← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 3793 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2002-12-02
2002-12-02 11:39 | User Profile
Throughout the universal condemnation of Kissinger's appointment, I'd remember Raimondo's recent columns and his own Kissinger Theory, and restrain my own booing somewhat. Now just because Raimondo is dogged and courageous doesn't mean he's not offbase a lot of the time, which must be taken into consideration. But the odd thing that backs up his postulations is the neos' own badmouthing of the choice. Remember that these are people whose agitprop recognizes no shame threshold - if they need a point man or a test pilot for propaganda tactics beyond the pale, they simply send Glazov, Suleyman, Ann Coulter or one of the other mad-dogs to do it.....had Bush appointed Alan Dershowitz or Midge Decter to that panel, Jonah Goldberg would be bent over triple like a contortionist justifying it.
While that doesn't make the Kissinger gambit by any means a good thing...."Kissinger is likely to turn out to be an equal-opportunity suppressor of evidence ââ¬â both real and imagined", as Raimondo points out.....it might not be a horrible thing, especially if it elicits scorn from the Podhoretzim like sunlight on vampires (since crucifixes are right out with this crowd.) On the other hand, Raimondo's theory clearly indicates the President of the United States is in defensive/survival mode and adopting a series of chess-moves to ward off not his enemies but the phalanx of careeerist Jews he numbers among his "friends and advisers".
Come to think of it - is that even news?
December 2, 2002
HAIL HENRY! Left and Right unite against Henry the 'K' ââ¬â but was appointing Kissinger chairman of the 9/11 commission really such a bad idea?
Rarely has there been a display of unanimity such as the universal hissing that greeted Henry Kissinger's appointment as chairman of the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States." From Maureen Dowd's reliably btchy response ââ¬â "Who better to investigate an unwarranted attack on America than the man who used to instigate America's unwarranted attacks?" ââ¬â to the even btchier but less articulate Glenn Reynolds ââ¬â "too absurd for words" ââ¬â on the neocon Right, the cry goes up: "The fix is in!"
For a country supposedly so divided along ideological lines, the amount of agreement on this one point is truly remarkable. The John Birch Society, the Green Party, the right-wing Newsmax, left-Clintonite David Corn, anti-abortion activists, left-neocon Christopher Hitchens ââ¬â whose fatwa against Kissinger is well-known ââ¬â and right-neocon Jonah Goldberg all agree. As Goldberg put it on CNN, Kissinger "just doesn't seem to me to be the right guy at the right time."
Which is quite a turnaround for Goldberg, who was heard to remark the other day that he had a "no brainer prediction," to wit:
"Henry Kissinger's been tapped to head up the 9/11 investigation. Within 24 hours we will see Arab and homegrown conspiracy nuts saying this was done to assure that the role of the Israelis will never see the light. Of course, I think this is idiotic, but that hasn't stopped these people before."
Has Goldberg joined the ranks of the "conspiracy nuts"? If those nasty Ay-rabs and the native Tin Foil brigade are "idiotic" to oppose Kissinger, why isn't it equally idiotic for Goldberg to take the same position? Well, you see, lots of people ââ¬â foreigners, mostly ââ¬â don't seem to like Kissinger very much. Oh, and another thing, says Jonah: he is prone to "subterfuge" and "weird games."
This last is really the key to the opposition coming from the neoconservative Right. It is well-known that Kissinger's private clients include the very Arab states that the neocons want us to conquer and occupy, most notably the Saudis: Goldberg and his militantly anti-Saudi friends are unlikely to be assuaged by the divestment of all such financial interests by commission members. Kissinger is likely to make short shrift of the rather tenuous alleged "connections" between the wife of the Saudi ambassador and two of the 9/11 hijackers, and will no doubt consign the neocon-far left-Forbidden Truth theory of a worldwide Saudi conspiracy against America to the trash-can ââ¬â where it belongs.
Kissinger is unlikely to entertain evidence that in any way implicates a U.S. ally as being complicit, even passively, in the worst terrorist attack in American history, and Goldberg is certainly correct that this includes Israel. What the neocons are up in arms about is that their own pet conspiracy theories are likely to be just as rudely disregarded. Kissinger is likely to turn out to be an equal-opportunity suppressor of evidence ââ¬â both real and imagined ââ¬â making sure the investigation steers a narrow path between the sensitivities of our Arab allies and the political realities of the President's need to appease Israel.
The job called for a detective, someone trained to go after the truth, and President Bush appointed a diplomat, whose job consists mostly of finessing the truth. But why the widespread shock?
The idea that this phony commission was ever meant to solve the many mysteries surrounding 9/11 is ludicrous. To begin with, the idea of political appointees investigating their own government is, shall we say, counterintuitive ââ¬â unless one posits a preordained cover-up. We are supposed to believe that the appointees are all "private citizens," but it's no accident, as the Marxists used to say, that most of the leading candidates are ex-government officials.
Secondly, in this particular case, the whole scheme was cooked up by Joe Lieberman and John McCain as a political maneuver to embarrass the White House and give their own presidential ambitions some much-needed momentum. With the invasion of Iraq already bogged down in the quagmire of UN inspections, and the GOP right-wing engaged in a running debate with the White House over the nature of Islam, the neocons are predictably enraged by the Kissinger appointment. It is the clearest indication yet that the White House is not going along with neocon program that sees Riyadh as the new Kremlin in a new cold war.
I never expected an "official" commission to uncover the truth about 9/11, and so I'm not at all disappointed by the Kissinger appointment. It is a political masterstroke that can only inspire awe, and perhaps some speculation that resurrecting figures out of our somewhat dubious recent past is a recurring theme of this administration, a new and novel kind of retro-chic. First John Poindexter, then Kissinger ââ¬â can Ollie North be far behind?
The task of the 9/11 commission is one that, in a free society, should have been taken up by journalists. That it has been co-opted by a quasi-governmental organ ââ¬â without a peep of protest from the Fourth Estate ââ¬â is a sad indication of the degeneration of a once-proud profession. In the age of the omnipotent state, the idea that all answers lie with the government is an illusion that many find comforting. That the concept of an "official" truth is an oxymoron seems lost on these people, along with the irony of the idea. It has been fourteen months and the U.S. government is just now beginning its official public investigation into the worst terrorist atrocity on our soil ââ¬â that should tell us all we need to know about their eagerness to reveal the truth.
Let the lefties whine about the Pinochet "coup" and the martyrdom of the Commie Allende, who might, but for Kissinger, have become another Castro. Let ranting neocons like smear-artist Stephen Schwartz rail about the International Wahabist Conspiracy ââ¬â and echo their former brethren on the Left in denouncing the pernicious influence of "big oil" ââ¬â all they want. Since the 9/11 commission has been a diversion and a political device from the beginning, its sandbagging by the President is a positive development in that, at least, the commission won't lead us down the wrong path.
Lieberman, McCain, and their neocon allies hoped the 9/11 commission would amount to the post-9/11 equivalent of the Moscow Trials, in which "Wahabism" and the Saudi regime in particular would be targeted as the progenitors of a Vast Conspiracy, but that tiresome prospect has now been effectively derailed. My own response to that, given my jaundiced view of the commission's original purpose, can only be: "Hail Henry!"
ââ¬â Justin Raimondo
2002-12-02 18:22 | User Profile
I offer these to go with Raimondo (any would serve to browse; the middle one was sent to me)
[url=http://www.tetrahedron.org]http://www.tetrahedron.org[/url]
[url=http://americanreddoublecross.comE-mail]http://americanreddoublecross.comE-mail[/url]
pr@tetrahedron.org
This is a feature news release from the anti-vaccination public health specialist, Len Horowitz on the connection between pharmaceuticals (esp. Merck, Bayer AG), the British Royal family, the Bush's, and Kissenger.
It is the source of pretty hard-core world-conspiracy stuff, with a Biblical decipherment of 666 as numerological code behind: Rockerfeller and Standard Oil (supplying Hitler's war machine during WWII through Franco's Spain -- now receiving its black doomsday reward); the British Royal Family "Secret Service", the "SS" (variant of "66", as in Philips 66, Route 66 = "S" is 114 - 19th letter x 6; and =6, adding the token digits), "M16", and the swastika are connected, along with many other things.
The appointment of Kissinger is directly connected with: a. passage of the liability-free provision for vaccine manufacturers; and b. removal of damage caused by impure vaccines from public records. His main job will be to protect these WWII - CIA - Bush family secrets, interests, and connected global causes. The red thread pulled, if it started unraveling, would lead straight back to ZYKLON B. The public must be prohibited from connecting "9/11" with the follow-up anthrax poison attack, or that red thread starts unravelling. That is one function in communication, which the double date-disaster number "9/11" has now, in our history -- so strong, in its effect on the unconscious mind (Freud; Jung) that, once implanted, it becomes a memory-block cutting off the anthrax connection. Kissinger's job will be to make sure these twin catatrophic events don't bleed over, into each other. Worked on Raimondo. "But sometimes the memory bloc wears off", an X-file script says somewhere.
If worse is better, this is as good as it gets. "When your get your ducks lined up in a row," Dad said. "You'll know what to do." Never understood that, until now.
"Now Isaac pleaded with the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord granted his pleas, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
"But the children struggled together within her; and she said, "if all is well, why am I like this?' ..And the Lord said unto her: Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body. One shall be stronger than the other. And the older shall serve the younger." (Gen. 25.21f)
Then, after Tamar seduced Judah (Gen. 38.27f): "Now it came to pass, at the time for giving birth, that behold, twins were in her womb.
"And so it was, when she was giving birth, that one put out his hand; and the midwife took a scarlet thread and bound it on his hand, saying, "This one came out first."
"Then it happened, as he drew back his hand, that his brother came out unexpectedly; and she said, "How did you break through? This breach be upon you!" Therefore his name was called "Peres': ( "Pres.") "Afterward his brother came out who had the scarlet thread on his hand. And his name was called Zerah."
Its time for Zerah/Gore to start tugging on that thread. Hard. He won't last, but that's the point. Its implosion time.
2002-12-03 00:28 | User Profile
I think this column shows two of Raimondos greatest flaws. The first is how he seems to fawn over anyone who may end up showing moderate antiwar views, even when it is usually done for political reasons. While I'd rather have democrats oppose intervention (though usually under the auspices of lack of U.N. approval or not respecting human rights), than no one it is ridiculous when Raimondo hails people who supported All of Clintons interventions as heros just because they don't support Bush's war in Iraq. The second is how he seems to be ridiculously pro-Arab. One doesn't have to be a rabid zionist or Hawk to recognize that the Saudis are dubious allies at best, and that radical Islam poses a great threat to the west.
2002-12-03 01:55 | User Profile
I think Raimondo's view is that this is now a chess-game, and that Kissinger is a necessary utilitarian evil at this specific moment to thwart Perle's Grand Design and limit the scope of our aggression in the region. Of course, that entails trusting Kissinger not to pull a double-cross and answer to his first loyalty.
2002-12-03 03:53 | User Profile
Uh...Lets not hide our real thoughts about HK behind Raimondo's beard, now. Lets scratch wang a little bit, boys. You know this is the breaking point, and even know how each other will break. Me, too. I know you will all break, because this is a rignt-wing discussion forum I've joined, and I know everything there is to know about you relevant to the present deal. The only question of interest to me iswhether anything from the last 30 years of experience might lead to the understanding you are already dead, to me and Bobbty McGee and America, unless you can see a little bit into your seeing. (thats for John Paul -- either one, take your pick)
To me, and everyone who died in Vietnam, you are no more than Wm Safire's amen corner: "I yield to nobody in presenting credentials as a Kissinger critic. No. The Kissinger of today is not the sycophant of the Nixon tapes, the real-politiking Super-K of the Ford era. Nor is he the amateur Machiavelli of the 1980 GOP convention at which he tried to broken a Reagan-Ford "co-presidency" -- a bid to hild on to power.." Yu da man, Safire.
I'v had a couple of thoughts on how the right wing is so....down with him.
1. Bush knew you would have to kiss Kiss. Kissy Kissy, Mr. Kissinger. Glad you help the Nix keep the killing going on in Southeast Asia for political purpores, so the right-wing Republican party could hang out the sugar tits on Christmas.
I know for sure this is true. I heard Henry Kissinger interviewed in 70 or '71, one of those years, replying to why peace couldn't be made, yet -- although the terms were essentially the same as settled for two years, a miliion deaths, and a trillion dollars later. "Vee vould haf un uprising by die religious, patriotic people, many in the south, who voodn't stand for it."
2. Then, it occurred to me how brilliant this Mr. President Bush is! Not only does he give you a Kiss to lick, he gets revenge on Sharon, too! MASTER STROKE! I can just hear him talking it over with dad. "Hell, if the Jews like 9/11 so much, let 'em cover it up themselves. What choice do they have? They'l even make sure he does it right."
3. Yes, Yes....but, then, I don't really believe boy blue is that smart. I just believe Kissinger is the one everyone just, well, really wants. Our own OJ. To keep the truth from coming out. "We" can trust Henry. Known quantity.
Kissinger is every little "a" americans way of hiding the truth about what happened from themselves, and each other. Everybody can fill in their own little brilliant analysis of how the Saudis this, and the Clinton's that, and the military Islamists the other ....wait! Isn't that Pipes argument?-- american at war against militant Islam? Or is it just against Islamic militants? i'm gettin all confused and frustrated here.
Nope.. Nothing satisfies as an explantion like the one I posted first, above. Its straight vast right-wing conspiracy. They are pathological liars and psythotic killers, by mentality, to the core, and Kissinger is precisely the right Jew to cover it up.
Hillary Clinton had my respect there for five minutes.
2002-12-03 06:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by oldrightlibertarian@Dec 3 2002, 00:28 I think this column shows two of Raimondos greatest flaws. ...... The second is how he seems to be ridiculously pro-Arab. One doesn't have to be a rabid zionist or Hawk to recognize that the Saudis are dubious allies at best, and that radical Islam poses a great threat to the west.
I recognize how occasionally 1. does show up in Raimondo's writing but I don't reallty see this prominently. And 2. I don't really see how attacking the neocons for their harshness on Saudi Arabia shows a "ridulous pro-Arab disposition" and a blindness toward radical Islam. It rather seems to me to be a very brilliant insight into another parallelism of neo's with the left - their hostility toward moderate Arab states like Saudi Arabia.
In fact this might explain the general unanimity against Kissinger - his general friendliness toward Saudi Arabia. I have really never understood any conservative who seriously took issue with this reasoning on Saudi Arabia. Yasser Arafat and the PA are by all accounts no real candidats for conservatives sympathy, but I really don't see any good reason for traditional conservative to share the Saudiphobia of the liberal and neocon establishment.
2002-12-04 07:14 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Dec 3 2002, 23:25 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 3 2002, 06:49 ** 2. I don't really see how attacking the neocons for their harshness on Saudi Arabia shows a "ridulous pro-Arab disposition" and a blindness toward radical Islam. It rather seems to me to be a very brilliant insight into another parallelism of neo's with the left - their hostility toward moderate Arab states like Saudi Arabia.
In fact this might explain the general unanimity against Kissinger - his general friendliness toward Saudi Arabia. I have really never understood any conservative who seriously took issue with this reasoning on Saudi Arabia. Yasser Arafat and the PA are by all accounts no real candidats for conservatives sympathy, but I really don't see any good reason for traditional conservative to share the Saudiphobia of the liberal and neocon establishment.**
There may be something to the Saudi-Al Quaeda link at the level of individual Saudis, the trouble is that the neocons have made no effort to document it in anything but the most anecdotal terms (and again, always involving individual rogue Saudis rather than an organized effort by the government), so as I said above, all they have is "proof by assertion." In fact, Al Quaeda is no friend of the Saudi regime, one of Bin Laden's points has always been that the House of Saud must be overthrown due to its dealings with "infidels" and replaced by an Islamist regime. So I rather doubt that the Saudis would be in any hurry to finance their own demise.
Where the neocons get truly get bizarre is in their attempts to forge a alleged link between nations that have nothing at all in common with one another culturally or ideologically apart from the fact that the neocons happen to hate them. The Iraq-Saudi Arabia-Al Quaeda connection makes absolutely no sense (if you really want a good laugh, take a look at Schwartz's claim that Serbia is secretly sponsoring Al Quaeda too - that sure makes perfect sense!)...... After all, if we can do business with China, surely we can buy oil from Saddam Hussein or anyone else. Nor do I see how Arafat is any more objectionable than Sharon, given that terror is basically the MO for everybody in that region.**
I don't particularly have rose-colored glasses with regard to Saddam Hussein actually, or even the Saudi people., and while we paleo's can add an air of reality to the invective's the neocons throw in their direction, I am getting tired a little bit of falling into the neocon trap of having to justify these regimes presently to justify our opposition to the neocon policies.
I see the real question the as being not what these nations or regimes presently are, but what the neocon advocated policies are making these countries. The real central issue the neocons are trying to divert us from addressing after all is the Israeli war on the Palestinians, and the inevitable and drastic radicalizing effect this has all over the Arab world.
2002-12-04 07:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by oldrightlibertarian@Dec 2 2002, 20:28 I think this column shows two of Raimondos greatest flaws. The first is how he seems to fawn over anyone who may end up showing moderate antiwar views, even when it is usually done for political reasons. While I'd rather have democrats oppose intervention (though usually under the auspices of lack of U.N. approval or not respecting human rights), than no one it is ridiculous when Raimondo hails people who supported All of Clintons interventions as heros just because they don't support Bush's war in Iraq. The second is how he seems to be ridiculously pro-Arab. One doesn't have to be a rabid zionist or Hawk to recognize that the Saudis are dubious allies at best, and that radical Islam poses a great threat to the west.
I agree that there is some "short memory syndrome" at work in lauding supposed "anti-war" Democrats who would be quite willing to back Clintonian excursions into Haiti and the like. These Dems that operate this way for political advantage should be labeled as such, frequently--even as an aside. I wouldn't let them off the hook so easily, but that's just me.
I'm not so sure about pegging Raimondo as "pro-Arab," though. There are probably a lot of ways to interpret his analysis, but I suspect that part of what he is trying to do is provide a counterweight to the Establishment's slant on the situation, revealing the other side of the coin, so to speak. The Establishment often tends to dehumanize the Arabs and cast them as the "ultimate villains," even though it seems this country has long endured the ever-increasing list of "ultimate villains of the week," and this time it's the Arabs' turn at the top of the list. The ideal position for the U.S. is, of course, neutrality in the Middle East. America has no friends there, nor should she seek to cultivate friends (or enemies) there.
As far as "radical Islam" posing a threat to the West, I think that threat is greatly overexaggerated. What exactly is a radical Islamist, anyway? Someone to whom the multinational corporations have a hard time marketing their junk? These people would not take notice of us if we weren't messing about in their backyards. You write for Lew Rockwell, so you already know this. America's disengagement from that region, both militarily and in terms of ending foreign aid to Israel, Egypt, and all the rest, etc., would at least, over time, dry up the number of recruits for radical groups like al-Qaeda.
If radical Islam is a threat to America (I don't much care what happens to the other countries that compose the West--they can fend for themselves and pay their own way in providing their security) the real question is how do we handle that "threat?" I submit the current method of showering cash on allies like "Israel" and puppets like Karzai while dropping bombs here and there across the desert landscape is a failure. The real way to end the potential for Islamic terrorism against the U.S. is to repeal the 1965 Immigration Act and the 14th Amendment and deport the foreign born from our shores, sealing the borders behind them forever, and then make the corresponding changes to our foreign policy mentioned above. I know, I know, I'm totally dreaming--I expect hell to freeze over before what I advocate comes into being. But I think it's the only sure way, and someone out there needs to say so along these lines.
2002-12-04 08:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 4 2002, 07:37 ** As far as "radical Islam" posing a threat to the West, I think that threat is greatly overexaggerated. What exactly is a radical Islamist, anyway? Someone to whom the multinational corporations have a hard time marketing their junk? These people would not take notice of us if we weren't messing about in their backyards. You write for Lew Rockwell, so you already know this. America's disengagement from that region, both militarily and in terms of ending foreign aid to Israel, Egypt, and all the rest, etc., would at least, over time, dry up the number of recruits for radical groups like al-Qaeda.
If radical Islam is a threat to America (I don't much care what happens to the other countries that compose the West--they can fend for themselves and pay their own way in providing their security) the real question is how do we handle that "threat?" I submit the current method of showering cash on allies like "Israel" and puppets like Karzai while dropping bombs here and there across the desert landscape is a failure. The real way to end the potential for Islamic terrorism against the U.S. is to repeal the 1965 Immigration Act and the 14th Amendment and deport the foreign born from our shores, sealing the borders behind them forever, and then make the corresponding changes to our foreign policy mentioned above. I know, I know, I'm totally dreaming--I expect hell to freeze over before what I advocate comes into being. But I think it's the only sure way, and someone out there needs to say so along these lines.**
I agree with you about the true way to control radical Islam. Let these guys stay in their mid-eastern deserts hells until they freeze over.
At the same time, I can't be struck by what seems to be a certain confusion in the ranks of the nationalist right over this idea of radical Islam. In Europe the PCers all are Islamophiles, and we're Islamophobes, while in the middle east we're all Islamophiles and the neocons are Islamophobes.
This really makes a certain amount of sense of course. MacDonald points out that the multiculturalist mentality favored by postmodernists and Jewish groups has always been to martyrize minorities and to demonize cohesive majorities. Hence Islam is a fearsome threat in the Middle East, where in fact they rightfully belong and do little harm, and must be wiped out. In the west by contrast enlightened PC opinion views them as valuble, benovalent parts of the multicultural landscape, which must be sheltered and protected from its enemies and allowed to grow.
2002-12-04 17:02 | User Profile
Yep. (wish I knew how to frame quotes, damn it).
Just the Jew for you! All the right-wang pathologs, working out AmMerica's history with Mr. Henry Kissinger.
Did I say that before? "Just the Jew For You?"
So go fight his war, too. Itchin for a bitchin? Turn to "Cath - O - Jew II", by Cristpher Hitchin. 'Bout the same speed.
Oh America
2002-12-04 17:09 | User Profile
wombatnine.
Yep. (wish I knew how to frame quotes, damn it).
To frame a quote, just use the commands in this order:
[ quote] put your text here [ /quote]
Of course, there should be no spaces inside the bracketed commands like there are above. I just put in the space between the bracket and the letter "q" in quote so that the board wouldn't actually quote the text, so that the commands will remain visible for your use. Alternatively, when you post, you could always use the gray buttons that say "QUOTE" too.