.. and the AusBC.
Subtitle: Dare we hope to make a difference?
-=*=-
1st of all, a word: conspiracy[1].
Clarification: the following is no conspiracy theory; it's simply a perfect illustration of 'what you see is what you get' (WYSIWYG). In Lakoff-framing terms, mentioning 'conspiracy' could conjure up the 'tin-foil helmet' meme - a truly ghastly neocon contrivance - but I defy such framing; I'm actually above it. I term myself a 'seeker of truth,' and one of the tasks associated with truth-seeking is to expose (filthy, lying) propaganda wherever it is found.
Many of us will have heard the term "Victor's History," and even the more chilling "Victor's Justice."
Q: How fair is either?
A: Not.
But not 'just' not, rather disastrously so.
-=*=-
The primary impulse behind this "lies, damned lies" post was the "Saving America!" article by David G on his dangerouscreation site, and more specifically a comment on that thread by atheo:
«The neocons have been behind most of the critical political changes in american foreign policy since the early 1970s and yet, politically, they remained completely invisible for almost thirty years. For instance, the jewish lobby in america, and the "state" of israel, were responsible for pushing america and britain into the first gulf war. With the exception of patrick buchanan’s remarks about the jewish amen corner, no commentator discussed the neocons’ role in triggering this war or the subsequent sanctions against iraq. However, america’s invasion of iraq in 2003 has brought about a significant political change. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of commentators criticizing the likudnik traitors at the heart of the bush administration who initiated america’s invasion of iraq.»
[atheo on David G's "Saving America!"]
I followed up atheo's "buchanan’s remarks about the jewish amen corner" and found this:
«Ever since August 2, Israel and what Pat Buchanan has brilliantly called its extensive "amen corner" in the United States, has been beating the drums for immediate and total destruction of Iraq, for the toppling of Saddam Hussein, for destruction of Iraqi military capacity, and even for a "MacArthur Regency" to occupy Iraq quasi-permanently. Pat Buchanan has distinguished himself, from the beginning, as the most prominent and persistent critic of the war on Iraq, and as the spokesman for a return to Old Right isolationism now that the Cold War against the Soviet Union and international communism has ended. Hence, it is no accident that the ADL picked the occasion of Buchanan's hard-hitting critiques of the war hawks to unleash its dossier, to issue and widely circulate a press release smearing Buchanan as anti-Semitic, which was then used as fodder for an extraordinarily extensive press campaign against Buchanan.»
[lewrockwell Dec'90 Murray N Rothbard PAT BUCHANAN AND THE MENACE ANTI-ANTI-SEMITISM]
(note the date, this war on Iraq was the 1st, i.e. Gulf War I) ... and I also found this:
«Kyuma was correct about one thing. The bombings did end the war. But that’s only because the United States wanted the war to end that way, partly so they could see how well the bomb worked, but principally to put the Soviet Union on notice that after the war, if the Russkis put up too much resistance to American imperialistic ambitions, this was a sample of what they could expect. Kyuma could just as correctly have said: "I understand that if the United States had accepted Japan’s peace overtures the war could have ended without the use of the atomic bomb." As opposed to the American nationalists’ version of history, this version is well documented and established.»
[William Blum/Neocons, Theocons, Demcons, Excons, and Future Cons]
.. which in turn cited this:
«The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946 concluded:
It seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.{26}»
[William Blum/Hiroshima: Last military act of World War II or first act of the Cold War?]
This is what started me on the road to "Victor's Justice." I then turned this up:
«The practice of Victor's Justice (hanging the losers for the same types of "war crimes" as committed by the winners) is closely related to the concept of Victor's History, a carefully crafted version of the past based on lies, omissions and other destruction of the historical record, whether by outright destruction of physical evidence or the destruction or intimidation of unwanted witnesses who would contradict Victor's History.»
[Smith/"Victor's Justice" and "Victor's History": Old Traditions..]
.. and via Smith finally (for now) this:
«"While all other Sciences have advanced, that of Government is at a stand; little better understood; little better practiced now than 3 or 4 thousand years ago... No sooner has one party discovered or invented an amelioration of the condition of man or the order of society, than the opposite party belies it, misconstrues it, misrepresents it, ridicules it, insults it, and persecutes it. Records are destroyed. Histories are annihilated or interpolated or prohibited sometimes by democratic assemblies and sometimes by mobs... If you ask my opinion, who has committed all the havoc? I will answer you candidly; ecclesiastical and imperial despotism has done it, to conceal their frauds.
"Why are the histories of all nations, more ancient than the Christian Era, lost. Who destroyed the Alexandrian Library? I believe that Christian Priests, Jewish Rabbies, Grecian Sages and Roman Emperors has as great a hand in it as Turks and Mahomitans[2].»
[Steve Farrell, 22Apr'05 quotes John Adams]
John Adams shows us, amongst other things, that Islamo-bashing has a history.
-=*=-
So, long story short: we are lied to. Not just 'little whites,' but whoppers. To the extent that the murder of countless innocent citizens, over time millions of ordinary people - just like you'n I - people guilty of no crime, none at all except possibly for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, is denied to be otherwise from what it actually is, namely murder; bloody murder: criminal murder.
-=*=-
1. As atheo pointed out, a neocon/Zionist cabal was a 'prime-mover' behind the US of A's illegal invasion of Iraq now turned brutal occupation (murder for oil), and atheo went on to mention "likudnik traitors." (As an aside, and hardly coincidence, why did Alcorn begin the WD-campaign to oust me?)
2. As the Pat Buchanan's "amen corner" reference attests, these likudnik traitors have long been sticking their (filthy, lying) oar in. In actual fact and in hindsight of course, likudnik traitors, aka M-W's "The Israel Lobby" have been insinuating their lies since and before the (illegal!) foundation of 'modern Israel.' Note: definitely illegal; Israel claims UN parentage, however Israel not only ignores but violates UN law, and these violations on a massive scale: murder for land and water. Can't have it both ways, hence 'illegitimate sprog.'
3. As the Blum quote shows, US lying and murdering extend from the grisly A-bombing, but other material from Blum (and others yet again) shows an even longer history and right down to this day, see Blum's "Killing Hope," "Rogue State" etc.
4. Smith draws our attention to "Victor's Hypocrisy,"
5. and Smith's quoting of John Adams shows that denying and manipulating history, aka lying, goes back to the ancient Greeks and probably beyond.
It's no surprise that criminal murderers would lie in attempting to disguise their ghastly crimes. What does come as a surprise is when one finds out about these lies - 50 or 60 years down the track in respect to the A-bombings and formation of Israel, say, and the subsequent murdering for spoil that goes on continuously around the now sadly mostly ex-Palestine, and around US troops almost everywhere, almost every-when, and realise also, that the perpetrators' lies have been 'channelled' by such icons as Miller at the NYT, and - gasp! Shock! Horror! - by our very own AusBC. I once defended Israel - on the basis of info largely if not wholly transmitted to me via the AusBC. How wrong I was, and how wrong the AusBC. Lying bastards, and QED.
Miller at the NYT and the AusBC are supposed professionals, seen to be lying in the course of their business. When they retail lies they are violating their remit, it makes them lying traitors. (And these lies contribute to the failure of our democracies.) But what of the amateurs, the Morrellas and MacDougalls, the Pahoffs and Parsons/Ramsey? On the simplest test of "The greatest good for the most people," the depredations of the US (murder for oil) and Zionists (murder for land and water) fail utterly. In summary and again: WYSIWYG, we can see how many suffer (lots'n lots) for the benefit of a tiny (mostly already obscenely rich) few. Sooo, while we can see the direct cui bono, the question arises as to what's in it for the amateurs? Are they merely erring ideologues, or do they get their cut from the murdering thieves?
Irrespective of the answer to "What's in it for them?" and coming full-circle, we see how a Zionist/neocon cabal is at the current heart of the corruption infecting the US & Israel + Lobby = USrael. It was the 'genius' of GWBush and his hubris (not neglecting the liars Blair and Howard), plus the serendipity of the internet, that gave us truth-seekers the opportunity to peek behind the (venal!) MSM's veil, to discover the lies deployed (see the 935 for a sample), these lies deployed in a shameful attempt to disguise the heinous rot that is at the basis of USrael's criminal and totally dishonourable murder for spoil. I say, as a representative sheople®, "Not in my name!"
Fazit: Having seen the scale of the lies, can we stop them - i.e. the lies as well as the liars, and the murders that they try to disguise - and bring the perpetrators to justice? If the answer is "No," then - daaarlings, where lies any hope?
-=*end*=-
PS Exactly why do we (the sheople) tolerate crime at all? We have our police, and know full well that 'crime does not pay' (much, if at all. Some crims do get away, sadly.) In general this system works - until and unless the police themselves fall into corruption. We can go so far as to say that criminals are also psychopaths[4]. Yet our so-called 'leaders,' down through all the ages, have not just tolerated crime, they often perpetrate it. Yeah; just as in B, B & H's murder for oil and Israel's murder for land and water. When attempts are made to police the leaders (the UN, say) then the leaders sooner rather than later corrupt the very police sent to control them. This leads immediately to a discussion of the good vs. evil supposed 'twins:'
«Truly, there are two primal Spirits, twins renowned to be in conflict. In thought and word, in act they are two: the better and the bad. And those who act well have chosen rightly between these two, not so the evildoers.»
[The Gathas, Yasna 30.3]
How delicious the origin: c.628–c.551 bc Zoroastrian, aka Iranian!
But then contemplate that no religion has succeeded in trammelling all our so-called leaders' criminal impulses, impulses which all too often result in criminal, thieving and murdering acts. See Iraq, 1892 (Curzon) via 1919 (Churchill), via 2003 (Bush) to present (what democracy?) - see ex-Palestine, 1947 to present (what peace process?)
Ref(s):
[1] conspiracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire] [POD]
conspiracy of silence n. agreement to say nothing. [ibid.]
conspirator n. person who takes part in a conspiracy. conspiratorial adj. [ibid.]
conspire v. (-ring) 1 combine secretly for an unlawful or harmful act. 2 (of events) seem to be working together. [Latin spiro breathe] [ibid.]
[2] Muhammadan n. & adj. (also Mohammedan) = *Muslim. [Muhammad, name of a prophet] [ibid.]
Muhammad1 (also Mohammed) (c.570–632), Arab prophet and founder of Islam.
In c.610 in Mecca he received the first of a series of revelations which, as the Koran, became the doctrinal and legislative basis of Islam. In the face of opposition to his preaching he and his small group of supporters were forced to flee to Medina in 622 (the Hegira). Muhammad led his followers into a series of battles against the Meccans. In 630 Mecca capitulated, and by his death Muhammad had united most of Arabia.
[The NEW OXFORD Dictionary OF ENGLISH]
..., having successfully united tribal factions of the Hejaz region into a force that would expand the frontiers of Islam. He was buried in Medina. Islam is now the professed faith of some 1,000 million people.
[The OXFORD World ENCYCLOPEDIA]
[3] heinous adj. utterly odious or wicked. [French haïr hate] [POD]
[4] psychopath n. 1 mentally deranged person, esp. showing abnormal or violent social behaviour. 2 mentally or emotionally unstable person. psychopathic adj. [ibid.]
11 comments:
G'day Phil,
A fine piece. Let us see if any who disagree with your analysis can do so with their own researched and reasoned response. Sadly, many cannot, or will not.
A few articles that to add weight ...
From Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/to which add the relevant part of the address I will give with each article):
Sidney Blumenthal (add to above books/excerpt/2008/04/14/cheney/ Dick Cheney was never a "grown up". Looks at how the neocons gained influence and how Limp Dick used them.
Gary Kamiya (opinion/kamiya/2008/04/15/` iraq_ten_commandments/)
Iraq: The ten commandments - one of the ten:
Commandment VI
Do not allow neoconservatives anywhere near Middle East policy.
Neoconservative ideology, the pea-size brain that drove the Bush administration Stegosaurus, is a weird amalgam of Wilsonian idealism, historical ignorance, American triumphalism and an Israeli-centric worldview. In practice, what these ideas amounted to was "America must hit the Arabs in the face to teach them a lesson." This was not a good idea.
Special Bill Kristol Sub-commandment VI a
Stop giving these buffoons prestigious jobs on newspaper-of-record Op-Ed pages, top magazines and television shows. They have been completely and consistently wrong about everything. Must we continue to be subjected to their pontifications?
On crime without punishment - Chris Floyd Too Much of Nothing: Crime Without Punishment, War Without End..
www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1485/135/
The President of the United States has openly, proudly admitted that he approved the use of interrogation methods that are by every measure -- including the measure of United States law -- criminal acts of torture. It is one of the most brazen and scandalous confessions of wrongdoing ever uttered by an American leader -- and it has had no impact whatsoever. No scandal, no outcry, no protest, no prosecution.
This pattern has recurred over and over throughout the Bush Administration. Bush and his minions commit crimes and atrocities in secret; they move heaven and earth to conceal their filthy deeds; they squirm and squeal like panicked rats when their some small portion of their evil comes to light; they belch forth a relentless series of self-contradictory lies to cover up, obfuscate or explain away the crimes; and when at last their malefactions can no longer be denied, they trot out the president himself to say: "Yeah, we did it; so what?" And then....nothing happens.
So the sheople blindly follow leaders who lie, who play the same old games ... but to where? Some ideas from Michael T Klare at tomdispatch.com/.
post/174919/michael_klare_oil_rules_
Meanwhile, some people prefer the cyber equivalent of tea parties and mental masturbation. If you are not part of the solution ...
G'day Phil,
I hope you don't mind a digression (and apologies to David G) but something has happened at Webdiary that takes the cake. And as I mentioned tea parties, cake is appropriate, and given the subject of the incident, so is mental masturbation.
And recall: if you are not part of the solution ... WD is not part of the solution.
The incident I refer to concerns Craig Rowley's attempt to highlight Eliot Ramsey's dishonesty. Fiona Reynolds has put an end to the exchange and has invoked WD ethics and guidelines:
# In hindsight, Webdiary should not have published Craig's post in which he accused Eliot of being a liar (and Craig should be aware that he should not have made such an accusation), or should have modified it so as to remove that clear breach of Webdiary's ethical guidelines.
# Webdiary apologises to Eliot for having published in breach of Webdiary's ethical guidelines.
This is hilarious as people have been banned for trying to get management to uphold their ethics and guidelines. Now they are invoked in favour of someone operating under a nom - Ramsey is C Parsons, notorious for dishonesty and disruption. His existence at WD is based on a lie.
This is not news to WD management. To clarify some comments I have made elsewhere (and I have emails to prove what I am about to write, and I did email Fiona Reynolds to give her a chance to respond before I published the following) here are just a few facts (I have more material):
Fiona Reynolds has stated that she picked Ramsey as Parsons from the start. She has used the diminutive "CPER" (C Parsons is Eliot Ramsey) and has expressed concern for his mental state.
The other moderator who has been involved in the exchange is Richard Tonkin. In January Tonkin had this to say to me about CPER:
I've had enough too, which is why I'm getting more pro-active.
The above is reference to trying to get CPER to stick his neck out.
CPER was banned for a while, I suspect to mollify Tonkin. Now the troll is back and Tonkin continues on. Was he given a talking to so he would get with the program?
Must be a really "good" reason people make such hypocrites of themselves.
Bob and Phil,
I have never had any doubts that ER = CP myself. But in this case Craig Rowley made a very specific point and called ER a liar. If you call someone a liar then you need to be able to prove it, which without access to the original transcripts Craig could not do.
At various times Bob you demanded people retract statements - how is this different?
G'day Craig W,
If we accept that ER=CP (and spinifex, others) then WD should explain itself. Only when 'Alan Curran' painted s/he/it-self into a corner did WD expose s/he/it as a nom de plume. The abrupt disappearance of Parsons one day and subsequent, almost immediate appearance of Ramsey has been documented, almost endlessly discussed. The worst of the worst fakes must be Morrella. Either s/he/it set out to imitate Jay White, or s/he/it *is* Jay White, I don't care which - and even less for what JW/PM or who/whatever s/he/it is says. JW/PM is in all ways fake; a liar, a slanderer and a vile propagandist. (Q: What's in it for s/he/it?)
Deploying a (non-declared) nom de plume is a WD offence; either WD knows that 'Ramsey' (and JW/PM, for that matter) is fake (in which case they should declare so), or they are in violation of their own 'ethics.' Since *we know* that CP=ER, so WD *is* unethical. Basta! - and QED. (Q: What's in it for them?)
Now, one could say - and I do, that it doesn't matter *who* anyone is, it's what s/he/it *says* that's the nub. We know all about CP/ER; cynical ridicule routine and all. Same for JW/PM but much worse. It's all documented.
Down to cases: CP/ER made an assertion: that s/he/it heard something on some radio (not just some radio, now we learn it was AusBC FM, at 8:00 on 11 Apr). S/he/it then used this something in the usual way (for s/he/it) i.e. to ridicule. I put the shoe on the other foot: demand proof from CP/ER. We demand proof because nothing on the AusBC website can be found to back-up CP/ER's story. Q: Why not? A: ask CP/ER.
That CP/ER is a liar is *shown* by s/he/it being a (non-declared) nom de plume. Once a liar, always a liar, once credibility is gone, it can't be reinstated. Further, as I used to say about Howard, once a limit has been over-stepped (his 1st 'little white,' seguing into *real* lies or going on to the 'biggie,' murdering for oil in Iraq), there is no end to evil.
-=*=-
The point: whose side are they on? What is their business? I say our once jewel-like planet is going down the tubes, the idiots on webdiary are fiddling while our one and only 'home' planet burns up - or down, or wherever (the hell!) the greedastrophe is dragging us. We (the honest) *must* resist, *must* prevail, or all will be lost. The trolls on wediary provoke dissension, division & distraction in vile attempts at derailing worthwhile discussions, why? Why does webdiary not just allow it, but cuddles up to the filthy trolls - encouraging it, where 'it' is vile, lying propaganda?
Always the repeats: webdiary is part of the problem; once more, why?
Craig W, got it yet?
No actually Bob. If someone calls you a liar then it is up to them to prove you are , not you to prove you arent.
Got it yet Bob?
G'day Craigw,
I'm sure you'll not object (too much) if I answer your "If someone calls you a liar" taunt?
"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
CP/ER was foolish (to say the least), to base one of his distracting provocations on something as ephemeral as a radio broadcast. Rowley was perhaps injudicious to have called CP/ER a liar in this case, but on exactly the same grounds, i.e. the unavailability of documentation of that very same ephemeral radio broadcast. In this case it becomes a sort of 'Mexican standoff[1],' except for one thing: credibility.
(An aside: actually this is one of the ways AusBC pushes its own (filthy, lying) propaganda, i.e. not documenting such tricky items - assuming there was any item; not proven at all. That's a known AusBC artifice.)
In the case of (partial/total?) lack of credibility, it becomes a "'Tis!" - "'Tisn't!" silliness.
Sooo, who has (higher, if any) credibility, Rowley or CP/ER?
CP/ER cannot, under WD rules, be both Parsons *and* Ramsey. Them's the rules; and as everyone knows, WD enforces its rules ruthlessly (... Ethical, Accountable and Transparent) - eh?
I leave you to draw the (obvious!) conclusions.
-=*=-
[1] Mexican standoff is a strategic deadlock or impasse, in which no party can act in a way that ensures victory.
And following on from exactly that, no progress can come out'a WD, while the management cuddles lying, slandering and vilely propagandising trolls, at the expense to the point of banning honest posters - just like Bob Wall, say.
Phil,
Having been on the receiving end of a fair dose of Rowley bile on your very blog I cant say I think he has any greater integrity or credibility than ER or what ever his name is this week.
You dont call someone a liar unless you can prove it - and this was a pretty specific one to prove.
I still read WD every day or so, but I honestly feel little incination to comment there.
I guess that probably proves your point about it though
G'day Craig W,
your "fair dose of Rowley bile" may or may not have been fair (aka earned), mutual, or out'a a clear blue sky - but wha'do I know? Perhaps y'ort'a try to sort out the personal from the factual. Perhaps we can say that bile may be related to the degree of provocation, is an optional accompaniment to otherwise rational debate or just bad manners, but surely bile on its own does not reflect on credibility?
(On the other hand, some bile can reflect on credibility: "In this case hate the player because the are stark raving made fucking dirty envious loser lunatics. But at least their our lunatics!" That's ignorant, irrelevant & illiterate bile. Haw!)
Then, your "this was a pretty specific one to prove..." Oh, really? I'm unaware of anyone proving/disproving anything about this alleged AusBC FM news broadcast, I've said so in this post - see above about 'known AusBC artifices' - so how can you justify your own statement?
This is starting to get too repetitive. As far as I am concerned, CP/ER is a proven liar, propagandises for the 'black-hats,' all the while being indulged by WD management. Simply sick-making.
G'day Phil,
Lies, damn lies and media analysis ...
The NYTimes has a report on Pentagon propaganda, massaging the message the public gets from supposed experts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/
In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
For commentary on this see:
Greg Mitchell
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/
Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
This morning's "blockbuster" New York Times article by David Barstow, documenting the Pentagon and U.S. media's joint use of pre-programmed "military analysts" who posed as objective experts while touting the Government line and having extensive business interests in promoting those views, is very well-documented and well-reported. And credit to the NYT for having sued to compel disclosure of the documents on which the article is based. There are significant elements of the story that exemplify excellent investigative journalism.
At the same time, though, in light of questions on this very topic raised even by the NYT back in 2003, it is difficult to take the article's underlying points seriously as though they are some kind of new revelation. And ultimately, to the extent there are new revelations here, they are a far greater indictment of our leading news organizations than the government officials on whom it focuses.
In 2002 and 2003, when Americans were relentlessly subjected to their commentary, news organizations were hardly unaware that these retired generals were mindlessly reciting the administration line on the war and related matters. To the contrary, that's precisely why our news organizations -- which themselves were devoted to selling the war both before and after the invasion by relentlessly featuring pro-war sources and all but excluding anti-war ones -- turned to them in the first place. To its credit, the article acknowledges that "at least nine" of the Pentagon's trained military analysts wrote Op-Eds for the NYT itself, but many of those same sources were also repeatedly quoted -- and still are routinely quoted -- in all sorts of NYT news articles on Iraq and other "War on Terrorism" issues, something the article fails to note.
I do not think "better late than never" applies in this case. All the death and destruction in which the media played its part. Although some don't care, there's money to be made, agendas to be pushed, and prejudices to be fed.
G'day Phil,
Call it a lie, or call it a myth, Uri Avnery on the invention of Jewish history:
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04212008.html
Extract:
Compared to the power of this myth, does it really matter that the Exodus from Egypt never took place? Thousands of Egyptian documents deciphered in recent years leave no room for doubt: the exodus of masses of people, as described in the Bible, or anything remotely like it, just never happened. These documents, which cover in the finest detail every period and every part of Canaan during this epoch prove beyond any doubt that there was no "Conquest of Canaan" and no kingdom of David and Solomon. For a hundred years, Zionist archeologists have devoted tireless efforts to finding even a single piece of evidence to support the Biblical narrative, all to no avail.
And:
In a recent book with the provocative title "When and How the Jewish People was Invented", the Israeli historian Shlomo Sand argues - like Arthur Koestler and others before him - that most of the Ashkenazi Jews are really descended from the Khazars, a Turkic people that created a large kingdom in what is now South Russia more than a thousand years ago. The Khazar king converted to Judaism, and according to this theory the Jews of Eastern Europe are mostly the descendants of Khazar converts. Sand also believes that most Sephardi Jews are descendents of Arab and Berber tribes in North Africa that had converted to Judaism instead of becoming Muslims, and had joined in the Muslim conquest of Spain.
Read the article and then think on the import of what it contains.
Then there is Justin Raimondo:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12717
And this:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5162
For those a little hard of accepting, there is this:
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0629-FtBragg.html
A handy collation of lies and crimes that even senile twats and fishwives should understand.
Post a Comment