Clear Full Forecast

Don’t look here! Look there!

By Peter Ewart

Monday, December 07, 2009 03:44 AM

By Peter Ewart

 
Don’t look here! Look there! So goes the art of the magician whose aim is to distract the audience while performing the trick. But it is also the art of the unscrupulous politician who wishes to steer people away from focusing on the reality unfolding right before their eyes.
 
U.S. President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan on December 1st is a classical example of this deception. “It is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan,” he said. “The security of the United States and the safety of the American people [are] at stake.” 
 
Thus Afghanistan, one of the poorest and most desperate countries in the world, whose infrastructure is terribly broken, whose people have a life expectancy of just 44 years, and who have suffered from catastrophic foreign occupation and civil war for thirty years, is now a “clear and present danger” to the richest and most powerful country in the history of the world. 
 
Obama’s words almost exactly mirror those of George W. Bush back in 2003 when he was whipping up hysteria about Iraq’s supposed “weapons of mass destruction,” and the “urgent need” to invade that unfortunate country. (It is interesting to note that none of the 9/11 hijackers were either Afghanis or Iraqis).
 
Obama’s words also echo those of a well-known American T.V. evangelist who has claimed that 40,000 Afghan “suicide bombers” are on their way to the U.S. to wreak havoc on the country. Of course, this T.V. evangelist has not explained how these 40,000 crazed Afghani farmers, most of whom would speak no English, are going to get to North America from their landlocked Asian country (which is 8.000 miles or so away). Perhaps by rowboat across the Pacific ocean? Or a fleet of surfboards?
 
In any case, the bogeyman of Afghanistan (and, if Afghanistan quiets down, then Pakistan or Iran) serves definite purposes at this time for the political and financial elites of the U.S., Britain, Canada and other countries. 
 
In the last several years, the big banks and other financial institutions, through their insatiable greed, triggered a financial crisis that quickly morphed into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
 
Instead of frog marching the heads of these financial institutions off to jail, the U.S. Congress, its pockets stuffed with bribes, opened up the public treasury to them, bailing them out to the tune of trillions of dollars. To a greater or lesser extent, other governments around the world followed suit.
 
To their credit, the American people opposed this massive bailout, as did people around the world. Nonetheless, the bailout was railroaded through.
 
And here we are a year later. At a time when many banks, such as Goldman Sachs and others, are predicting huge profits, the people in the U.S. and other countries are facing a bleak future. Millions of jobs have been lost. Houses foreclosed on. Pensions and bank accounts depleted. And massive cuts to health, education and social services are looming. 
 
What we are witnessing is probably one of the greatest shifts of wealth between the “haves” and the “have nots” in human history. There is deep discontent about this injustice, and it is brewing hotter everyday. 
 
The political and financial elite is acutely aware of this simmering anger. So much so that Alice Schroeder, former managing director at the Morgan Stanley bank, has reported in an article on Bloomberg.com that Goldman Sachs bankers on Wall Street are now arming themselves with guns “to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.”
 
Then we have President Obama’s smoke and mirrors about Afghanistan. The elites know that one of the easiest ways to distract the attention of the populace away from domestic problems is to raise the bogeyman of terrorism and war. It is a time honored tool.  
 
Of course, the main reason why the U.S. has troops in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East is because it has definite geo-political and strategic interests in that region. But an endless and vague “war on terrorism” there and at home also serves as a convenient diversion to distract the population away from the embezzlement and robbery of the country’s wealth and resources by its own elites.
 
In this crucial period, we need to keep our eyes on the ball, whether this be the various levels of government right here in North America or the boardrooms of the corporate and financial elite.  
 
And we especially need to do so when these elites tell us: “Don’t look here! Look there!”
 
Peter Ewart is a writer and columnist based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
 
 

Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

"...the U.S. Congress, its pockets stuffed with bribes,..."

Do you have some proof for this statement? Seriously, it's called "libel" if you don't. Maybe I should forward a link to some email addresses down south.
Faxman, the *bribing* is done by lobbyists of which there are several thousand offically and legally registered in Washington. They are a fact of American politics.

The other method used to sway politicians is to threaten them with no longer making huge financial contributions to their re-election campaigns. Every politician aims to get re-elected once they tasted the power and the perks, known as the pork barrel.

Obama plainly has broken his emphatically stated election promise of bringing the troops home! He said that this would be the very first thing he would do after he would be elected.

Obviously, there are powers in charge which have more clout than he has.

Mr. Ewart's comments nail it down pretty well, imho. Only when the money runs out to fund other ventures will there be a quantum shift in a new direction.

LOL @ Faxman........The proof is out there and has been out there since Abraham Lincoln. Even then Lincoln tried to fight the bankers from what has become with the banking elite. He was killed because of it. 90% of Obama's people are bankers for God sakes! Open your eyes man.
What a great thing the French Revolution was, the Americans should read up on it, when a minority holds all the Wealth thing can get out of hand.
This could also be called the "trickle-up" theory where the money flows from the workers to the rich bankers.
Lots of rhetoric there, not much factual information. Seriously, how do i get a gig as a contributor to this site. I am sure i could be as biased and predictable as Mr Ewart.
Lets see: hindsite proves that there was no weapons of mass destruction therefor it was an evil, uncalled for war. Um....oh yeah, the global financial meltdown was all the fault of big bankers who let people borrow money! Then sold the morgages to more people who were out to make a killing on the market. Ummm lets see, afghanistan is poor and war torn so it could NEVEr serve as a haven for terrorists in the future, why are we there?
Come on guys, lets not give mr Ewart an easy ride here! lets take alook shall we:
For a start, while there were no iraquis or afghanis in the air on 911, i believe they were trained in afghanistan and the govt of afghanistan refused to turn Osama Bin Laden over. Also, the war in Iraq was not about getting the folks who bombed in 911. It was about presuing a perceived threat. Even if your super 20:20 hindsite has determined that the threat did not exist, nobody knew that and Iraq, already under strict sanctions and an enemy of the US was NOT cooperating. here is a parallel to be seen with Iran at present. Anyone want to predict the outcome of that one? As Gus might say: want to bet on the outcome? All those facts aside, there is the main flaw in Mr Ewarts logic: the war predates the economic crisis and thus the bailout. It was not invented to distract anyone, it was instigated by a nation (the people) who demanded some sort of action, and more to the point to be shown that the US govt. would prevent more attacks.
If you follow the US news at all you will know that the press and opposition have been demanding for weeks that President Obama make decisions on afghanistan. He stalled as long as he could, to the point where people were labelling him weak. Whether you like the war or not, it has to be fought and the president needs to make decisions. I am no Obama fan, but give him a break!
As for the bankers, well why not take a little deeper look into the market and see more of the truth. Every public company there is under huge pressure to bump up stock prices. This pressure is coming from the investors, period. If we all didnt want to retire on the backs of usury then there would be no need for corporate bonus' based on stock company stock performance. Therse days everyone feels that they can make 10 percent on the market, year in, year out even thought the economy is not growing at any comparable rate. In a competitive market, mutual funds and the like have to struggle to perform to those expectations. Little wonder they started trding in risk, rather than real assets.
How many folks who defauted on their mortgages should never have got one int the first place? How many of them were speculating, plain and simple? These folks are not victims of corporate based govt. These average people are the problem. The banks may have enabled it, but we the people triggered the financial meltdown in the most fundamental sense.
The people in the US do not actually face a bleak future. Mr Ewart is aware of this, but he chooses to type out such sensationalist tripe, spiced with little bits of hysteria (bankers with guns, circling the wagons, oh my!). I remember when the spin doctors were portraying this meltdown as the next depression. Panic, starvation, etc etc. Didnt happen, isnt going to. Mr Ewart is the one relying on distraction here. He is promoting a rather tired poltical agenda under the guise of exposing corruption and deceit by shadowy forces.
I actually prefer the econo-rants from the 250 commenters. They tend to have more information, more firey and imaginative rhetoric and bigger words....
caranmacil excellent rebuttal.
Is Harper now Obamas lap dog? Obama must be a disappointment to all his lefty pals down south. I guess looking after the safety of 300 million Yanks is more important than where ya are on the political spectrum. Still....? A Nobel "PEACE" prize after you send 30,000 troops to a foreign land? Peace prize in the offing for Dear Leader in North Korea? He hasn't started a war. Yet.
I don't think it's mainly the big banks' and other financial institutions' "insatiable greed" which has caused the current financial crisis.

There's little doubt that it has played a role in exacerbating it, but that's really 'small potatoes' in the overall scenario. The real 'cause' lies elsewhere.

By focusing on "greed" as many are wont to do, or are purposefully encouraged to do ~ by those who want to divert public opinion towards that, and away from the real cuase of the problem ~ we're just as apt to be misled away from effective solutions to preventing future repeats of the same thing as we are when our attention is diverted towards Afghanistan.
America has been in Wars ever since their illegal revolt from Britian. Their minute men were the first **terrorists** Hiding behind trees, and shooting at the British, and then pretending to be farmers during the day. Much like the Viet Cong. Then of course we had the Indian Wars, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, the Mexican War, the 1st and 2nd world war, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Two Irag Wars, and the Afganistan War, to name but a few.

Isnt it rather interesting to note that in all these wars the Americans were **right** and justified.

Why is it that we have political assinations all over the world, but the all the assinations of Presidents in the USA were pulled off by deranged citizens.

When looking at the Americans, and their system, one should look at their whole history, rather than try to look at issues in isolation.

Does anyone find it rather interesting that some of the best friends of the |Americans to-day are the Japanese, Germans, Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese, and that all these Countries over the past 65 years were thier sworn enemies. Quite a tranisition I would say.

All they have left to-day to call an enemy is as Peter says is the broken, defeated, hell hole, called Afganistan.

Pretty sad state of affairs I would say.
In my opinion, the reason for most of America's wars have been more 'economic' than 'political'. (The same could be said of most other modern wars, sans America, too.)

The American Revolution was touched off by a taxation issue, and a looming conflict for export markets between the mother country and her 13 American colonies. One of the first acts of the newly independent USA was to send the US Marines into Tripoli, in North Africa, to suppress the Barbary Coast pirates that were interfering with American foreign trade.

The Indian Wars and various wars with Mexico were both 'economic' in nature ~ to acquire needed territory and resources.

Japan was threatened with war in the 19th century if she wouldn't open her harbours to American exports.

The Civil War certainly had as many 'economic' reasons as it did 'political' ones, with an industrial North wanting 'captive' raw materials ~cotton, coal and lumber, from an agrarian South. And markets for its manufactures.

('Paying wages' to freed slaves is hardly a hardship if those (former) slaves have to bear the cost of their own upkeep.)

Likewise the Spanish American War ~ more territories and resources, but mostly more secured markets for American exports.

In World War One the USA only became a combatant after it had profited mightilly from selling war materials exported to the Allied powers during the first three years of the conflict. And securing a guarantee of later payment for ALL of their debts, in gold, not alternate imports, from Great Britain alone. That effectively ended America's main competitor for foreign markets outside the British Empire.

World War Two was entered as much to forestall competition for world export markets from a potentially victorious Nazi Germany, and to contain further Japanese advances in those same markets, as it was for other high and mighty moral purposes.

Korea, Viet Nam and the whole Cold War era provided the economic stimulus to keep the American domestic economy from collapsing into another "financially" induced Depression. The same could largely be said about Iraq and Afghanistan, only neither have been as seemingly successful as previous adventures. So far.

Part of the reason might be that some things do change. It's hard to maintain "employment" through exports and the production of endless military hardware when those rotten scientists, inventors and technicians keep dreaming up new ways to eliminate the very "jobs" through advanced technology those running the government were hoping to create.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq the US government was predicting that budget surpluses being rung up under Clinton might eliminate their National Debt in the early 2020's.

A "strong" American dollar would result, (there wouldn't be near as many of them ~ since every repayment made on a National, or any other debt, sends that dollar to oblivion.)

And while that should be adventageous to America in its foreign purchases, it would be disastrous to American "exports" and the great "God of Employment". Whose perverted version of 'morality' requires adherence to the spurious notion that there's no such thing as a 'free ride' in a world more and more physically able to offer all its citizens just that.

We come back to the questions, "If no industrialised country CAN fully purchase ALL its OWN 'production' from the total of all the monetary INCOMES (wages, salaries, and profits) paid out in the course of making that production, than how can it purchase the exchange of that production through foreign trade?",

and,

"Why should it ever be necessary for any totally 'self-sufficient' economic entity, (as both the USA and the old British Empire very definitely were)to have to "export" its real wealth for "imports" it doesn't need, nor want, but for some other countries 'money'?" Which, in essence, is really only good for buying the very 'foreign' goods it doesn't want nor need?
AIPAC and Goldman Sachs runs America. America is now a willing puppet state of Israel.

Congress is currently debating a law that would make it illegal to criticize Israel and the politics of zionism. The police state and the use of intimidation will be used to enforce these laws to protect the bankers racket and the zionist power structure now in place.

Goldman Sachs for example has nearly controlled the US Treasury for years now and as a corporation it doesn't pay any US taxes on its profits and financial transactions. Goldman pays zero taxes on its profits. Goldman has zero accountability to the American public, as it is strictly an investment bank and has no retail operations that would be accountable to American public perception problems. Goldman sets American fiscal policy and financial standards. Goldman is essentially a foreign agent operating within the United States under American protection.

45% of GDP in America is accounted from financial institutions, which in turn employ less than 1% of Americans.

The ultimate 'look over there' routine of politicians comes when they state GDP numbers to justify their policy, and then claim it is a reflection of their job growth plans... any politician that states GDP numbers is a banksters agent either wittingly or unwittingly and that is a fact.

Be aware of the GDP talk and call it for what it is IMO.
Socred see above post for your answer. Financial GDP trumps the production economy in todays politics and finance knows no borders especially when 'innovation' of finance is involved for fractional reserve banking induced profits.

The economy finance makes their profits from is not the same economy that the production side makes their profits from which enable employment.
Socred writes, "('Paying wages' to freed slaves is hardly a hardship if those (former) slaves have to bear the cost of their own upkeep.)"

I too have heard this argument... it is the argument of the wage slave we all experience today. The facts however to the American Civil War had nothing to do with that line of argument.

Abe Lincoln advanced the position that the civil war costed far more than emancipation would cost, especially as he reasoned that the American population would double in the next thirty years spreading the cost of emancipation among a greater pool of tax payers earning greater profits from a united nation. In fact that was the key essence of Mr Lincolns contribution to the resolution of the civil war once emancipation became the rally cry of the North, so as to have a just reason to fight and save the United States. For the most part it was a war of blunders and fantasy until Abe was able to focus the North on a moral cause to make winning the war a legitimate standard to rally around.
Caranmacil, that is quiet the conspiracy theory you have there. Need to read more I think. Sounds very naive to me.
"Financial GDP" is in the realm of the 'economists'. Whose track record of predictions are about as accurate as those of the weatherman.

The real economy is governed by the conventions and practices of double-entry, accrual cost-accounting. Currently, an essentially two-dimensional process dealing with 'costs' and 'prices'.

The latter supposedly always being able to fully financially liquidate the former as actual goods and services continuously move through from 'production' to final 'consumption.'

Within this two-dimensional process the accountant uses values denominated in 'money', but there currently is no rational process to ensure that what is represented "financially" in 'money' actually corresponds to the same amount of 'money' itself.

It doesn't. And so we engage in a litany of perverse means to balance the two.

Amongst which is the rise in the 'speculative' and increasingly largely "financial" (as opposed to an actual "industrial") base for the economy.

Such a 'phoney' set-up cannot long endure. It is entirely possible to have a purely "industrial economy" without a "financial" one (though it would not be a very efficient one), but no place has ever yet succeeded in having a purely "financial economy" of long duration without an "industrial" one behind it.

The USA, like Britain before it, is losing its "industrial economy".

(So are we ~ just look at the number of things "made in BC" that were represented by corporate ads in the Official Centennial Record of 1958 versus the number of those same things that were still made in BC when we celebrated 150 years of our existence last year.)

"wage slave" Thats funny. Semantica are a wonderful thing. Every creature on earth does some sort of work in order to survive, live with it. There is a lot of spin in the world, i think 'wage slave' is my favourite of the week.
Eagleone, you read too much i think. But you didnt read my post if you found a conspiracy theory in there. Where did you get the 'US as a puppet state of Israel ' nonsense ? From intefada (thats a web site?) The US controlled by Goldman sachs and the aipic eh? Thats pretty old anti jew (oops, sorry you are portraying it as anti ISRAEL) rhetoric. Ugly. By the way, where did you read that the US congress is debating such a bill? I would like some proof of that.
Well Caranmacil, you have a lot of educating to do I'm sorry to say. It really does show. I almost don't know where to start, but I'll point you in the right direction.

In the US the law was passed on October 8, the House passed HR 2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 containing hate crimes prevention provisions. This hate crimes act was passed as a rider bill attached to the Pentagon budget for the war in Afghanistan.

During Israel's war on Gaza, only 5 of 535 congressional members dissented on pro-Israeli resolutions. After the UN report by Jewish judge Goldstein found that war crimes were committed in Gaza... the US Congress pass a resolution denouncing the Goldstein UN Report and killing its findings through the security council by a similar loop sided vote. Essentially taking American responsibility for the war crimes committed by the IDF in Gaza last Christmas and telling the world that criticism of Israel will not be tolerated.

-------------

Closer to home here in Canada we have the CPCCA a Canadian body, formed in March 2009 by 22 parliamentarians from all parties in the House of Commons. An inquiry was begun on June 2 calling for written submissions followed by public hearings (excluding anti-Israeli groups) running from November 2 - December 8. When concluded, the Steering Committee will produce a report for the government, anticipating a response "no later than the fall of 2010."

Its web site asks: "What is the new anti-semitism," saying:

"Anti-semitism is an age-old phenomenon, yet it is always re-invented and manifested in different ways.
For example, while accusations of blood libel are still being made against the Jewish people, --- instead they are being directed against the State of Israel, such that anti-Zionism is being used as a cover for anti-semitism."

Assuming of course that Israel is a ethnocentric state based on religion and not a democracy that represents Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Christmas is illegal in Israel and we all know what they think of Muslims, so maybe our government is right in saying that Israel is an ethnocentric state, and any criticism of the state and its tactics in war and its dealing with its Muslim citizens is in fact anti semitism enforceable through Canada's hate crime laws?

cpcca.ca

Read up on AIPAC and read up on Goldman Sachs and you will find everything I have said is true.
Well Caranmacil, you have a lot of educating to do I'm sorry to say. It really does show. I almost don't know where to start, but I'll point you in the right direction.

In the US the law was passed on October 8, the House passed HR 2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 containing hate crimes prevention provisions. This hate crimes act was passed as a rider bill attached to the Pentagon budget for the war in Afghanistan.

During Israel's war on Gaza, only 5 of 535 congressional members dissented on pro-Israeli resolutions. After the UN report by Jewish judge Goldstein found that war crimes were committed in Gaza... the US Congress pass a resolution denouncing the Goldstein UN Report and killing its findings through the security council by a similar loop sided vote. Essentially taking American responsibility for the war crimes committed by the IDF in Gaza last Christmas and telling the world that criticism of Israel will not be tolerated.

-------------

Closer to home here in Canada we have the CPCCA a Canadian body, formed in March 2009 by 22 parliamentarians from all parties in the House of Commons. An inquiry was begun on June 2 calling for written submissions followed by public hearings (excluding anti-Israeli groups) running from November 2 - December 8. When concluded, the Steering Committee will produce a report for the government, anticipating a response "no later than the fall of 2010."

Its web site asks: "What is the new anti-semitism," saying:

"Anti-semitism is an age-old phenomenon, yet it is always re-invented and manifested in different ways.
For example, while accusations of blood libel are still being made against the Jewish people, --- instead they are being directed against the State of Israel, such that anti-Zionism is being used as a cover for anti-semitism."

Assuming of course that Israel is a ethnocentric state based on religion and not a democracy that represents Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Christmas is illegal in Israel and we all know what they think of Muslims, so maybe our government is right in saying that Israel is an ethnocentric state, and any criticism of the state and its tactics in war and its dealing with its Muslim citizens is in fact anti semitism enforceable through Canada's hate crime laws?

cpcca.ca

Read up on AIPAC and read up on Goldman Sachs and you will find everything I have said is true.
Have your say and tell the Intergovernmental Committee that you value freedom of speech in Canada and that is the basis of our democracy via an informed electorate that can make informed decisions. No state and no political ideology should be protected by law from criticism of its evils and wrong doing. Its one thing to call a hate crime a crime against a religion, but entirely another when it extends to legitimate criticism of a state or political ideology.

http://www.cpcca.ca/contact.htm
Actually, Eagle, you misrepresent, not educate. There is no law in the US making it illegal to criticise Israel, nor is one being debated. If you actually read the hate crime legislation, you will see that. I diagree with your views as stated, since they appear to me to be thinly disguised antisemitism. How else would you explain pulling goldman sachs from the list of firms that are so often implicated as controlling the US government?
Educate me then, on how calling the US a puppet of israel makes any sense to anyone but an anti israel demagogue. That quote you cited from the CPCCA fits you to a T and i agree with it completely. While it may be true that the US supports Israel more than you would like, and it might even be true that they do so more than they should,(thats a political question) they are clearly not controlling the US. Thus, no puppetry, just rhetoric.
So you know what israel thinks of muslims eh? Now who is ignorant? Hint: it's you. Such generalizations are never valid. Besides, i dont think you speak for us all when you say: 'we all know' because obv. we dont.
I dont think you can compare israeli treatment of muslims to that of jews in most of its neighbour states. I dont remember any Rabbis calling for the extermination of Muslims, anywhere. I can find and have read where muslim immams, even in the west are calling for the end of the jewish state and the death of ALL infidels.
I dont think your posts show a whole lot of learning or intelligence. You seem to read only what you want to believe and then spew it forth as truth and 'education'. It is neither. I can certainly understand your concern with regard to laws against inciting hatred though.....
By the way, please do not attempt to 'educate' me or anyone else by telling scandalous lies! Christmas is NOT illegal in Israel, only a fool would say so and not expect to be found out. As well, Israel IS a democracy, it is another bald face lie to say otherwise. The fact that the population is about 75 percent jewish means that the government elected will likely be jewish just as generations of western governments have been christian.
Given the innacuracies as misrepresentations littering your posts i think you are right after all. I did have ' a lot of educating to do'. Funny, i thought you were guilty of bad grammar there when really you were calling out for help.
Caranmacil:-" "wage slave" Thats funny. Semantica are a wonderful thing. Every creature on earth does some sort of work in order to survive, live with it."
------------------------------------------

The ability to 'contract' is one of the things that's separates us from the animals.

And therein is the difference between traditional "slavery", as it was practiced in the "Old South" prior to the American Civil War, and the "wage slavery" that's often replaced it there and elsewhere.

There was no 'contract' between master and servant in a slave society. The latter is the property of the former, to do with pretty much as he so chooses.

Since the end of traditional slavery there is a 'contract' between the employer (master) and the employee (servant).

Now there is a substantial difference between what is called "contract under duress", where both parties to an agreement have recourse at law to interpret and ensure its provisions are carried out as outlined in a agreement both have FREELY entered into; and a contract where ONE party is placed under duress from the other to enter a contract in the first place.

If that contract was entered into by the employee under duress from his employer, i.e., if the employer is in a position where he can deny the means to a continued existence to the employee where a monied wage is the only means to that existence, you have "wage slavery".

It might be interesting to note, in regards to your replies to Eagleone above, that both "socialism" and "communism" are said to be Judaic in origin. And that in both, extended to their ultimate objective, there is only ONE employer. The "State". "Wage slavery" in its most absolute form? But then what's a "Worker's Paradise" for if not to exalt "work" and make it the primary purpose of Man's existence?
As I understand the matter, which is admittedly not well, I've never had much of an interest in 'religion', the Muslim's Koran regards both Christians and Jews as "people of the Book" who are able to freely co-exist with Muslims. Provided they do not interfere with the Muslims' practice of their religion.

There apparently have been both Christian and Jewish communities co-existing peacefully in predominantly Muslim countries like Iraq for centuries.

To my knowledge, however, neither Christianity nor Islam has anything in them in the nature of the Jewish Talmud.

Where it states how non-Jews are to be treated. "As cattle", I believe one of the passages goes.

Of course most of the modern Jews are probably just about as (non-) religious as most modern Christians are.

The Muslims have a bit of catching up to do there, it seems. Though to be fair, each creed still seems to have more than its share of fanatics.

And as for Christmas, well, I hardly think most modern Jews would ban that. Not a chance. Not when it's the only time of the year you'll hear all those Jewish merchants happily humming, "What a Friend We Have in Jesus!"
Semantics are indeed a wonderful thing. They allow various people with widely divergent opinions to say they're all "for" or "against" the same thing without ever having to define just what it actually is.

Take the fairly benign catch-phrase "value-added", for instance. Something virtually everyone says they're "for" when it comes to our forest industry.

But try and get a definition of just what "value-added" actually "is" that everyone who's "for" it agrees on, and I'm sure you'll quickly find what one person thinks he's "for" is considerably different than what someone else does.

And that's a pretty tame example. Try it with more controversial ones like "distinct society", or "sovereignty association", or "aboriginal title". See how many that say they're "for" (or "against") these things still agree with each other when they each hear the other's definition.

Which brings me to those oft quoted catch phrases "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Zionism", which, according to Eagleone's post above, our government says the latter is a thinly veiled way of using one "anti" to really mean the other. Without actually ever saying what anyone's really against.

To do that we'd have to clearly define what a "Semite" actually is, and also a "Zionist." So far as I'm aware they are two widely divergent things. And the meanings of both words seem to be purposefully clouded in continual obfuscation.

Certainly we could, and do, have "Semites" who are "Zionists", but they are definitely a 'minority' if the proper definition of "Semite", which includes ALL the ARAB people is used. So all the Arabs who supposedly hate Jews are "anti-Semites", and hate themselves, too? No wonder that whole part of the world has been in such a mess for so long!


I hit a sore spot with Caranmacil I guess? Israel is not a democracy... Israel gives no rights to the Palestinians that they removed from their villages in the creation of the Israeli state on stolen lands and as such is not a democracy or the Palestinians would have rights and a vote just like the 'Israelis' have.

Any law that says an ideology such as zionism can not be criticized because it is claimed to be antisemitism is in fact a law that tells people what are the approved ideology to be allowed to think under the threat of hate crime laws.

The politics of zionism are no different than the politics of communism, nazism, liberalism, conservatism, chrisdomism, or any of the other ism's... they are all political ideologies that are very distinctly different from the beliefs in religion such as that of Budaism, Muslims, Christians, or Judaism. To claim immunity for a political belief under the guise of religion is a fraud and very dangerous for the rest of society... I think we can all agree on that.

In that context a mixture of political ideology with religion and hate crime laws become enablers of faith based perversions of manipulated thought for the benefit of fanatics that use intimidation of free speech to limit real debate on issues that shed sunlight on dark ideological agenda's. No political movement should be able to hide behind the innocence of religion as a type of human shield to their own misconduct.

The ethnocentric politics of zionism has a lot to account for. Read the book 'Final Judgement' and you will have a lot of data that directly links the current occupation of American democracy by zionist (both Christian and Jewish) interests and agents.

So you say I am ignorant for saying most Israeli's think Muslims are second class citizens. Thats unfortunate you could think that Caranmacil with the overwhelming evidence of abuse in Gaza and the 'settlements' and the total disregard for the rights of Palestinians in what was formerly their own lands. The Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed from their lands and their future capital city through intimidation, forced removals, denial of citizenship rights, denial of work permits, denial of basic services, and in some cases denial of food and medical supplies... this is an aparthide state that is engaged in institutional ethnic cleansing, and as such deserves every bit of condemnation it receives from the good and moral people of this world that do not stand for that kind of degradation of the human condition regardless of the petty kind of insults thrown out at those that stand up for what is right in the face of what in itself could be called hate crimes for condoning that kind of crime against humanity.

BTW the Palistinians are in fact the semetics and the Israeli settlers are in fact converts from North Africa and Eastern Europe. So the religious liable of antisemitism really is absurd in defending Israeli policy.

Since the time of Jesus the Hebrew have been able to live alongside the Muslims without conflict... not until the banker (Rothschilds) financing of the zionist political cause that used the fear of antisemitism to capture a people for a bankers project for a homeland to black mail the world with and provide sanctuary for its criminal element, not until then did the Muslim world become not welcome for the 'Jews'. That said Iran to this day has a thriving Jewish community that have the same rights as citizens as all other Iranians... not something you will find in Israel.

Now the call for the end to zionsim is not a call for the end of the Jewish people. It is not a call for extermination of the Jews and that kind of talk only serves to make Jewish people captive to the zionist political elite. It is in fact a call to the end of the politics of ethnocentric based classification of rights. Just as a call to end nazism was not a call to exterminate the German people... although Morgenthal and his ilk would have argued differently with a double standard as was apparent after the war and well documented in the Patton Papers (if you have an open mind for research). A call to end zionism in Israel is in fact a call for equal rights for all under a multicultural democracy and that from my perspective is a noble cause and not a hate crime when all the hot air and rhetoric is set aside.

As for Christmas in Israel every single major town or city or municipality has an ordinance banning the open celebration of Christmas and New Years. The birth place of Jesus is surrounded by a 20 foot wall now and armed guards that for most of the recent years weren't even letting foreigners to the nativity to celebrate Christmas (although they let some in last year). This is all besides the point though.

-

As for Goldman Sachs... its not antisemitism to say they do in fact control the revolving door between the banking industry and the US Treasury and have had all their policies they wanted enacted put into place. They are a foreign owned bank of the Rothschilds and they have no retail operations in the US because they are strictly an investment bank... so they have no accountability to the American people and have no qualms about fleecing them at every turn. There can be no question that they control US economic policy. Nobody that is learned on the subject questions that other than those that see antisemitism such as Caranmacil. Lloyd Blankfein their CEO was the one that created the derivative credit default swaps.

-------
Inside The Great American Bubble Machine
Matt Taibbi on how Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print

Big Profits, Big Questions
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/opinion/15cohan.html

How Goldman Sachs took over the world
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/how-goldman-sachs-took-over-the-world-873869.html

Profits & Power From THE SCANDAL
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/deepcaster/2009/0320.html

Red Alert: The Second Wave of The Financial Tsunami
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16218

Robert Rubin: The Man at the Nexus of Big Business and Big Government
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-gasparino/robert-rubin-the-man-at-t_b_353571.html
The above article explains very well how Goldman used political power to make a financial killing and destroyed the American economy in the process.

Enjoy reading... I hope it helps.
Well Muslims since the 7th century but you get the picture...
Eagle, anytime someone spreads half truths and propaganda, they tend to preface their arguments with: you need to educate yourself. It is pretentious, of course, but more importantly a sign that the person is going to go on a closed minded tirade. You are a case in point.
I wont bother telling you that israelt is a democracy, since you define democracy differnetly than everyone else. the things you use to disqualify it are also said about our own nation and virtually every other one. As for your reading list, well i once read a book (this is a true story by the way) that explained that hitler was actually a victim of bad press. The french were willing allies under the Vichy govt. and that had churchill only been open to dialogue, the war could have ended amicably. The point is, is you are not going to read critically, then you are not going to learn anything, you will be a pawn. Which is what i think you are.
Is christmas illegal in israel? No, that was a lie. People can and do celebrate in public. Try reading peoples personal pages from israel. they are a heck of a lot more religious than we are but they do celebrate it. Will it be illegal to criticize zionism in the US? The law on their books goes no further than our own law, and we are (obviously) not forbidden to criticize zionism or israel.
I think everyone has read long diatribes about evil american business dealings in the US. However, you choose to put your into a letter filled with anti 'israeli' or 'zionist' propaganda, and singled out one company in particular. WHy? To prove jews are in an evil conspiracy. Even if Goldman Sachs is deserving of special consideration due to its ficnancial dealings, your use of the fact as a support for your jewish world domination theory puts you into a different league, one i wont listen to without comment. Please dont give me your nonsense about 'your definition of zionism' , you know who you are talking about. As for 'saving jews from the zionists' that is the talk of a dhimmi, straight from the 'reasonable nonsense' propaganda forwarded by arab countries all the time. I thought that stuff was too simple minded for anyone to believe. I was wrong.
I took some time on the intifada web site and read a lot of the same junk you are spouting. It is pretty twisted stuff really. Funny thing though, i could read it with some objectiveness, much as i would read the latest diatribe from a canadian opposition party. Why cant you?
It isnt fact, it is one side of a very heated argument, with little respect given to the truth, when you buy it hook line and sinker, you lose perspective and your wits.
As for refuting the rest of your posts i wouldnt know where to start. Most of the crimes you accuse zionism and israle of could be levelled at our own nation, especially when we were last threatened (in the most vague sort of way) with violence at home. Virtually every point you make is either inaccurate or misrepresentation. in your opinion that 20 foot wall has something to do with persecution of christians, and that the 2nd world war was fought to destroy the nazis. You are a demagogue and i suppose thats what touched a nerve.
As for socredible's suggestion that the koran has nothing on the talmud as far as treatment of infidels is concerned, you have got to be kidding me. As well, read the christian bible, there is a lot in there about non believers. As you perhaps know, the new testament has quite a bit to say about how other religions are fit to be treated, you just have to look. I would agree with the wonderful nature of semantics. Though i have to say that i doubt very much if the troubles of the region can be attributed by our failure to get the words right.
By the way, i just read an israeli news story about how there is a push to pressure hotels and such in jerusalem not to put up christmas decorations....doesnt sound like it is illegal there to celebrate commercial pagan christmas any more than it is to celebrate the christian christmas there (which thousands do every year). I guess if you leave your bomb at home, you can still party there.
Caranmacil;-"As you perhaps know, the new testament has quite a bit to say about how other religions are fit to be treated, you just have to look."
----------------------------------------
As I said, I've never had much interest in "religion(s)", but I'd be obliged if you could point me to just where the New Testament says how other religions are to be treated.
Caranmacil:-"I would agree with the wonderful nature of semantics. Though i have to say that i doubt very much if the troubles of the region can be attributed by our failure to get the words right."
---------------------------------------
Maybe not the region, but there is an ongoing battle to shape the minds in the "Court of Public Opinion" in the Western world. The "Zionist" side has long been ahead on that one. And "words" and the perceptions they are often twisted to convey are very important in that battle.

Perhaps their greatest allies in that battle, entirely unwittingly of course, are the Western world's more vehement "anti-Zionists."

People who I believe should have realized by now that a frontal attack on the policies of "Zionism", even if they are something fully as bad as they alledge them to be, or worse, is not only suicidal but also aids and abetts in the furtherance of those very policies they're railing against.

Even if there is considerable evidence to back up their accusations, which, in my own opinion, there undoubtedly is, it is not the kind of evidence on which the Prosecution could make a believable enough case in any properly constituted Court of Law to secure a conviction.

Virtually all of it could be explained away by the Defence as circumstantial, hearsay, or co-incidental. The State of California had a better case against OJ, and he got off.

Where the accused is deemed to be innocent until proof of guilt, any doubt must be in favour of the Defendant. And in a Court, on the basis of the usual evidence presented by the "anti-Zionists", "Zionism" would walk free.

No doubt the publicity engendered by such a "Trial" would cause another raft of "Holocaust Museums" to open in all the places where ones haven't already been opened. And the attendence at all of them, which would normally be about the same as those gathering to watch paint dry, would soar.

Spielberg would come up with a sequel to "Schindler's List", and Quentin Tarrentino's latest blood and gut-ter, with American army Jews scalping Nazis of all things, would be immediately withdrawn from circulation.

You'd think the "anti-Zionists" would learn. But they do not. It's a pity, I think, because I believe they DO realize they're dealing with an "-ism" which seems to embody quite a bit more than just a secure homeland for Jews in Israel.

Something that extends to a concept embodying an elite 'Administration' of a One-World Government that also determines the 'Policy' to be imposed on the World, without so much as a "by your leave" to any of the governed. I think they know that, but they don't know what to do about it. Maybe someday they'll figure THAT out.
Only by then it might be too late.