Some Summer Reading
I'm on semi-vacation for the next handful of days so I'm
inclined to do more linking than writing. Below find a couple of items that caught my attention this morning.
First up is another episode in the Great Ward Churchill
soap-opera. I've been chided by some for spending too much time on this
"issue." So sue me why don't you? I find it just too much fun to ponder this chap's psychopathology.
I'm also amazed by the inability of some to just outright disown this fellow. It's one
thing to defend the concept of tenure. It's quite another not to denounce an
obvious wing-nut.
In the latest chapter, Churchill is now trying to explain his way out of remarks in Portland this
week in which it sure seemed he was suggesting "fragging" of U.S. military
officers might be an effective form of anti-war protest. Here's the phrase now
in question spoken by Churchill as reported by the Denver Post:
"Would you
render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but
rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize
the combat capacity of their unit?"When one of the forum's attendees said that the impact such
a fragging might have on the officer's family should be considered, Churchill
replied, "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?"
Poor bastard. It's too bad he's going to walk away from the
tenure fight with Colorado University with some sort of six figure settlement. That money
could be spent so much more wisely — like a couple of scholarships for Native
Americans upon whose backs Churchill has constructed his "academic" career.
In a half-hearted gesture of fairness toward you, the
reader, I'm offering up a compromise. Now that I've made you read something
about a guy I love to despise, I'll return the favor. Danny Postel has a new
interview published with Satan Figure Christopher Hitchens. Whatever your jaundiced view, it's worth a read. Here's the Hitch describing
in piquant terms the turning point he had on the post 9-11 response to the
Taliban:
I can tell you exactly when the breaking point came,
actually. I was invited by Michael Moore to be his interviewer at the Telluride
Film Festival for his awful, baggy, dishonest, boring movie, Bowling for
Columbine. In that film, clips about the Kosovo war from Serbian television
are used as objective. Moore implies that the bombing of Kosovo might have
inspired the murderers in Columbine. You don't know where to start with someone
as mentally lazy as this. This was on the anniversary of September 11 terrorist
attacks, and he said, "Well, if it's true that bin Laden did this
thing in New York . . ." It was early in the morning; just a second, I
thought. "Say that again? If they did this?" He said,
"Well, if they did this." And he opposed the toppling of the
Taliban in Afghanistan"”a reactionary, conservative position couched in radical
anti-imperialist language. My Marxist training tells me things don't remain the
same. Reactionary-left positions won't hold for long; they will metamorphose
into reactionary-right ones. He says he considers the Iraqi resistance"”the
beheaders and kidnappers and rapists, the people who throw petrol and
explosives into the mosques of rival Muslims, among other things"”the
equivalents of the Minutemen of the American Revolution. This is the statement
of a flat-out brown shirt. It has to be described as such. And all the people
who thought that was a great movie to rock the vote, they should be fucking
ashamed. There is no room for compromising on a thing like this. He's a lying,
fascist, thug
Have fun.
June 30th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Dear Christopher H: In my dealings with the anti-war left, I somehow missed the massive amounts of sympathy they have for Bin Laden’s ‘grievances’ and the Iraqi ‘insurgency.’ Take away Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy, Michael Moore, and a couple of others, I don’t think you’re left with much. But it sure makes your argument easier, doesn’t it?
June 30th, 2005 at 10:49 am
When someone as allegedly erudite as Hitchens turns what could be valid criticisms of Michael Moore - a person I happen to find obnoxious and prone to half-truths and persistent overreaching - into the kind of garbage he spews above - “lying, fascist thug” - you know he’s scraping close to the bottom of his barrel - or anyone’s barrel for that matter. I’ll pass on the interveiw because Hitchens is truly starting to bore me more often than he forces me to look at another side of the Iraq war issue or “the left” - when someone you don’t agree with not only doesn’t spark though but hardly even offends you anymore, why bother. Also, one reason I don’t take either Hitchens or Moore’s political arguments terribly seriously and see them in some sense as evil twins is because of that pesky Nader 2000 thing. Neither one of these guys is in what I would consider my political camp. More than serious social critics, they are ideological egomaniacs without portfolio and are more than welcome to piss on each others shoes.
June 30th, 2005 at 10:50 am
that was “spark thought”
June 30th, 2005 at 10:51 am
I could care less about Ward Churchill, but thanks for the link to the Hitchens interview, Marc. Unlike Ward, I think he’s always going to remain an interesting figure.
I don’t have the same respect for Hitchens that I used to, but it’s still hard for me to “Satanize” him.
His recent Vanity Fair piece on Iran was quite good and, unlike almost all of the other proponents of this war, I don’t believe that he wants us either wiped off the face of the earth or made into serfs on the great global plantation. His newfound ideological affinity for Thomas Friedman aside.
“I can tell you exactly when the breaking point came, actually. I was invited by Michael Moore to be his interviewer at the Telluride Film Festival for his awful, baggy, dishonest, boring movie, Bowling for Columbine. In that film, clips about the Kosovo war from Serbian television are used as objective. Moore implies that the bombing of Kosovo might have inspired the murderers in Columbine. You don’t know where to start with someone as mentally lazy as this.”
Bowling for Columbine was a shit movie and totally dishonest on so many levels. But I actually thought that bringing Kosovo into the picture and showing the effects of state-sanctioned ultraviolence (as well as drawing a cause-and-effect relationsthip with the “senseless tragedy” of Columbine) was perhaps its sole saving grace.
Kelbold and Harris *did* think that the war was really cool and tried to catch as much footage of what was going on (as extremely santizied and censored as it might have been) on CNN.
I know, I know. Where’s my sources. I’ll try to find something later.
“This is the statement of a flat-out brown shirt…He’s a lying, fascist, thug.”
It’s this kind of hyperbolic, foam-flecked nonsense that made that “Unfahrenheit 9-11″ thing so unreadable.
In any case I’ll “read the whole thing” first chance I get.
June 30th, 2005 at 11:03 am
Incidentally Marc, while I think he may well have done this somewhere else, the bit of Moore-bashing you printed above hardly qualifies as “Hitch describing in piquant terms the turning point he had on the post 9-11 response to the Taliban”. Unless you think the man is a complete idiot. Maybe you’re right. Also when anybody refers to “my Marxist training” to make a point, and most especially a completely banal point - “things don’t stay the same” - one wonders what planet they reside on. The better, ironic statement would been “I don’t have to rely on my Marxist training to know things don’t stay the same.” That could have stated the obvious with a bit of humorous flair. The statement “my Marxist training tells me” should be an embarrassment, assuming Hitchens still has the capacity for it.
June 30th, 2005 at 11:09 am
God, you’re right. I’m wrong. He introduced that thing with “I can tell you exactly when the breaking point came.”
Poor fellow…
June 30th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Over on Leo Casey’s red-baiter listserv, where this latest hysteria about Ward Churchill cropped up, Michael Hirsch made some good points that probably sailed over the head of Marc Cooper, who hangs out there:
Churchill is no friend. Need I lay out the reasons on this list? Saying that, what do you see is wrong with what he’s quoted saying this time? He wasn’t advocating fragging; he wasn’t saying stepped up fragging is a tactic that can end the war quicker. He was asking the audience what their attitude would be toward troops who engage in it, and why would they distinguish between conscientious objection and desperation? It’s a fair question, along the lines of what is their attitude toward troops who follow orders and kill Iraqis. The Vietnam War ended in part because the US couldn’t trust its own frontline troops. So, if mutinous conditions are indications that wars can”t be sustained, what Churchill said this time was not so eggregious.
That’s unlike his Eichmann remark re:9-11, which was ignorant and lazy at best (and morally bankrupt at worst). There, Churchill blamed an entire class of people for the sins he wouldn’t enumerate and ascribe to specific guilty individuals, if indeed any such existed at the WTC. He also suggested that the terrorists were deliverers of some rough justice, which is nonsense. In this case, he’s not calling for “capping the captain” or praising chickens for coming home to roost. I read him as saying that an outcome and an indicator of a failed war strategy is that the troops start to mutiny, that it takes ugly forms, and we should have some small degree of sympathy for the desperation of the mutineers.
So, what do you say to the families of slain officers? I’d say “We’re pained by your loss. Such a tragedy is irreparable. The culprit is the Bush administration, not some deranged kid thrown into harm’s way. Let’s be sure it never happens to anyone’s else’s child and destroys anyone else’s family by ending US interventionism now.”
A stopped watch is correct twice a day. Even Churchill gets it right sometime,
Mike H
June 30th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Ward Churchill, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Moore… Zzzzzz
Who really cares about their hyperbolic, self-opinionated rubbish?
June 30th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
Excuse me Scott V, but I think that Churchill’s followup response regarding compassion for hypothetically fragged officers’ families, “How do you feel about Adolf Eichman’s family?” clears up any doubt as to his intent or that it was simply a question posed as some “thought experiment”. The guy’s toxic…
June 30th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
None dare call it treason
Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray. Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect.”
Ward Churchill, Portland, Oregon- 6/23/05
June 30th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
I want to apologize to the readers of this blog for posting 12 times a day recently. I have gone off my meds and am out of control.
June 30th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
On second thought, screw that. Check out this zogby poll:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007
June 30th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
Gee, I’m a member of the liberal left and I haven’t even seen Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 911.
Do you think Hitchens could tell me where they have these meetings of the liberal left so that I can finally go to one and learn how every single one us moves in lockstep?
Lord knows, I’ve tried to get into them before. I’ve offered to bring the vegetable crudites, some of Mércia’s excellent salgados and even some Gauloises (although I don’t smoke). Mércia and I are even willing to silk screen some “Che” tee shirts and I think we can probably sew some berets, too.
Please tell me where these secret meetings are, Hitch. Pleeeeeeaaaaaaassssssseeeeee!
June 30th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
By the way, Hitchens makes the following comment: “I mean, I don’t think you’ll get a snake-handler in Oklahoma to say he feels sorry for bin Laden and his grievances.”
If he’s referring to those who handle snakes in some of the, shall we say, unusual Christian sects, he should know that they are primarily located in Appalachia, principally parts of Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, Virginia and North Carolina. One of the congregations that has been doing it the longest is in Sand Mountain, Alabama, not far from where I used to live and where much of my family still lives.
One would think a writer such as Hitchens would get his stereotypes right.
BTW, I didn’t get the proverbial rat’s ass for bin Ladens’ grievances, either.
June 30th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Marc,
I’m going to start this post with something I generally think is irrelevant; auto-biograghical information. (In general I think posts should stand or fall on their own; who cares who you are? Sometimes, however, when you say things that are beyond the pale, it makes sense to let the world know that you are not normally a bomb thrower.) I spent four years in the navy; I consider myself a patriot; I voted for the President; I support the war. Nevertheless, I think that Churchill’s point makes logical sense. If you think that we are the bad guys in Iraq, if you believe that we are the equivalent of Nazi storm troopers, then you should believe that troops should kill their officers. I’m not saying that anti-war liberals like you, Marc, should believe this; I’m pretty sure that you are against the war without believing that the Wahabists are the good guys. But if I believed what Churchill believes, I would counsel American soldiers to kill their officers.
June 30th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Randy, the next secret meeting is scheduled to be held during the Burning Man Festival…just head toward the large cluster of motor homes andlook for the latte drinkers.
The only two provisos are you must be prepared to view Reg dance nekkid and…no singing!
June 30th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Christ, some prices are too high to pay
I wanted to sing a few choruses of Kumbaya, followed by liberal (pun intended) verses of the Internationale.
June 30th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Perhaps being a well-compensated celebrity journalist allows one to live in a universe where moral judgments reside to the detriment of all else, and one is able to wholly forego practical and indeed even human considerations, but it would be good to know how many young millenial lives should be lost in Iraq before the human toll becomes too great for Mr. Hitchens. It would also be good to know how many generation x individuals and businesses should be driven into economic ruin by the monstrous levels of taxation that will be required to pay for this war (and all our other commitments) in the coming years before the economic toll becomes too great for Mr. Hitchens. Lastly, it would be good to know how much of their basic needs the baby boomers should have to sacrifice in their golden years before the cost becomes too high for Mr. Hitchens.
June 30th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
Randy…I’ve worked out a nice, interpretive thing to the strains of The Internationale…and I’ve decided, since recruiting has been off, that this year I’ll have a couple of strategically placed pages torn from The Manifesto pasted to my torso. Enjoy…
(Also, I’ve cajoled Woody to show up by convincing him that it’s the site of the Falcons’ training camp. Should be interesting.)
June 30th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Just two terse comments: Ward Churchill got it wrong, fragging should begin at home and than it would become much more effective.
As for Mr. Hitchens, in order to be more effective, and put to silence all opposition he needs to immolate himself with fire at the next DNC! Thereby silencing all. Gee, are those comments over the top? Now think! hehe
June 30th, 2005 at 8:15 pm
Virgil,
If he keeps spouting flatulent commentary AND smoking, he probably will self-immolate.
June 30th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
The biggest problem with the Left is that it refuses, for ideological reasons, to acknowledge evil where it exists.
When Robert Mugabe bulldozes shanties to starve to death political opponents in a Pol Pot re-run, Leftists make excuses for him because he was a marxist once, an anti-American billionaire thug now, and African (read: non-WASP which as we know is the sole source of all evil). Add Castro, or Chavez, or any loathesome Islamist and you get the same reaction.
I know I don’t agree with Hitchens on a lot of things, but one thing 9/11 showed for me was that yeah, Donne WAS right, and people suffering even in remote places like Afghanistan leads to people suffering here, in a small world made smaller by technology and transportation.
The other thing that Hitchens says, that I love, is that the Islamic world is profoundly broken. Searching for scapegoats and enemies instead of reforming itself so that women are not enslaved as property, education consists of more than rote memorization of the Koran, and free and open discussion and rationalism, along with freedom from religion and toleration, are the hallmarks of their society. Leftists just can’t admit that yes, Islam is broken and needs reform (which can only happen from within, btw). But we Westerners can help by refusing to make excuses or go along with Islam’s search for scapegoats (Israel, the United States) instead of their own massive failures as a culture and society.
As far as the lunatic Churchill, I’ve seen folks echoing his comments in signs “We love our troops when they kill their officers.”
Earth to lunatics: this isn’t 1969, when the military is out hunting jihadis and bin Ladenists in Afghanistan and Iraq, taking the side of bin Laden (there is no other way to say it) is a recipe for total electoral collapse, no matter how incompetent and unfocused Bush has become. Gas can go to $5 a gallon, and as long as Dems and Leftists (same thing really these days) recycle anti-American and anti-Patriotic slogans calling for Fragging Bush will still lurch along successfully.
The Media doesn’t help. Anyone see the incompetent reporting by Peter H. King on the “LA 8″ i.e. the Palestinian resident aliens facing deportation for raising money for the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine). Not a mention of the famous (or any) terrorist incidents these guys are known for: Entebbe, Lod Airport Massacre, murder of Israeli Tourist Minister, and numerous suicide bombings in the last three years. These guys killed more than 165 people in 103 separate terrorist attacks.
Just like various blogs have photos of new Iranian President as a student marching US Embassy hostages out blindfolded, pointing a gun at their head, and threatening to kill them (via AP) but not a word from the LA Times.
Conclusion? Media is abetting the Dems and Leftists running off the cliff into outright anti-Americanism by pretending terrorism and broken societies don’t exist. People see this floating in (and the Dems are unable to suppress their Ward Churchill crazies) and the Party falls over the cliff, like Republicans did after Pitchfork Pat Buchanon led a jihad against Murphy Brown (a TV character) in their 92 Convention.
When we have a real terror war on our hands (Sam Nunn says a nuking of a major Western City is a 80% certainty within the next seven years) it’s not a good idea to engage in an anti-American culture war. Like I said this isn’t 1969, Ho Chi Minh never wanted to nuke us.
June 30th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
reg dance nekid? Film at 11!
June 30th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
“The biggest problem with the Left is that it refuses, for ideological reasons, to acknowledge evil where it exists.”
I hereby acknowledge all the evil everywhere it exists, and even most of the places it doesn’t.
Can we go home now?
July 1st, 2005 at 1:53 am
Rockford, go to hell. You’re an ideological thug who engages in blatant misrepresentation. You’re beneath contempt.
July 1st, 2005 at 2:04 am
And to actually quote Sam Nunn:
“Reducing the risk posed by weapons of mass destruction is not the agenda of one political party. It is a deeply held desire by leaders of vision and courage of every political stripe. We hope that others who are concerned about these issues will work with us on the large area of common ground that exists to find ways to reduce risks associated with these weapons.”
July 1st, 2005 at 5:10 am
A lot of M. Moore’s films start out to show one thing then evolve into some other deeper truth. (Stop laughing). Bowling for Columbine was about people’s reactions to fear propaganda.
July 1st, 2005 at 5:14 am
I actually saw Churchill on CSPAN and have read and heard Hitchens for years. My feelings are summed up by the remarks of Lewis Lapham of HARPERS, upon reviewing a book by Robert Bork, that it had less intellectual coherence than the Unibomber’s Tract. Same for Ward and Chris. But stand up for your friends Marc, that is a good quality as long as you don’t believe “Comrade” Hitchens’ nonsense.
July 1st, 2005 at 6:15 am
Hitchens: “[Michael Moore] says he considers the Iraqi resistance—the beheaders and kidnappers and rapists, the people who throw petrol and explosives into the mosques of rival Muslims, among other things—the equivalents of the Minutemen of the American Revolution. This is the statement of a flat-out brown shirt.”
Possibly. Except that some of the kidnapers are just freelancers — it’s a very lucrative business there now, at least in terms of purchasing power parity, the beheaders may be associated mainly with Zarqawi, who has declared war against Shi’ism, and thus, presumably against *other* insurgent groups that happen to be Shi’ite, and … well, the wrinkles go on and on. But then you have those Sunni Triangle insurgents. Why is the Bush administration in negotiations with some of *those* people? Perhaps because they now see that they *have* to be? Does that make the Bushies “brownshirts” too, I wonder? And would that make Hitchens “(slightly)” less in favor of Bush?
When Moore calls the insurgency “the Minutemen, the REVOLUTION” he’s being laughably simplistic. But guess what? So is Hitchens, when he reduces the insurgency to rapists, kidnappers, beheaders with videocams, and mosque arsonists. In fact, there are several different intersecting fracture lines in Iraq — Sunni vs. Shi’a, secular-leaning vs. theocratic, ethnic nationalist vs. federalist. Could we even eventually have ethnic nationalist, Shi’ite, secular-leaning “Minutemen” militia? I don’t see why not. Maybe we already do! This just in: we have Shi’a-aligned secular-leaning Ahmed Chalabi (will that man *never* go away) joining calls to carve out a southern Shi’ite region that should enjoy autonomy on the level of what the Kurds prefer for themselves, but in the process also he is also distancing himself from the Sadrists, with whom he was in common cause at one point, even to the point of joining their sit-in demonstrations. (I guess he didn’t read Totten’s call to assassinate Moqtada al-Sadr, poor benighted soul that he is.) Would Ahmed Chalabi be a party to violence against other Iraqis to fulfill his political agenda? He has before. He might again. His U.S.-financed invasion force back in the late 90s even ended up fighting a Kurdish faction.
Hitchens — and his recent Mini-Me, Mikey Totten — might do themselves a favor and reread that chapter in Homage to Catalonia in which Orwell, by way of apologia, tells the reader “Sorry to take a break from the action, but you really gotta understand the politics”, and then goes on to anatomize the political complexities very well indeed. After a little headscratching over how the situation in Iraq might somehow be *twice* as complex, Mikey & Hitch would probably freeze in their intellectual tracks in total bafflement, then co-author a piece for The Nation admitting they just don’t get what the hell’s going on in there, and perhaps also admit that sometimes inaction is the better part of valor. I recommend they send it off under the working title, “Homage to Catatonia.”
July 1st, 2005 at 7:01 am
I’m too bored with Rockford, and too tired, to do a blow-by-blow on his latest.
Jim, are you listening? Substantiate this:
“When Robert Mugabe bulldozes shanties to starve to death political opponents in a Pol Pot re-run, Leftists make excuses for him because he was a marxist once, an anti-American billionaire thug now, and African …”
I poked around for a while, but all I could find was Cynthia McKinney’s defense of Mugabe’s confiscation of agricultural land; quite a different thing. (In fact, it’s speculated that the shantytown and illegal market clearings of Operation Murambatsvina were/are motivated in part by a desire to flush the urban underclass into the countryside, where there’s a desperate need to start producing food again.) Can you name ONE leftist who has defended Mugabe’s shantytown clearings? Even ONE?
After you’ve done that, go through your post and use similar rigor in substantiating every other claim you make. I’ll be particularly interested in how you handle the allegation that there are Democrats actually organizing around the slogan “Frag Bush”. You’re pretty disconnected from reality if you equate Democrats with Leftists. There’s overlap, here and there, but as soon as you get even as far left as Nader (and there’s plenty of territory left of him), the leftist critique of Democrats is that they are NO DIFFERENT from Republicans. Are you suffering some kind of political color-blindness that renders half the spectrum apparently identical to you? How can you even talk about politics coherently when you can’t see half of what’s going on around you?
July 1st, 2005 at 7:17 am
Wait, stop! I take it all back — a major leftist publications HAS defended Mugabe’s Operation Murambatsvina. Here’s the article at Znet –
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=1&ItemID=8111
It says … um, just a sec … uh oh. I guess I was wrong.
“…it has been a ruthless, reckless display of brute force on the part of a regime that is increasingly unpopular—and increasingly determined to stay in power by any means necessary….The police are moving systematically, one high-density area after the other, leaving rubble, fear and despair in their wake. There is no discussion, and no rationale… The devastation is impossible to describe. It is a humanitarian crisis of massive proportions.”
It appears that the main source of organized outcry (such as it was) within Zimbabwe was the Zimbabwe chapter of the International Socialist Organization. The moderates and liberals limited their protests to tepid denouncements, and even voiced support in some cases.
Anyway, Jim, I’ll keep looking. Surely, some Leftist out there, somewhere, has sided with Mugabe on this one …. after all, Leftists are oblivious to evil, right?
July 1st, 2005 at 8:47 am
One of the interesting aspects of the interview is that finally somebody asked Hitchens about the “the economic architecture of the occupation”, referring to Naomi Klein’s work. Hitchens changes the subject and has nothing to say - “I fully haven’t paid enough attention to the tyranny of the logo, as annotated by the courageous Ms. Klein.”
This is pathetic, but is typical of the various lefty war supporters. I would be happy to know if anybody can point to anything by Norm Geras, Michael Totten, Nick Cohen, or any of the others who actually address this
issue. An exception is Johann Hari, who has written some decent stuff on this, to his credit I think.
July 1st, 2005 at 9:20 am
“Take away Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy, Michael Moore, and a couple of others, I don’t think you’re left with much.”
I’d say you’re left with thousands who flock to their lectures, buy books and movie tickets, and shower them with applause.
July 1st, 2005 at 9:39 am
Johan Hari is a “left” war supporter who’s managed to elevate discourse around the war rather than variously sink self-righteously into the neo-con swamp, show up with pom-poms to sing the “Fight Fiercely” song or sling mud at people who questioned the war.
Hitchens has disgraced himself, not by his support of the war, but by the fact that his support of the war has degenerated into vain posturing, denial, shallow conjecture and bizarre invective more than reasoned argument. It’s also marked by the kind of political grandiosity that is the sure sign of somebody who cut their teeth in the hinterlands of either the far left or the religious right.
July 1st, 2005 at 10:18 am
Seth sez:
“This is pathetic, but is typical of the various lefty war supporters. I would be happy to know if anybody can point to anything by Norm Geras, Michael Totten, Nick Cohen, or any of the others who actually address this issue. An exception is Johann Hari, who has written some decent stuff on this, to his credit I think.”
It’s hilarious how you don’t address Hitchens’s point which Naomi Klein and others never address either:
“But I fully haven’t paid enough attention to the tyranny of the logo, as annotated by the courageous Ms. Klein. But I will say what I think about privatization. The Iraqi economy was completely privatized before. It was the personal property of Saddam, Uday, and Qusay Hussein. The national bank and the entire national treasure of the country was the private property of a crime family—a worthless currency with the face of a psychopath on it. Paul Bremer gave them a currency—this is one thing he did that I did approve of. It’s convertible. As recent events in Lebanon show, people consider it to be worth smuggling and even counterfeiting. That’s an extraordinary change—real money. It’s de-privatization: it’s not owned anymore by a private family monopoly. More than that, I can’t really say because the oil industry has not had any investment in it since 1975. People who turned up to see what they could do about it found there was nowhere to put a bandage, the thing was so rotted out.”
“De-privatization” reminds me of word I used in an internet discussion with Doug Henwood a long time ago, “de-commodification.” Henwood then used it in the next issue of his newsletter.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:51 am
A piece supporting Mugabe (’Perspective is needed’) can be found in today’s Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1518747,00.html
If you are offended that such bullshit gets associated with your political position, you need some kind of language to decribe the difference between you and them.
I like ‘pseudo-left’ for people like that, and Moore, Chomsky, Roy etc. As long as they can be labelled as leftist or liberal, and you can’t articulate the difference between you and them as easily and automatically as a Republican can say ‘Hitler was a fascist’, then politically about the most you can hope for is the next republican president is more moderate.
soru
July 1st, 2005 at 12:07 pm
Well, I couldn’t find whatever it was I read a couple years back about the Trenchcoat Mafia guys and Kosovo. And what I did find on the net isn’t really worth linking to.
But I have to say that after having read that Hitch interview in The Common Review and the latest tripe he serves up in Slate (http://slate.com/id/2121674/) I’m sorry that I was so kind to him in my previous posting.
Some examples:
“the decision…of Slobodan Milosevic to go from Yugo-Communism to National Socialism, an ethnically pure Serbo-nationalist fascist state with Christian Orthodox support. … I didn’t think we could really have the Muslim population of Europe put to the sword in public.”
A dozen years and he still hasn’t let reality interfere with his delusions. Tell me Hitch, exactly what sort of ideology did Izetbegovic espouse?
http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/alija1.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/alija2.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/alija3.htm
http://www.swans.com/library/art9/alekp028.html
Or how about that other gallant western ally, Tudjman?
http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/dynamited.htm
http://www.swans.com/library/art8/alekp018.html
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/toronto.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/dec1999/tudj-d16.shtml
And what would you call what happened in the Krajina if not “putting a population to the sword?”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/croa-a15.shtml
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/elich/krajina.html
http://www.wsws.org/public_html/prioriss/iwb10-9/spotlt.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/kla-m29.shtml
“My Marxist training tells me things don’t remain the same.”
Such a deep insight he has gained, courtesy of his “Marxist training.” Reg is right, this does sound incredibly lame.
“TCR: You were interviewed not long ago for the Atlantic’s website. The interviewer asked about your being a militant secularist and Enlightenment humanist on the one hand and, on the other, being allied politically with the likes of Christian fundamentalists and creationists and cultural reactionaries.
Hitchens: “…the people who’ve left the field to the snake-handlers have in effect sold out secularism and made excuses for theocracy. I refuse to let them come to me and say I’ve betrayed secularism. I won’t hear it from them. I don’t owe them an explanation. They owe me one.”
Deep down I think he simply refuses to believe that he is now on the same side as Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Which is why whenever he’s confronted with this glaring, monstrous contradiction he backs into a corner, bares his fangs, and hisses and claws at whatever comes near him.
“…the Kurdish cause…a very old American commitment. Woodrow Wilson promised self-determination for everyone in the Middle East in 1918 as an alternative to the Western imperialist policy of Versailles. Many people in the region still take his promises seriously. He promised self-determination for Palestinians, Armenians, and Kurds. We are somewhat bound by that. People in the region know this, even if Americans have forgotten it.”
Woodrow Wilson? Woodrow fucking Wilson? Are you shittin’ me? Leaving aside his hideous and bloody record in the Dominican Republic, Haiti and elsewhere in the Americas, his contempt for the right to free speech and the right to dissent (do the words Eugene Debs mean anything to Hitch anymore? How about the Palmer Raids or the Espionage Act?), his fraternal get-togethers at the White House with the Knights of the Invisible Empire, his messianic worldview wherein he was endowed by a higher power to spread “democracy” to the four corners of the earth at gunpoi… oh, okay. Now I get it.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg18.html
His is one of the last names that should be paired with the phrase “alternative to Western imperialist policy.”
“It’s very hard to identify the most revolting moment in Henry Kissinger’s life. … Kissinger gave the Kurds the impression they had American support. He said go and take on Saddam Hussein. Not at all an easy guy to fight with, but we’re with you. Don’t worry, you have America behind you. It may seem like a lonely and difficult struggle, but you will have our support. And then when the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein made a private deal to carve up the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which they signed in Algiers in 1975, Kissinger and the CIA decided to pull out of Kurdistan the same day. …he used to work for Kissinger Associates … If you wanted to see a Kurdish person go from relative composure to peeing green … mention the name Kissinger.”
Continuing the theme of his monomaniacal obsession with Kissinger as the only bad guy in the world without a turban on his head.
“One correction, though: Allawi was the Central Intelligence Agency’s man, certainly. The CIA has never yet got anything right about Iraq and continues to sabotage the regime change effort. They did want to get a client, but submitting their client to the electorate proved unsuccessful. Allawi completes a long record of stupidity by the CIA in the region.”
“The CIA…was very invested in the belief that there was no connection between any regime in the Middle East and the Islamist jihadists or al-Qaeda; it was very much against the regime change policy unless it could control it, and actually favored a military coup in Iraq, preferably to be led by a Sunni Muslim minority force in the Iraqi armed forces…The CIA was against ["regime change"] from the start, and particularly set out to sabotage Ahmed Chalabi, who was the main voice of that position.”
Neocon talking point #11: CIA = Evil. State Dept = Evil. Pentagon = Good.
When asked about the divergence between his expressed motives for supporting the war and the administration’s motives he goes off on some B.S. about Marx and the Civil War — implying that if Marx were alive today he’d be on the side of the “liberationists.”
A much better, or at least more honest, analogy would involve Marx’s position on the Mexican-American War. Marx strongly supported the U.S. because he believed that the Mexicans were an inherently lazy, shiftless and unproductive lot and that if the U.S. conquered and occupied Mexico it would drag the country into the industrial age, kicking and screaming. Because, well, you know. No industrialization, no proletariat.
This is much closer to some of the justifications for this war than anything having to do with the Civil War.
“I’m proud to have been among those who said, well, let’s bring it on then.”
What an asshole. What a fat, middle-aged douchebag of a vicarious warrior. And he has the gall to throw a fit when others use the term “chickenhawk” or ask him if his son’s going to contribute to the war effort by volunteering for duty.
Beyn-e doost va dooroogh-gu yek dunya fasele hast.
July 1st, 2005 at 12:08 pm
The courageous Mr. Hitchens does hold up a clear standard in response to that Q, and an increasingly familiar one: “Well, at least it’s better than Saddam.” Reassuring…
July 1st, 2005 at 12:19 pm
Abbas…loved your accurate reference to Marx…it’s funny how folks on the “internationalist right” are generally clueless as to how close they are to Marx’s views in presuming essential the blessings of capitalist hegemony as opposed to whatever idiocy folks happened to be enjoying (or not) in their parochial countrysides. The “anti-globalist” left is about as anti-Marxist as you can get. Hitchens at least understands this and, hopefully, also gets the irony. Nothing like that good old “Marxist training” to produce arrogant pricks who think they are ordained to run bloody rampant through the world for the necessary betterment of others.
July 1st, 2005 at 12:20 pm
oh damn…the daily double
July 1st, 2005 at 1:34 pm
There are too many liberals and not enough leftist.
July 1st, 2005 at 3:04 pm
>Surely, some Leftist out there, somewhere, has sided with Mugabe on this one …. after all, Leftists are oblivious to evil, right?
http://www.counterpunch.org/elich05072005.html
July 1st, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Oh no…an idiotic article on Counterpunch…who knew ????
July 1st, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Hey, Turner wanted proof of leftists supporting Mugabe, I gave it to him. I’m sorry Counterpunch exists, but I didn’t invent it.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:44 pm
Huh? Oh, Not The Fat Fuck From Flint. Okay, I get it. That’s actually pretty clever.
That Gregory Elich article is problematic (to be charitable about it) right from the first sentence.
While it provides an excellent background to Zimbabwe’s colonial history and the rampant inequalities that have existed in the country post-independence, it also engages in a lot of wishful thinking, naivete, revisionism and … well, I’m not going to speculate on the author’s motives. Let’s just say he sugercoats everything about the Mugabe regime, takes statements from it at face value and glosses over some pretty horrific stuff.
“Land reform program” is quite a euphemism for slaughtering farmers en masse and robbing and despoiling their land. The farms that are “redistributed” are never put to use. They’re merely stripped of everything that is even remotely valuable and rendered completely useless. They might as well just salt the earth.
“White settlers confiscated cattle and dragooned the Ndebele people into serving as forced laborers on the land they once owned.”
Mugabe didn’t bother with any confiscations of cattle or dargooning. He simply butchered the Ndebele and blamed all the country’s problems on them, before he moved on to the white farmers and gays.
“Against all odds, Zimbabwe is winning. Despite Western sanctions, diplomatic and economic pressure and meddling in the nation’s internal affairs, Zimbabwe is not only recovering but achieving impressive results. Land was given to those who needed it, the economy is rebounding, corruption is being rooted out, and the nation has earned a prominent place as a leader in the fight for justice. Zimbabwe has charted an independent course, determined to serve the needs of its people and not those of Western capital. In the face of unrelenting Western hostility, the transformation of Zimbabwe has set an inspiring example which those in the West who profess to care about justice and egalitarianism should be applauding rather than condemning.”
Sometimes you just need to take a step back and read and reread something. God! This is just… words fail me.
July 2nd, 2005 at 11:04 am
I have to respond to the usual bilge from Jim Rockford:
It was the doyenne of the right, Ronald Reagan, who enabled Saddam in the 1980’s. It was the same Reagan who enabled the torturers and murderers in Argentina, Guatemala and El Salvador.
Perhaps you should broaden your reading to something other than Newsmax’s talking points.
July 4th, 2005 at 12:31 am
A site search on Counterpunch reveals some defenses of Mugabe, but also that Mugabe takes a fair number of harshly-worded hits from that pinko ra- er, I mean, “that esteemed periodical.”
My point was NOT that there are NO Leftists rationalizing Mugabe’s ham-handed slum clearings, but rather that Jim Rockford was wrong when he said that the Left doesn’t deign to notice these sorts of things, much less condemn them. In fact, Mugabe started taking harsh hits from the Lifestyle Liberals (and leftists) after his anti-gay rhetoric. That was quite a while back, and they haven’t forgotten. Much of the other “praising with faint damns” you can read about him from the Left is relevant to the discussion, insofar as it highlights out how Mugabe is hardly the epitome of evil despots in the world. There is a surplus of such, but somehow he’s running “an outpost of tyranny” (listed in the same breath with the incomparably worse North Korea) while Uzbekistan doesn’t rise to Condi’s attention in quite the same way, somehow. Well, the dictator of Uzbekistan WAS nice enough to host a U.S. air force base. Perhaps it would have been considered ungracious or something.
July 4th, 2005 at 12:55 am
soru writes
A piece supporting Mugabe (’Perspective is needed’) can be found in today’s Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1518747
—-
It wasn’t ’supporting Mugabe’. It was providing balance. After all, where were YOU when Beijing cleared out 300,000 people to prepare for the Olympics? You didn’t even hear about it. Neither did I. And that’s the point. Somehow people can print ridiculously trumped-up figures about how many hapless slum-dwellers Mugabe has displaced (not killed) and he gets compared with Pol Pot, whose politically-motivated murders may have been overstated, but still number in the tens of thousands, at least. You can’t smell ‘agenda’? I’m holding my nose! A lie is a lie. A lie told about a total jerk is still a lie. The truth about Mugabe is bad enough — so when somebody feels a need to stretch even that bad truth to the breaking point and beyond, they are usually up to no good.
July 4th, 2005 at 1:55 am
I would disown Marc Cooper before I disowned Ward Churchill, if I thought disowning people had any consequence; certainly Marc has done more harm.
“it sure seemed he was suggesting “fragging†of U.S. military officers might be an effective form of anti-war protest”
Seemings don’t exist in some independent objective space. It may seem that way to you, but that’s just a comment on your limited ability to comprehend the statements of people toward whom you’re prejudiced — prejudices that are strengthened from piling on such misunderstandings.
“I think that Churchill’s followup response regarding compassion for hypothetically fragged officers’ families, “How do you feel about Adolf Eichman’s family?” clears up any doubt as to his intent or that it was simply a question posed as some “thought experiment”.”
Sorry, reg, but if sympathy for Eichmann’s family isn’t a consideration in judging the validity of putting Eichmann to death, then sympathy for an officer’s family shouldn’t be a consideration either; it’s simple logic. Surely *you* have better reasons not to frag an officer than sympathy for his family? I certainly do and, like Churchill, I would urge anyone who came up with *that* as the reason to set it aside and search for a better one; doing so would not indicate anything about my “intent”, beyond trying to get people to think clearly about the shape and limits of their moral judgments. Would you approve of torture if it might save a billion people? People ask such questions without being “disowned”, even when their intent appears to be to rationalize torture in much lesser circumstances, and when they are in a position to influence such policies, something that Ward Churchill isn’t. Mostly he serves as a convenient target for those who make a living attacking the left.
July 4th, 2005 at 2:01 am
Here’s a piece from Churchill stating his position; I don’t see anthing there that warrants disowning.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-03/10churchill.cfm
“… The great bulk of my scholarly work has been devoted to documenting the United States’ disregard for law and the resulting violence it has perpetrated both domestically and internationally. I believe that such practices inevitably breed violence in response, and that the most effective way to ensure the security of all peoples is adherence to the Constitution and international law, particularly the laws of war and fundamental human rights law.
As citizens, it is our collective responsibility to ensure such compliance with law. This is the actual meaning of the quote on Arabs misrepresented by Caplis and Silverman in both their ad and their Op-Ed. My point was that it is our job to halt the criminal conduct of the U.S. government, rather than leaving the task to those from other countries who suffer the consequences of its illegalities.
Following the position articulated by Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson at Nuremberg in 1945, I believe that we have not only the right but the legal obligation to compel lawful behavior from the government that is acting in our name.
I document the systemic violence perpetrated by the U.S. government in the hope that Americans will take this responsibility to heart and use political means to change government policy. I would vastly prefer that this happen through nonviolent means. However, I cannot say that nonviolence is the only legitimate response to systemic violence….”
July 4th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
Only now responding to Peter K.’s comments. Sorry for the delay.
Peter, I have been waiting a long time for Hitchens to comment on what is called in the interview the “economic architecture of the occupation”. For some reason I cannot link to the interview right now, but I think that he does refer to his disagreeing with most of the actions taken by Bremer. Hitchens is now a widely-read author and could do a lot of good by spending as much energy talking about those sorts of disagreements as he does with the ongoing sins of the left. For example, Naomi Klein has been talking up Jubliee Iraq as a group that should be supported. So has Hari. Why doesn’t Hitchens? For example, when Salih Jabr, the Chairman of the Iraqi National Assembly’s Economic Committee, reportedly said, regarding the Paris Club agreement
(quoted in
http://www.jubileeiraq.org/files/Paris%20Club%20problems%20article.htm )
“You heard yesterday’s news. The world media is marketing this as the deal of
a lifetime. It is not. This is yet another crime committed against the Iraqi
people.”
Why didn’t Hitchens have anything to say about it?
That is just one example. I refer you to Johann Hari’s column at
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=555
about the debts and the IMF plan.
The paragraph you quoted barely begins to even address these issues. e.g., what does it have to do with making debt forgiveness conditional on accepting IMF policy?
Face it, there is a huge and important chunk of U.S. policy in Iraq that Hitchens will not write about. This is one of the reasons why I have found his writings on the war to be so disappointing, to put it mildly.
July 4th, 2005 at 11:32 pm
A question for the posters here? What role do you think GI resistance played in Vietnam in stopping the war? From what I understand there were several hundred fraggings (mostly by black GI’s) and a general breakdown in willingness to fight. Is GI resistance out of the questiobn in Iraq?
July 5th, 2005 at 10:55 am
I think that the kind of general resistance among GI’s that you’re referring to won’t happen in Iraq, like it did in Vietnam.
Not unless they bring back bullet stopper conscription (i.e. the draft).
July 12th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
I know that Klein has written some viciously stupid things about the Iraqi resistance but Chomsky appears to have been rather radio silent on the issue from my reading of his main venue (Z-Net - where one finds the brilliant and slabberingly stupid side by side).
Does anyone have any references to his position, irrelevant as he may be?
February 2nd, 2006 at 11:58 am
Program on the emergence of civilization.
“14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. ”
Favor.
And disfavor.
They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.
The roots of racism are not of this earth.
Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.
The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.
AIDS in Africa.
Organizational Heirarchy/Levels of positioning.
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:
1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere
Terrestrial management/positioning:
4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - The seamless transition between Cleopatra and Julius Ceasar may be a clue alluding to a partnership.
6. Mafia - the real-world 20th century interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.
Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.
Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying “He has more money than god.” There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says “I’m too old and rich for this.”
This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.
20 cent/hour Chinese labor, 50 cents for material.
An $80 sweater costs less than a dollar; tribute kicked upstairs vindicates the creative accounting.
I don’t want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe. But these individuals become wealthy exploiting those they hurt.
They have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won’t help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help.
The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.
I offer an example of historical proportions:::
People point to Walmart and cry “anti-union”.
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family’s problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an environment where there are fewer hurdles.
Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people’s belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the indistry dominated by the middle and lower classes.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.
The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america.
The coining of the term “Uncle Sam” was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton’s WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.
They desire a system based on duality:::good and evil. They seek to set up a system of two participants and assign them polar opposites:::
Coke and Pepsi
BestBuy and CircutCity
Energizer and Duracell
Republican and Democrat
The list goes on and on:::
AMD and Intel
Apple and Microsoft (?)
Lowes and HomeDepot
Sam’sClub and Costco
WellsFargo and BofA. For the longest time in CA these two banks reigned supreme.
Pier1 and CostPlus
Borders and Barnes&Noble
PetCo and PetSmart
Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals, malcontents.
Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they decided who they didn’t want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren’t their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.
Royalty is the correct way to organize a society. Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient’s hierarchical organization.
Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected.
Elections bring a false sense of how the world is. Democracy misleads people.
Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path.
Jewsus Christ is a religious figure of evil. The Catholic Church in the tretcherous 20th century teaches of a begnign, forgiving god when quite the opposite is true.
The seperatist churches formed so they could capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to disfavored people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.
Since Buddism doesn’t recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Asian representation is instead fully selected by the thrones.
Budda was the Asian’s Jewsus Christ::: bad for the people. It was a clue they both emerged at the same time. Timing may be a clue alluding to ranking.
Simpson’s foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. “Last one you ever suspect.”
“You’ll see lots of nuns where you’re going:::hell.” St. Wigham, Helloween VI:::missionary work, destroying cultures.
Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.
The advent of the modern Christmas was a brilliant move. It creates a vested interest among those who would prefer the Church of Evil be destroyed::::
As goes the Catholic Church so goes the majority of annual retail sales.
The similarity between the names “Santa” and “Satan” is no coincidence.
Jews maim the body formed in the image of “god”, and inflicted circumcision upon all other white people.
I think about how Jews were used to create homosexuality among Slavics, supposedly retribution for the Holocaust.
Then I think of the Catholic Church and its troubles.
What connection is here between Jews and the Catholic church???
If it is their sinister motives that’s behind the evil that is Jesus Christ are they being used at all?
Perhaps it is them who are pulling strings.
Their centuries of slavery in Egypt proves their disfavor.
For their suffering the Jew leaders were granted the right to prey on the up-and-coming Europeans to try to fix their problems with the ruling elite by imposing a false god upon white people, a recurring aspect of the elite’s methodology.
Jews were ostracised for a reason.
Retribution for the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, the Korean War got the disfavored United States into this socially depraved environment in the latter 20th century because we attacked an antient, revered peoples. Our continued presence keeps us in trouble.
When the disfavored americans attack the wrong people again, as they suggested they will, in Korea or elsewhere, they will pay dearly.
There are consequences for the peasant’s resistance:::
1. Labor unrest caused the world at war.
2. Black militancy ignited the crack epidemic and gang-related deaths.
3. Women’s rights/sexual freedom produced Roe v Wade and women’s exclusion from contention for Planet Immortality. But on the bright side peasants don’t go. Money is one way of indicating favor, and if you’re not wealthy you don’t have favor, so don’t sweat it::you weren’t going anyways. “We’re leading a lot of people on.”
All peoples are ranked in terms of favor and disfavor. And when the disfavored abuse those with favor there is hell to pay.
All the groups mentioned throughout are necessary to justify the will of the managing species. They conceive a strategy, devise a plan yet need a way to implement it, and without these groups the managing species would be exposed in the course of execution. So, based upon their rank they are assigned goals to accomplish and are rewarded with favors.
I question if we would even experience global warming if they didn’t terraform in an attempt to destroy disfavored human life on planet earth::::they terraform the weather as they did in New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina (and lots of other examples) and justify it with behavior like instructing their petroleum friends to repress alternative technologies.
This is all happening shortly after the Exodus of 2000 (clues::Hong Kong, Panama Canal) for a reason::: they are INFLICTING it upon us, they are hastening closure. Everybody they care about has come up, replaced by clones.
Just as favored European peoples got out before the ugliness of WWII, the semi-favored within the US got out before 9/11.
Armeggedon isn’t about the end of the world. Armeggedon is about the death of the disfavored left behind. And they weren’t lying::this time it is going to happen with fire.
July 23rd, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Descriptions of poker pubs their atmospheresqms
July 31st, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
September 13th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
elkay elkay
April 25th, 2007 at 5:01 am
Hi Sam! Photos i send on e-mail.
Green