the people unless threatened, because the system is meant as a franchise of the elite) - it is individuals like you who will yell bloody hell just because you do not know that the will of elites is more of the same since the beginning of the founding! That you find something extra sinister about some Jews that are just acting out their own interests like other elites, because they are particularly pernicious and it is that goy-Jew thing, Christian- Judaism animus, etc. I do not have time to educate you about your own country's history, nor is this the venue.

    • "...the process of separating Americans from their money and heritage through legalized swindle in order to enrich a connected, plutocratic-socialist elite — often utilizing the corrupted federal government to do so, as with the Iraq war and the various Goldman Sachs/Fed-inflated bubbles."

      What "heritage" are you talking about? If there is one for the "people" I would like to find it.

      A "plutocratic - socialist elite" - by this do you merely mean socialism for the rich? If you do that we agree, however that is what capitalism is. It is what it has always been, even before the "founding" of this country. In fact, the very same core can be traced from the kings court, to the feudal lords, and the current elite capitalistic cronies.

      The federal government has always been (as well as state and local) a franchise of the elite. It has not changed since the founding, except with democratic blood, sweat, and tears of the people who faced off with the "powers that be," that are served by the government(s).

      Oh, I see what you mean - it was OK for the Morgans, Mellons, Roosevelt's, Forbes, and Carnegie's but not for "the Jews." Domestic robbery is OK, but this "foreign" Israeli Jew stuff has to stop, eh?

      It is the goy - Jew issue that perturbs you, not the mere fact that the people have been set upon from the very founding of the country, and this might have a little more variation in the group of the elites. I agree with you about the Levant - but it is not merely the Jews who are perpetrating it, as many bloody and costly wars have been fought even before the existence of Israel. Israel would not have flew unless it was in the bosom of a much larger and roomy Euro/American colonialism.

      "This neo-royalism is the antitheses of the vision and actualization of the American Founders." Is it now? What was the vision of the "founding fathers?" Was it the words of the ostensible father of the Constitution Madison in the 10th Federalist Papers - "leveling impulses" that had to be discouraged among the people. Tell me about the "vision." When the "founding fathers" met in Philadelphia they were determined that people of birth, fortune and affluence should control the affairs of the nation. Most of the founding fathers agreed with Madison when he said - "the most common and durable source of faction (class) has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." In other worlds, Madison was talking about reality. He went on to say "the first object of government is the protection of different and uneven faculties for acquiring property." Tell me about the vision...

    • The academic monoculture of Harvard lends to the isolation of any given department. Hence, you can have Israeli war criminals running to and fro on campus - giving lectures on how to oppress people, and taking various classes.

      Harvard in general these days (not everyone) does not seem to produce anyone who can sustain their oppressive arguments in mixed company, they talk among themselves. As a credit (seeing that most cannot argue their way out of a paper bag) for the core curriculum they have the Harvard school name pronunciation class - "I am from Haaavvaaardd." You must get this right, otherwise you do not graduate.

  • MASA drops anti-assimilation ad citing a 'disconnect' between Israeli and American Jews
    • I think doug September 8, 2009 at 4:22 pm, is the closest to the real issue on this one. In the sense that this is broadly practiced among humanity.

      However, on the subject which is a bit of an inside fight, even referring to all the rest of us as "the diaspora," as opposed to the "real" Jews is really offensive. That this quite twisted group of Zionists which act the way they do - quite apart from historic Judaism, would express themselves as the bonafide group as opposed to everyone else. The truth of the matter is that most do not want to find their aliyah in Israel. Clashes over "who is a Jew" cooled American-Jewish attitudes to Israel well before the second Palestinian intifada.

      Many returning birthrighters have embarked on a search for new ways of what is colloquially called "doing Jewish" that have little to do with Israel or even religion. It is not just in America, France's Jews bridled when Ariel Sharon, then Israel's prime minister, said in 2004 that they should move to Israel. The community in France that is less split along denominational lines than elsewhere, is there to stay.

      In other words, the Israeli Jews at the "top" and all the rest beneath them is just not the way anyone looks at matters any longer. The majority of the community does not agree with all that Israel does, and that rough right wing Zionist community is becoming isolated. The days of indiscriminate support are numbered, and the majority of the community in the world wants peace - righteous peace and prosperity, a real life. The cracks are becoming obvious among the hardliner, and if Israel does not want to go the way of the dinosaur it must change into the true democracy that it says it is swiftly, not in word only but in deed.

  • More on those fearsome Gaza surfers who pose a security risk to Israel...
    • That is an excellent point Dickerson, and another might be that they do not want a lot of attention in the waters because they intend to steal the natural resources.

  • wake up, honey, you're just having a bad dream!
  • Connecting with the Jewish rage in 'Basterds'
    • Off subject -

      Gideon Levy calls for boycott


    • "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." Orwell

    • If I were to look at why one atrocity is risen above another one particular scenario comes to mind with the Nazi, that is they did their deeds to what was seen as part of a perceived tribe, internally. Most of Europe sees itself as linked, a typical power bloc or a white haven if you choose. The "unforgivable" nature of the deed is that the Nazi's went after what could ostensibly be called "their own."

      No one minds doing it to people, from the Euro/American centric , that are not perceived as part of the circle. This entire dominant bloc does not mind colonizing, plundering, and murdering what is perceived as the "other." The West and later the alliance competed for who would exploit whom, that is why it was so easy for the "allies" to sit down and divide up the booty after WW2. No one cared who sacked Africa or the ME, because they knew that all the spoils would be accessible for a given discounted price among the alliance.

      The reason why the Holocaust is so prominant is not merely because of its horrendous nature, to be frank there are other and worse atrocities - it is held up because this is something we would never do to " our own (granted that later there was massacres in the new Soviet Union, and this is constantly pointed to as what is supposed to happen with Communism, we receive the lectures in school - along with the lack of "freedom") ." The Holocaust is also highlighted as being the worst in the sense of who did it, but other holocausts are fine as long as we do not goose step. So that everything has been so finely defined that we can ignore the one who coined the word "genocide" and its original definition, restrict its parameters allowing us to do what we choose. So as long as the Holocaust is held high, and genocide is confined and described within this rarefied meaning, the dominant can do as they please and do so with impunity to the other.

    • I can remember the terror I used to feel as a young child (not being in the best neighborhoods, or near them, on the East Coast). In public school, the little "four eyed" (glasses) child that would not join any group for the "protection" it was supposed to provide. Running too and from school and hiding often, I am sure it is not what my parents intended from the stories of tragedy and pain they told me about their relatives and parents - just informing me about the world and to be careful. It would have been easy to develop a unreasonable phobia that everyone is out to "get us." However, they instilled in me along with this, to never participate in the persecution of another person - no matter how different or whether others were doing this or not, but instead to protect them.

      As I grew and became stronger and more self assured of my ability to defend myself the latter half of that advice I received began to bear fruit. I would never participate in the various forms of groundless bullying of others, and when I could would provide a shield for the "targets," and have practiced this to this day in my personal life. So in reality the never again would be a never again in my small sphere of influence for everyone. This is why it is so infuriating and painful to watch others on a grand scale do it to the weak and defenseless, it has to be exposed for what it is and halted.

    • I have not seen the Basterds yet, but I am sure it is not unlike the satisfaction I feel when watching Simon Wiesenthal Nazi hunter stories (even though most arose from fantasy, it proves to be a catharsis). There are many stories that arise from being victims, we plot revenge over and over again in our minds and when it bursts on the movie screen it brings a form of synthetic satisfaction.

      It is another reason for a healthy reaction to the same being done to other innocents. This is why there are so many worthy charities that are a quest to save others from a fate both natural (as disease) and contrived (racism, prejudice, persecution). However when it twists and is practiced on others like the Palestinians it needs to be wholly condemned, and should be a passion as strong or stronger to bring such atrocities to a halt.

  • Grahams ain't Jewish
    • Presence in media and influence do work together, and once again I must apologize in advance that I used on an earlier post, answering some points for Hasbara Buster -

      “To give an extreme example, Arabs are the only nationality consistently ridiculed and vilified in Hollywood pictures. Does this have anything to do with the large numbers of Jewish screenwriters? We can’t tell for sure, we’re not in their heads. But it would be utterly dishonest to claim that the inference is so far-fetched as to constitute antisemitism.”

      The answer to much of this is that there is a confluence of interest Buster, it is a subterfuge that is all to commonly practiced after years of use with various power centers – it is what a diaspora uses. The answer is always that there are many served by the practice, which serves as plausible denial. It is like someone who does well at work, they not only make their immediate boss look good but make themselves more attractive. It is this and both, one and many.

      Just like putting Arabs in a bad light is used to serve as a mask for the occupation by coupling it with the so-called “war on terror,” and yet it serves other interests in this said war on terror. Media and news in particular is also reciprocal, it covers a multitude atrocities with deceptive clothing (as I have said before) and gets a green light to do the same for the occupation. Yes and both, one and many.

    • Look Richard I have said this on a few other sites, this site is unique and there are very few around - why come here and bring to us what is blasted over the MSM daily? If we wanted to hear the same nonsense we would turn our TV sets on and listen, and as for me probably have to take a shower afterward. Yet, you take it on yourself to bring to us what is now these monolithic ideas and skewed information which have been repeatedly exposed - what is the point? Are you hoping that some poor naive unsuspecting soul is going to chance on this site? lol

  • In the Washington Post, Carter speaks of the 'more likely' solution: one state
    • That is a valid point citizen. Especially this example -

      "And, on the one hand he tells the blacks to pull up their own pants while simultaneously encouraging Acorn, viewing them as part of the
      new federal government."

      I suppose I should study this a bit more, in light of the fact that I hear many right leaning older folks having a coronary about Acorn. I'll try to study this more carefully, the "saying and doing" aspect, and try to remember who Obama is pandering to when he speaks.

    • In fact, the idea of the "freeze" is an implicit license, that is why you see the rush to expand. Trust me, this is how these reprobates think, the freeze issue is a green light for more of the same. Do I think the Obama administration was duped? No, they are complicit. You all should have realized this when Obama was campaigning, when he said nothing during Operation Cast Lead except hurry up and finish before my inauguration, and it should have been sealed when you saw who his "trusted crew" was, but with each passing signal it was "go Obama!"

      YES WE CAN

      I call this the Audacity Of Bullshit. Look, the man does not even support his own people - he swallows a beer and that is supposed to show you everything is OK. It was not like anyone was not saying anything, but their voices were muted with no visible platform as they exercised their "free speech," while Obama tells the languishing black population to "pull up your pants." I mean, what the hell did you think you were going to get?

      WHATS UP?

      That is all I have to say

    • "Obama said awhile ago that he expected a peace agreement in two years, and yet he’s allowed himself to get into these stupid intricate talks about just how long a building freeze should last and just what is a freeze and what isn’t and about Jerusalem and blah blah blah for months on end now..."

      Exactly, however the most obvious result of this veer is accepting the contrived "facts on the ground" as a reality that cannot be changed. It is the old "rule" of might makes right, and "possession is 9/10's of the law," when it is patently illegal. So even the process at the outset is totally bogus. This only spells one thing, if you are thinking of getting anything of substance out of the Obama administration on this subject, forget about it.

  • more on Jews in the media
    • In some ways it becomes tiresome going over the same ground with you Richard, because you cannot see or speak straight - you are a person with an agenda, and would deny truth if it bit you on the nose. So, I will let some one else speak about the wonders of modern "professional" journalism -


      Even though I have posted this before I think sometimes repetition part of learning - "the truth is always subversive."

    • Colin, good report. Here is a video from the same source with a little broader spectrum (it is not just the NYT):


    • Richard, you must get a different version of the NYT than Phil and I Tey are "balanced" alright, balanced to one side.

      M&W chief concern in their book is not the Palestinians - but the relationship of Israel to the USA, the workings of the lobby domestically, etc.

      Yes, we are all salivating Pavlovian dogs Richard, you are the only "cool thinking" are patently being ridiculous. You should break the hermetic seal that encases your mind

    • This is just a test Richard - you do know the difference between an op-ed page and a major report from a region, don't you? I hope so.

      The main question is NOT " 'why' don't they report on Belin or Gaza," the question is 'WHAT' DO THEY REPORT on Belin and Gaza. I take it you read the times Richard, and you would not be so foolish as to try to swap stories.

    • Gee Richard, that would make a nice but not a viable argument. I am sure it would fit somewhere under one of the posts, it is just not the subject here.

    • You're invited to make as many pontifications not based in fact as you like Richard, just do not expect us to see them as factual arguments. That is the response your statement deserves.

    • Nice sidestep MW, like many others you like to parse paragraphs to your own convenience and designs, note carefully the context written above -

      "That platform for national issues that effect everyone, use public monies, and is quite questionable (indiscriminate support of Israel as well as other issues that effect every ones pocketbook) does not have an equal access platform in the major media."

      The starting up of a "major media" today is not only monetarily prohibitive (by design I might add) but is flat out denied (see FCC). Which will make it a local concern if a paper is started, and that falls under the rubric of what I said above -

      "Some envision free speech as merely the ability to express yourself in any given group individually without reprisal and so on..."

      I don't think anything else has to be said to reply to your empty retort MW.

    • To expand Citizen, as an example -

      "According to historian Melvin I. Urofsky, "no other ethnic group in American history has so extensive involvement with a foreign nation." Steven T. Rosenthal agrees, writing that "since 1967 ...there has been no other country whose citizens have been as committed to the success of another country as American Jews have been to Israel." In 1981 the political scientist Robert H. Trice described the pro-Israel lobby as "comprised of at least 75 organizations-mostly Jewish-that actively support most of the actions and policy positions of the Israeli government." The actions of these groups and individuals go beyond merely voting for pro-Israel candidates to include writing letters to politicians or news organizations, making financial contributions to pro-Israel candidates, and giving active support to one or more pro-Israel organizations, whose leaders often contact them directly to convey their agenda." Israel Lobby, pg. 115.

      However, you must even go beyond of this but still falling short of calling the Israel Lobby American Jewry - there are many types of organizations and individuals in responsible places. There are the special interest groups like the ZOA Zionist Organization of America, Washington Institute For Near East Policy, the ADL, Christians United for Israel, journalists and academics, various institutions like Indyk's Brookings Institution, American Jewish Congress, Religious Action Center for Reformed Judaism, Americans for a Safe Israel, American Friends of Likud, Mercaz-USA, Hadassah.

      "There are also think tanks, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Middle East Forum, WINEP. There are also dozens of pro-Israel Pac's, The Center For Responsive Politics tracks some three dozen pro-Isral Pac's (and than there are stealth pac's whose name do not reveal them).

      Politically you have the neoconservatives as an entire group. Academics pop up all over the place supporting every move of Israel. You have an entire side of journalists and publications - JP, Commentary, New York Sun, wall Street Journal, and others that obviously lean in this direction (NYT, WP, etc.).

      You also have the entire Christian Zionist camp. They even hold to a theological format which makes the Zionists the "untouchables," and an eschatology which has an entire different format for Jewish "salvation."

      Really, this is merely scratching the surface. When all of them are orchestrated (however not losing their "diversity") the effects are predictable.

    • In other words, you have to take the broad definitive nature of the Lobby, as correctly described by M&W coupled with the ownership issue. These two are inseparable in fleshing out the condition we are talking about in regard to MSM.

    • I apologize in advance, I am just going to repeat what I said on an earlier post because it applies here -

      My recommendation for those of Witty’s ilk is if they want to see the halt to the monolithic “The Jews” that they stop the “Lobby” process as defined by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, which is a very broad spectrum consisting not only of media but always having preferential access to media (and this cannot be broke off from ownership of the media). Which I believe hits the bulls eye of activity as well as the silence that Citizen speaks about – both work by activity and silence which work together in this instance as commission and omission that creates an appearance if not of a cabal a big club, with non-stop open media access while dissent is quashed and ignored.

      M&W lay out what they men from pages 111 in their volume to 150, it is not merely the formal lobby but “loose coalition.” It might be more aptly described as the “pro-Israel community.” The boundaries cannot be identified precisely, the list is so long that it takes this many pages to accurately describe it. Plus most get unfettered main media access, with its consequent international platform. When so few of the opposition get any “press” it makes them appear as outliers, and begins to take on and is dismissed as an extreme fringe. This is what individuals like Witty rely upon, and what he takes upon himself on this blog, to call Phil’s approach “racist.”

      Whereas there is access to everything which is contrary to this view supported by the mass media (as described above), it is that media which is most accessed by the general population. Many who are so wearied by trying to eek out an existence turn to because it is easy, rather than trying to mine for web sites.

      While we are at it let me give a fuller definition of free speech, which major media is supposed to be tied to. Some envision free speech as merely the ability to express yourself in any given group individually without reprisal and so on – but its official definition as defined at the founding of this country is quite different. It not only means an ability to speak ones mind in an official sense, but to have an EQUAL PLATFORM. That platform for national issues that effect everyone, use public monies, and is quite questionable (indiscriminate support of Israel as well as other issues that effect every ones pocketbook) does not have an equal access platform in the major media. Until this issue is addressed it will have the appearance which some find so objectionable (”the Jews” as a monolithic group, etc.).

Showing comments 300 - 201