• "God invented war so Americans could learn geography" -- Mark Twain.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Black, Gold and Green


"President Barack Obama praised a landmark climate change agreement approved Saturday in Paris, saying it could be "a turning point for the world."  Obama , called the agreement "the best chance we have to save the one planet that we've got."  (CNN)

The agreement sets out a global action plan to put the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well . by limiting global warming to well below 2°C.  The agreement is due to enter into force in 2020.   (EU-GOV)

In other words, the (non-binding) agreement locks in six more years of delay before setting a goal that is insufficient to reverse global warming.    The agreement does nothing to stop deforestation, ocean pollution or species extinction.  Unbelievably this is hailed by the corpstream media as an environmental victory. 

Equally as unbelievable, the Reformed Liberal media in the U.S. hails its iconic Obama for his ecological leadership in “producing” (i.e. conducing to) an agreement — you know as if it were a commodity.

Needless to say, a lot of ink and bytes are spent on dissecting the technicalities of the non-agreement — of the so called “framework” which sets us “on a course” for dealing with global warming.    But it occurs to us that there is a very simple why the United States will never really get behind an agreement to detox the world from oil:  petrodollars.

We are no expert in economy, but everything we have been able to research agrees on one point: without petrodollars the United States would go bankrupt

I shall leave the technicalities to others, but the general agreement seems to be that the life blood for the U.S. monetary system (and hence its economy) is the fact that everyone in the world buys and sells oil in dollars.

This is very important to the United States.  So important in fact that the U.S. is evidently willing to invade, overthrow and/or kill anyone who refuses to sell oil in petrodollars, as was recently the case in Libya.  (This was widely reported, right?)

If this is true — that the solvency of the U.S. government and of the economy it bankrolls — is dependent on the sale of oil then isn’t it equally obvious that the U.S. cannot really get behind any program that calls for independence from oil.  After all, no sale no petrodollar.

This is not to say that capitalism as such is not inherently destructive to the world’s ecology on which depend for life itself.  It is, for all the reasons explained by others and here. It is to say that the world’s largest and most important economy cannot move away from oil-dependence within any timeline likely to avoid ecostrophy.


©

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

A Potemkin March


If anything, the events of the past week have demonstrated how the political class of Europe is a contemptible gaggle of frauds and whores.

We can begin with Francois Hollande's remarks, after the shooting, to the effect that France would stand courageous and free, face to face against the brutal attacks.    Volte face,



Ah yes!  The very image of valour!

Several days, the politicards of Europe rassembled on the streets to strike a United Front against Anti-Semitic Islamic Terrorism  (UFASIT).



How dauntless!   Chests to the front!  Faces to the air!  Braving the elements and defying those who would (as they had said) seek to make us afraid.  Non!  Non!  et toujours, Non!

How we wondered, could the two photographs be squared?   Had Hollande, like some slug turned butteryfly, metamorphosed from a man cringing behind beefy shoulders to a reincarnation of La Pucelle?  How could this be....?


All they needed was to hire stand-ins and stunt-men to do the walking.  

What a contemptible bunch of craven, hypocrites.   Nothing they say is worth the gum stuck on a sole.

And the pressitutes were no better.  Image after image on paper, tube and net, showed a phalanx of leaders walking at the head of what appeared to be a massive column of people, shoulder to shoulder and sidewalk to sidewalk  the length and girth of the boulevards.   Truly!  Truly!  Leaders and Led alike in common cause against The Them.

And it was all an empty facade;  a fraud dutifully perpetuated by our free and fearless press. 

As we have said elsewhere, this organized manifestation was a demagogic pep-rally aimed at stampeding the populace into accepting yet another round of "securitizing" in the so-called war on terror.   We hadn't thought it would be quite such an Orwellian farce.



Saturday, January 10, 2015

Exploiting Charlie


In what can only be described as a transparent act of Zionist self-promotion, Israeli Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu, has sought to re-brand the Charlie Hebdo attacks as acts of anti-semitism.   His manoeuvres in word and deed were aimed at insinuating Israel into the tragedy, co-opting the narrative and, by means of the usual orthodoxies, exempting Israel from any criticism of its policies.

A day after the attacks on the magazine's offices but a day before the hostage-taking at the kosher market, Netanyahu  identified the attack on Charlie Hebdo with attacks on Israel.  You are victims of terrorism just as we are victims are victims of terrorism.

After the murders at the market, Netanyahu followed up with a punch from the other side, this time branding the attacks as evidence of a rising tide of anti-semitism in Europe.  Eo instante the entire incident got metamorphosed by the Zionist propaganda machine as more perennial persecution of Jews in the Land of the Goys. 

Come home! cried Bibi,  Come home, to your home in Israel!  Distilled to its primitivity,  Netanyahu's  left right punch was: "Europe is Us. You are Israel."  To Europe: "We are part of you."  To Jews "Come home to us."   It was all classic ploys of insinuation and cooption.

Charlie Hebdo and Israel are simply not in pari materia.  The satirical weekly  was not in the business of corralling an entire population in Gaza or stealing land in the West Bank.  The two are neither geographically nor morally equivalent.

Although it might astonish some Jews to think it, a Palestinian shooting back at Israeli-Jews is engaging in some form of self-defense or protest against a material harm.  Professed Muslims shooting up the cartoon staff of a weekly for insults to the dignity of the Prophet are defending nothing but their own subjectively entertained abstractions.
  
The staff at Charlie Hebdo were victims.  Israel is a belligerent party in a conflict over land but it is not a “victim”.  The Zionist capacity for foisting confusion is boundless.

It is quite fair to say that the post-war survivors of Nazi genocide who emigrated to Palestine were victims.  But an idiot ought to understand that does not make them “victims for all purposes.”  It does not make them the victims of Palestinian reprisals in what became a war over land.

Had Netanyahu said: the French press is the victim of Islamic terrorism "just as" Israel is the victim of Palestinian counter-attacks,  the analogy would have broken apart of its own weight.  To ensure the foisting of the petard, Netanyahu replaced the word “reprisal” with the word “terrorism.” Poof!  As if pulling a rabbit out of a hat, the matter now becomes “self-evident.”

The essence of terrorism consists in murderous acts against people who have done nothing wrong with respect to the perpetrator.  The victims of terrorism are victims in the true sense because they themselves have done nothing culpable and are not even engaged in co-belligerent hostilities. 

The enemy soldier on a battlefield, the police forces of an occupying power, the officials, ministers and  kings of an enemy state are not truly “victims” of terrorism because they are responsible parties engaged in an actual conflict.   The act which murders them in bed or blows them up is called “terrorism” simply because it is not done in accordance with the accepted “rules of war” but the officials so-killed are victims only in the sense of being “subjects” of the deed.

Adding the phrase “of terrorism” to the noun “victim” has the intended effect of “proving” that the person called a “victim” was truly a victim.  After all, anyone who suffers from terrorism must truly be a victim!  QED.

Netanyahu's analogy was not rendered less spurious by the fact that Palestinians may engage in reprisals.    While it is true that reprisals are often taken against non-combatant "innocent civilians," the reprisal is pay-back for a prior act by the opposing party, which was itself unlawful; for example, collective punishment against non-involved civilian.    Reprisals do drag the conflict into a never ending spiral of revenge in which both parties end up engaging in murderous acts which become less and less justifiable with each iteration.   But "attack vs. attack"  or "reprisal vs. reprisal" or "terror  vs. terror"  are simply not the same as  "innocence vs. guilt."

Israel is not a victim of anything. Period.  Netanyahoo’s attempt to piggy Israel onto the back of Charlie Hebdo was as ludicrous and contemptible as if he had thrown himself into the Charbonnier’s grave, crying for the funereal sod to be cast over himself.
 
As if that were not bad enough, Netanyahu then attempted to brand the entire affair as a symptom of a yet another new wave of ever rising anti-semitism in Europe.

Once against equivocations.  What did he mean by “in Europe”?  Did he mean by Europeans in general or by terrorists acting within the borders of Europe?   From Netanyahoo’s perspective you can take your pick because he comes out on top either way.  It is a perfectly convenient and exploitable ambiguity.

Of course, given the context, Netanyahu would say that he meant anti-semitic attacks by "all them radical Jew-hating Arab types in Europe."   But the limitation (such as it might be implied) takes place within the larger context of a century and a half of Zionist history qua propaganda accusing Europe of being indelibly and perpetually anti-Semitic.   (If any one doubts this, he need only read Judah Pinkus' Auto Determination, Zionism's own declaration of independence.)

Given the by now established Zionist usage, "anti-semitism in Europe" gets quickly metamorphosed into "European anti-semitism."   The call for "measures to combat anti-semitism" just as quickly shifts focus from measures aimed to prevent or deflect specific crimes of hate to measures aimed at suppressing any "anti-semitic" criticism of Israel or dissent from Zionist doctrine. 

This entire canard  gets built upon the fact that in the course of the event four Jews were killed.   But there is, as yet, no evidence that they were killed because they were Jews.

Let us go back to what ought to be obvious.  The killing of a Jew is not ipso facto or a priori an anti-semitic act.  As anyone else, Jews can be killed in a variety of circumstances from a variety of motives.  For an act to be anti-semitic, it must be motivated by some kind of hatred or animus against Jews, as a designated group or characterized class, and that animus has to be vented against or taken out on a particular person seen to be representative or symbolic of the group. 

The murder of Charbonnier, et al. was not an anti-semitic act not only because none of the victims were Jewish but more importantly because none were killed for any reason having anything to do with Jews.  In fact, the motivation for their murder was plainly and simply that they had supposedly insulted the Prophet.  They were killed because they were seen to be anti-islamic.

The murder of the hostages in the kosher supermarket is more problematic.  The issue here turns on whether the market or the hostages seized therein were chosen on account of their ethno-religious affiliation — in other words was hatred of Jews the reason for choosing to attack the market in the first place?

It could be argued that a Jewish market was chosen because the perpetrators regarded Jews as “disposable” and of “no account;” and, to this extent, the motivation would fall under the umbrella of anti-semitism.  

But there is, as yet, no basis for that conjecture.  Between the Charlie Hebdo murders and the assault on the market, the perpetrators made a video explaining their actions.  At no point does the video resort to anti-semitic screeds or justifications.   If the perpertrators’ motives were anti-semitic and if they were going about publishing their motives, it  makes no sense to think that they would “hide” exactly that which they were making public.

It is simply quite possible that the choice of a kosher market was happenstance.

Moreover, what gets lost in the wash of sophistries, is that between the Charlie murders and the assault on the market, the perpetrators also blew away a policeman -- a policeman who was a Muslim.   This fact hardly gets mentioned at all and certainly not by Netanyahu & Cie.  Does his murder bespeak a rising tide of islamo-terrorist anti-islamism? 

Anti-semitism may or may not exist in Europe, but these murders have little to nothing to do with it.  What Bibi is attempting to do is not only to associate Israel with the victimization of the Charlie Hebdo staff, but to re-brand the entire incident as proof of  “anti-semitism” which can then be exploited to Israel’s advantage by characterizing any opposition to Zionism or Israeli policies as murderous terrorism and genocidal hate.

Netanyahu's incredibly swift initial response to the massacre, in which he all but explicitly identified Israel as a co-victim was evocative of the same Israeli response which followed on the heels of 9-11.  Within hours of the Twin Towers collapsing, the Israeli consul in New York, Simon Perez in Tel-Aviv and Ehud Barack in Moscow (where it was 4.0 a.m.) were on American television repeating the same, coordinated line: now you know what Israel has been suffering; join us in our war against terrorism.

Netanyahoo is a gutter punk and a bully.  He is full of weepy-aggro bluster and cunning deceits. Scratch the surface of anything he says and the  malodorous stuff of which it is made becomes readily sensible.

But this is nothing specific to Netanyahu.  Israel as such is exploiting Charlie in order to insinuate itself into the tragedy, co-opt the issues and exempt its conduct and policies from critical examination or criticism.    

There is a broader gambit at issue here as well.  Over the past decade, Israel has also made it a policy to insinuate itself into Europe itself as a kind of special status part of the European Union.   It has done so for economic and geopolitical reasons with the ultimate aim of getting people to think of an attack on Israel as an attack on Europe itself.   Of course, the Europe Israel wants to be a part of is, is a Europe which adopts whole cloth the Zionist platform and polemic.  It is a Europe that will tow the line of the Jewish State. 

.