THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007


The recent and, so it seems, unfinished, debacle over the Indian doctor in Australia who was related to one of the men involved in the burning of a Jeep at Glasgow airport last month, has exposed once again the extreme racial prejudices of a nation already well known for its government-sanctioned racism.

The racism in this case was barely concealed behind the transparent screen of ‘anti-terrorism’ and, as such, fulfilled two of the Australian government’s policies regarding ‘foreigners’ in Australia.

Dr. Mohamed Haneef was arrested at Brisbane Airport on 2 July 2007 just as he was leaving for India to see his six day old baby daughter born to his wife who was living in India. Australian Federal Police (AFP) then held Haneef under the 2005 Australian Anti-Terrorism Act, the first person to be so detained under this act. What happened to Dr. Haneef during the period between his arrest and his release is documented elsewhere; suffice to say it was a farce from beginning to end and one that has ended in showing both the Australian government and many Australian people for the racists and bigots that they really are.

Dr. Haneef’s only ‘crime’ was that he gave a partially used SIM card to a relative in the UK just before coming to Australia to work as a doctor in a Brisbane hospital. It turns out that the relative was also related to one of the men that were involved in the burning of a Jeep at Glasgow Airport. While charges against Dr. Haneef have since been dropped by Australian Federal Police, Dr. Haneef’s work visa, revoked by the Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews while Haneef was under arrest, has not been reinstated. Kevin Andrews is refusing to concede that a mistake has been made and claims that he has other knowledge about Haneef that has caused him to continue his belief that Haneef is not of ‘good character’, which was the reason that Andrews withdrew the visa in the first place. Andrews, at this writing, continues to refuse to reveal what those reasons are for the continued denial of Haneef’s visa.

Running parallel to this continuing farce is the way public opinion has developed around the story. The vast majority of people have openly supported Dr. Haneef, particularly as it became clear that he was being unfairly treated and quite wrongly accused by both the Australian government and the AFP, as the response to this piece in The Australian by Cameron Stewart demonstrates. However, the ongoing debate in the public domain both in the Australian mainstream media and the Australian blogosphere has also yet again exposed the racist and bigoted attitudes of many Australian people and especially the Australian government.

This comment by ‘Bob of QLD’ (comment no. 182) is typical of some of the remarks about the affair from the racist and bigoted right-wing of Australia:
“Thank goodness we have a government prepared to put the interests of Australian citizens ahead of others. It's better to be safe than sorry, and I'm happy with the way this situation was handled. I would rather they got it wrong ten times and got it right once. The terror threat on Australia is so very real, and we need to be extra vigilant.”
And this comment (comment no. 127) from ‘Roger Sykes of Mudjimba Qld’: “One day all you clowns who criticise Howard over the Haneef affair will be screaming about his lack of action over a terrorist attack (god forbid) Get a life & get in the real world.”
Then there is this comment (comment no. 144) from ‘Ian McLuckie of Sydney’ who says: “The government's duty of care is to the Australian public not to Mr Haneef and to err on the side of caution is much better than a catastrophe like 911 or the London bombings”.

It is comments like these that play straight into the government’s hands. Not only do they demonstrate the extent to which some of the Australian people have fallen for the government’s fearmongering tactics but it also demonstrates that there is still a strong undercurrent of racism existing in Australia.

Among the Australian blogs, Webdiary has had much to say on the matter. Opinions have ranged among Webdiarists with those on the left clearly outraged at the treatment that Haneef has had from the AFP and the Australian government while those on the right have demonstrated that, despite the obvious shortcomings of the case against Haneef, they are really still unable to accept that the government has been wrong in its treatment of him and have resorted to the now familiar ‘but what if the police had been right’ argument in their attempts to justify the governments abysmal treatment of Haneef. The bottom line, of course, is that they were not right and, indeed, had got it wrong from the very beginning but yet still refused to let him go after it had become obvious that the man was entirely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

There were some elements within the right-wing at Webdiary that were a little more subtle about their criticisms. Jenny Hume for example argues: “As for Dr Haneef. All I was saying was that he is a victim first and foremost of his own family. And I suspect that once the furore settles down it will be in India that he will suffer the most, particularly once the cousins come to court. They place a lot of weight on family honour in some of these countries, and his family has been badly let down.” Here Jenny Hume, well known among Webdiarists for her ability to manipulate both words and people via those words, attempts to pass on the blame for Haneef’s treatment to his family.

She then goes on to demonise Indian culture by suggesting that Haneef will suffer at the hands of his fellow Indians because he is related to ‘terrorists’ adding that ‘They place a lot of weight on family honour in some of these countries’.

Jenny Hume then allows her arrogance to show through when she says: “I will not rule on Andrews as being trustworthy or not until he is allowed to release all the information on which he may have relied.”

If and when Andrews does ‘release all the information’ one wonders whether or not Jenny Hume’s pronouncements on the matter will have any bearing on the majority of Australians opinion that Andrews is, in the light of the way the matter has thus far been handled, most definitely not someone who one could call ‘trustworthy’ any more than one could of Jenny Hume.

Jenny Hume goes on to say: “A lot is made of the baby issue, all emotionalism. The teacher in the UK who set out to mass murder on a train had a wife and small children. Having a baby, children or wife back home has been seen to mean very little to the Jihadists. It tells us nothing about such people. That Dr Haneef has a wife and baby tells us that, and nothing more.”

This seemingly innocuous statement is extremely racist. She attempts to equate those that undertake Jihad with Haneef the family man. There is a direct inference here that many Jihadists are also family men and, therefore, the fact that Haneef is also a family man should not figure in the formulation of ones opinion about Haneef’s guilt or innocence. The problem here, of course, is that it actually goes right to the heart of Haneef’s guilt or innocence since it was his leaving Australia to see his wife and new daughter that caused all the increased suspicion on top of the SIM card debacle.

Some will accept Jenny Hume’s words as merely being cautiously neutral but, when read in conjunction with so many of Jenny Hume’s other comments which abound at Webdiary, the real picture that is Jenny Hume emerges; one that is manipulative, racist and arrogant; one that displays the ugly side of a bygone Australian attitude of white Australian racist paternalism and the class pretension inherent in many who continue to gloat over the heritage of their hand-me-down Australian farms.

But by far the most important aspect of Dr. Haneef’s case is the role the Australian government has played in it. It has played wonderfully into the hands of the Australian right-wing. The double edged sword of fear and race has been wielded by the government but, fortunately, the government has been caught cheating. The ‘terrorist’ card played this side of an election has just been too obvious to most Australians who have seen it all before and are not biting this time around.

There will always be the loony racist Islamophobic right who will continue to support John Howard and his neo-fascist cohorts regardless and there will always be those that are dumb and gullible enough to continue voting for them. But far more dangerous and frightening are those, politicians in government and commentators alike, which feel the need to lie, cheat, manipulate and obfuscate their words in their war against the left in a battle to protect what they believe is an Australia that is somehow exclusively theirs. They are far more dangerous to society than the simpleton loony right who can be simply ignored. Australians who dream of a far more equitable, egalitarian and just society should take time and effort to confront and expose these people for what they really are – the true racists of Australia.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007


Why must they? The short answer is simple – it is the only way that Israel and the US can affect ‘regime change’ in these countries.

So, why regime change? Again, the answer is simple – it is because these two countries support the organisations that are all that stands between the right-wing Israeli Zionists and their dreams of a Greater Israel that includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Their sights are also set on southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, an area which the Israelis attempted to invade last year. Both Syria and Iran supply the means by which Hizbollah and Hamas protect the Arab peoples of Lebanon and Palestine from Zionist aggression and invasion.

Ever since the ethnic cleansing of Palestine began in 1947 Israelis have always sought to justify their insidious take-overs of Palestinian lands by finding some casus belli or another by which they can excuse their misdeeds. The Zionists have always been master manipulators of geo-political situations that have provided them with the pretext for their carefully calculated expansionist plans; and their plan to rid themselves of the two regimes that prevent them from achieving their ultimate goal is no less nefarious in its cunning.

Last years attack by Israel on the Lebanese people was one such example of the way Israel manipulates situations in order justify actions in pursuit of their expansionist policies. Israel’s stated casus belli in that case was that two of its soldiers on 12 July 2006 had been ‘kidnapped’ by Hizbollah militia. Within hours the Israelis began massively bombing targets in Lebanon. As far as the world was concerned Israel were simply responding to an attack on their forces. The reality, however, is an entirely different story.

Less than three weeks earlier, on 25 June 2006, an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, was captured by Palestinian fighters in the Gaza after an increase of Israeli bombing activities in the Gaza which had resulted in the deaths of many innocent women and children and which culminated in the shelling bombardment of a Gaza beach that killed a Palestinian family holidaying there on 9 June 2006. These events raised the tension levels to the point where there was increased Israeli military activity not just in the Gaza but and also along the borderlands of southern Lebanon where Israeli patrol units darted in and out of Lebanese territory and where they increased their level of incidents of penetration into Lebanese airspace including creating transonic and supersonic booms over the country and over Beirut, actions that were designed specifically to intimidate the Lebanese people. These actions were enough to provoke Hizbollah to respond which they did on 12 July 2006 by launching a rocket attack on two Israeli towns close to the border of Lebanon. At the same time, Hizbollah fighters came into contact with an Israeli patrol just inside the Lebanese border where a number of Israelis were killed and two others captured.

The mainstream media in the West reported all of these events in such a way as to make it seem as though the Israelis were responding to Palestinian and, in particular, Hizbollah aggression, taking care to avoid highlighting any details that might show the reality of Israeli provocation in both the Gaza and southern Lebanon.

The Israeli attacks on the Gazans and especially the Lebanese in fact had been carefully planned months ahead of actual events, a fact that has since been acknowledged by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the Winograd enquiry but was actually first reported in the ‘Jerusalem Post’ on the very day that Israel’s soldiers were captured, 12 July 2006.

Israel’s stated war aim initially was to simply get their two captured soldiers back but this very quickly morphed into something massively more ambitious when the war aims were extended to include the destruction of Hizbollah. As the war progressed it became increasingly obvious that it had been meticulously planned with military jet fuel and hi-tech ordinance having been ordered months earlier from the US and stockpiled well in advance of hostilities and the IDF had spent considerable time in the month or so prior to the war completing exercises that suited this particular war scenario.

In provoking Hizbollah by massively bombing Hizbollah villages and towns the Israelis hope was that they would entice the Syrians to openly show their support of Hizbollah thus providing a pretext for the Israelis to attack Syria knowing, or at least hoping, that in doing so Iran would come to Syria’s aid via a mutual agreement treaty that Syria and Iran have with each other. This, in turn, would have escalated the war to include the US who would then come to Israel’s aid because of the threat to Israel from Iran.

As we now know, of course, the plan failed because Syria simply didn’t bite. Since the Israelis were unable to lure the Syrians into the war by merely massively bombing Lebanon, they decided to up the ante by actually invading southern Lebanon. Despite the invasion, however, Hizbollah managed to continue lobbing rockets into Israel, an action that was eventually to take its toll on the Israelis. The Syrians continued to hold their ground and did not respond to the Israelis provocation of Syria’s allies. As the Israeli civilian casualties began to mount in Israel, and IDF casualties began also to mount because of fighting actually in southern Lebanon, the Israelis decided enough was enough as they could plainly see that their plan of provoking Syria and ultimately Iran into the war was not going to work and so withdrew from the war in a US manipulated UN brokered environment.

As the war had progressed with Israel mercilessly bombing civilian residences and industries in towns and villages throughout southern Lebanon, it became clear to the entire world that Israeli bombing was a massively ‘disproportionate’ response to the Hizbollah rocket bombardment of northern Israel, most of which fell harmlessly in open country. There was a world-wide public outcry that called for the UN to step in and stop the war. The US with its veto power, however, held back in allowing the UN to stop the carnage saying that the Israelis needed more time to defeat Hizbollah because Hizbollah were sending rockets to Israel and killing Israeli civilians and because Hizbollah had ‘kidnapped’ Israeli soldiers. Eventually even the US had to concede to the obvious; that Syria was not going to drawn into the conflict and, therefore, there would be no casus belli for the US to attack Iran. A UN resolution went through effectively stopping the war and forcing Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon. The war was a humiliating defeat for Israel inasmuch that neither its stated war aims of defeating Hizbollah or retrieving their two captured soldiers nor its unstated war aims of provoking Syria and Iran into a final showdown were realised.

The US and the Israelis, while now back to square one, remain, however, just as determined, even in the face of world-wide hostile public opinion, to have their final showdown with Iran. For years, the core of their propaganda and rhetoric for regime change is Israel’s and the Bush administration’s claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons which, so they say, would be both a threat to Israel specifically and the region generally. But this claim remains just that; propaganda and rhetoric, as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found no evidence whatsoever that would in any way support the claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons or material for nuclear weapons.

Once bitten and twice shy of the Bush administrations ability to lie in order to launch wars against nations that were never really any threat to the US or Israel, world public opinion on the matter of Iran’s nuclear plans is at the very least sceptical and to the point where both the US and Israel, while maintaining their propaganda and rhetoric of Iran seeking nuclear arms, have now made additional claims regarding Iranian ill intent toward the US and Israel by claiming that the Iranians are now heavily involved in the insurgency in Iraq and are also supplying arms and material to Syria in increasing amounts, much of which is being passed on to Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza and West Bank.

The problem is; the Bush administration and the Israelis have lied once too often for their lies to be believed by world public opinion anymore. However, since the failure of the Republicans to hang on to Congress at the midterm elections in the US last November, and given that Bush is now both as good as a lame duck President, as well as being a final term President, public opinion in all likelihood is no longer a factor in the decision making process that will determine whether or not Iran will be attacked. President Bush, and in particular his Vice-President, Dick Cheney, have become increasingly more belligerent and desperate as time marches towards their demise at the Presidential elections next year.

Everything is now in place militarily for the US and Israel to launch a final showdown against Iran and Syria. The US battle groups are in the Gulf off Iran and the Israelis have had their exercises in northern Israel close to the Golan Heights. All now seems to be ready. Bush and Cheney have nothing to lose; once launched it will be fait accompli. They may try fearmongering tactics in an effort to ease public opinion against them by either stating that they have uncovered some monstrous Iranian plan to launch a terror attack on the US mainland or they may even create a massive actual ‘terror attack’ on the US mainland which is as likely as it is not. Either way, the US and Israel are determined to have their final showdown with Iran – and they seem determined to have it regardless of the cost to humankind.

Sunday, July 22, 2007


These are the people that say there are no conspiracy theories save the government conspiracy theory that they believe in and that anyone else that believes in some other conspiracy other than the conspiracy theory that they believe in is just a conspiracy theorist. They are so defensive of their own conspiracy theory that they deny that their conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory and that those that accuse them of being denialist instead of conspiracy theorists themselves, will simply say that such a notion in itself is just another conspiracy theory or just part of the conspiracy theory that they don’t believe in.

Are you still with me?

Let’s take for example the conspiracy theories that abound regarding the events of 11 September 2001. First, though, we need to lay down a few ground rules as to what a ‘conspiracy theory’ actually is.

These days the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is usually used in the derogatory sense. It’s the word ‘theory’ within the term that causes the doubt that makes it derogatory, particularly after an event which has been explained and where the explanation is given in such a way as being a matter of fact. All subsequent alternative explanations are then said to be only ‘theories’ or alternative explanations that are not able to be proven as factual. This is all very well but it makes the assumption that the original, or ‘official’ explanation, is undoubted and is the actual reality of the event and that it is supported by overwhelming and irrefutable evidence. In the case of the events of 11 September 2001 the ‘9/11 Commission Report’ was purported and offered by the US government to be that evidence that proved beyond doubt that the events of that day were as stated at the time by the US government and that, therefore, any alternative versions of those events were just ‘conspiracy theories’, indeed, as President Bush told Americans, they weren’t just ‘conspiracy theories’ but ‘outrageous conspiracy theories’ suggesting that any person that supported alternative ideas about what had happened on 9/11 were ‘outrageous’ people.

At the time many Americans were so shocked at what had happened that they were prepared to accept without question the version of events that the US government had offered and to accept the ‘9/11 Commission Report’ as the documented record of those events.

From the very beginning, however, there were those that doubted and questioned the governments version of those events but the government, via the use of a compliant and submissive mainstream media, were able to quickly use the term ‘conspiracy theorists’ in its most derogatory sense to smother any possibility of these alternative versions of events gaining any traction within the general populace. At first the government simply ignored those that offered alternative ideas as to what had happened and hoped that they would simply just go away on account of nobody taking any notice of them. But it wasn’t too long before it became obvious that these people weren’t going to simply just go away. Eventually the government realised that, not only were they not going to go away, but more and more people were actually joining the ranks of those that were listening to and preferring to accept the alternative ideas that were being offered.

The government continued to essentially ignore them but the government’s supporters increasingly were finding it necessary to not just attempt to belittle and demean the doubters as ‘outrageous conspiracy theorists’ that were un-American and even traitorous, but, realising that some of these alternative ideas were now actually becoming a base which were being supported by academics and scholars and not just sceptics, now had to actually attempt to ‘debunk’ some of these ideas. They found that so many people were actually finding more merit in these alternative ideas than in the government’s version of events that it was time to attempt to prove the academics and scholars wrong.

The magazine ‘Popular Mechanics’ in their March 2005 issue ran a lengthy article that they claimed ‘debunked’ 16 of the what they considered to be the most ‘popular’ of the conspiracies. But the attempt at ‘debunking’ was weak and transparent and didn’t offer any more actual evidence to support the government’s version of events as per the ‘9/11 Commission Report’ and so it was quickly ‘debunked’ itself by other witnesses that came forward, more photographic and film evidence that emerged and by other academics and scientists attesting to the physical realities of what happened.

For many of those that have ‘sat on the fence’ over the veracity of the governments claims, the details that surround the destruction of WTC7 is the clincher. The emerging video evidence about its owner wanting to ‘pull the building’, the video and audio evidence of fireman and others warning people that the building was about to be blown up, the evidence of the massive explosions themselves, the way the building collapsed in freefall into its own foundations as in a controlled demolition, the claim by the BBC that the building had actually already collapsed whereas at the same time as the audience were being told it had collapsed, the building could be seen still standing behind a foreign corespondent who was clearly ignorant of the shape of the Manhattan skyline, the fact that demolition charges need days if not weeks to set up; all of this evidence and much more is convincing enough for so many. People in ever increasing numbers from around the world as well as from within the US are now, at the very least, asking questions with most being now quite convinced that, indeed, it is the governments version of events that is the real ‘outrageous conspiracy theory’.

And as the facts emerge, the notion of an ‘outrageous conspiracy theory’ in turn recedes only to be replaced by the realisation that the government hasn’t just lied about 9/11 but it was complicit in the committing of the crime that was 9/11.

Saturday, July 21, 2007


President George W. Bush recently took a massive step in taking the US further down the road toward a fascist state when he signed an Executive Order designed to stifle and ban dissenting discussion on the war in Iraq.

Of course the law applies only to American citizens which means those of us throughout the rest of world who are against the war in Iraq will continue to be outspoken about America’s and Israel’s wars and will continue to expose the lies and deceit that is 9/11 and Bush’s supposed casus belli for his wars. We will also continue expose the liars and deceivers around the world that support the Lying Tyrant Bush and his allies in the UK and Australia.

In Australia Prime Minister John Howard has already put in place up-graded sedition laws and it will be interesting to see whether these will be quietly implemented in support of Bush’s dictatorial edict. Howard’s days, however, seem numbered. An election looms in Australia which must be held before the year ends and, if the polls are any indication, not only will the Howard Liberal government be ousted from power, but Howard himself may even lose his seat. One can only hope that Americans will get their chance to vote out their evil President next year but the way things are going at the moment in the US the chances of Americans getting another opportunity to vote for a President in the near future are looking more and more remote.


The extent to which a blogger on the left, such as my self, is having an effect on the right can be measured by the extent to which the right respond on their blogs. The more response, and the more vehement the response, then the greater the indication that ones left wing comments are hitting home – in short, they’re worried that people will actually be swayed by the lefts argument as against their own. Of course, for most on the right, argument doesn’t actually exist; they have no ideas of their own, they simply react to ideas that they don’t agree with by insulting the left-winger and hoping that the insults will be just too unbearable and be enough to stop the left blogger having a go at the right-wingers.

Yesterday I targeted Will Howard’s lies – again. His response was entirely predictable. Apart from the insults – which is fine, after all I have insulted him by calling him a liar – there is the non-existent rebuttal which consists of ‘everyone knows the Arabs attacked the Jews in Palestine in 1948’ neglecting to mention in classic Zionist propaganda style the fact that the Arabs attacked the Jews in Palestine only because the Zionists were attacking the Palestinians as their well-planned and deliberate ethnic cleansing program got under way in 1947. (The bottom line is, and one can’t help but notice it, is the fact that it is Israelis that are now living in places that were once lived in by Palestinians; not the other way round.) As I’ve mentioned before, this trait of Zionists accusing their enemies of casting the first stone in order to justify their actions as they pursue their dream of creating a Greater Israel is nothing new. David Ben-Gurion and his so-called ‘Consultancy’ of ultra Zionists and thugs in the Irgun and Stern Gang have been practicing this method of lies and deceit since 1947.

Will Howard asks for evidence, though provides none to support his own ‘claims’, yet the evidence is there for all to see in the official documents. No one is saying that atrocities were not committed by the Zionists as they expelled the Palestinians from their homes but Zionist propagandist and apologists like Will Howard do try minimising the extent of those atrocities defending such actions as retaliatory. Historians like Pappe and Finkelstein have broken away from the tradition of Israeli historians trying to brush their inglorious past under the carpet and have exposed the historical truth of what the Zionists really did to the Palestinians in the name of creating a Greater Israel. Apologists, liars and deceivers like Will Howard, Geoff Pahoff and others can foam and carry on with all the insults and garbage they like, it doesn’t in the least bit detract from the reality of the Ziononazis crimes against the Palestinian people. Even those that some consider more left-leaning and aren’t as vehement as these two loons, like Michael Park at Heidelberg’s blog, are sucked in to this frenzy of denial and reduced to simply levelling insults and no argument.

The world is waking up to these realities and the liars and deceivers that are Zionist propagandists know it; hence whole tirades of right-wing denial and insults against those that seek and reveal the truth (not to mention whole threads on these hate-sites devoted to, in this case, me). The more the right-wing Islamophobic warmongers and lunatics from hate sites like Tim Blair and Harry Heidelberg/David Davis froth and foam denial and insults then the more we on the left can rest assured that our exposure of the truth is hitting home.

Friday, July 20, 2007


On 5 June last year Will Howard, propagandist, apologist and liar par excellence for the Australian Israeli Loony Lobby, wrote at Webdiary:
“OBL and other al Qaeda members are on record numerous times claiming "credit" for AQ for 9/11.”

This, of course, is a lie and it is well known that the recording that was purported to be of Osama bin Laden claiming responsibility for 9/11 is a fake; indeed, very shortly after 9/11, bin Laden, while applauding the atrocity actually denied having any part in it whatsoever.

Will Howard goes on to say: “Really I wouldn't know where to begin.” He then recommends the ‘9/11 Commission Report’ as a good place to start. Of course he would. This is the bible for the government 9/11 conspiracy theory liars and their supporters like Will Howard.

Will Howard, as we now know, is a proven and unmitigated liar who relies on his academic qualifications, a PhD in earth sciences of some sort, to give his lies an aura of credibility.

On 17 May 2006 Will Howard wrote this in an effort to justify the expansionist policies of the Zionists of Israel:
“No other country is subjected to the existential questioning that Israel is… That their very founding was a crime. For all that the founding of Australia and the US clearly entailed the dispossession of indigenous peoples, I have not seen even implicit suggestions these countries should be disestablished. Even the most strident advocates for Aboriginal rights in Australia are not suggesting that non-Aboriginal people should pack up and go back to wherever it is they came from.”

Indeed, but we are talking 1948, not 1748. There are still people alive in Israel that were responsible for the crime of ethnically cleansing virtually the entire Palestinian population from the lands which the Zionists coveted and now occupy. They are still committing that crime. This is a reversible crime whereas the crimes that were committed against the native and aboriginal peoples of America and Australia are not. To use the analogy of America’s and Australia’s past treatment of its respective native peoples and compare it with the way the Zionists of Israel treated the Palestinians is but just one example of Will Howards deceit.

Then there is this classic lie from will Howard on the same day when he suggests that it was not Ben-Gurion that attacked the Arabs but the other way around:
“That Ben Gurion attacked the Arabs in 1948, not the other way around? There are people alive today who remember - so don't try trotting out that lie on me.”

There certainly are people around that remember; including some of the Zionist participants and the Palestinian survivors. This nonsense about the Palestinians and Arabs attacking the Zionists is pure garbage; the classic Zionist lie. The Zionist policy of ethnic cleansing during the later months of 1947 and through 1948 was deliberately planned and executed by David Ben-Gurion and his clique of murdering thugs when they met weekly at Ben-Gurion’s own home to methodically plan exactly how village by village, town by town and city by city they would expel the people, execute prominent Arabs, and destroy the homes. The Zionists methodically collected full details about every village and town including lists of those that were to executed on the spot by the Irgun and Stern Gang thugs that acted in much the same way as Himmler’s Einsatzgruppen did during the Second World War.

The Zionist ways haven’t changed since the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionists; Ben-Gurion used fear mongering by telling the Jewish settlers that there would be a second Holocaust unless they took action against the ‘Arabs’ in the lands they wanted. The Zionists also had a specific policy in the earlier period of the ethnic cleansing of attacking villages only as ‘retaliation’ to Palestinian actions against Jewish settlers. This was deliberate policy; in fact so deliberate that the Zionists would actually commit acts against Jewish settlers whilst dressed as Palestinians in order to ‘retaliate’. They also dressed as Palestinians in order to infiltrate villages so that they could mount surprise attacks indiscriminately shooting at anyone they could in order to inflict the maximum amount of fear among the Arab population.

Nothings changed. The Zionists even today invoke the Holocaust in order to promote unwarranted hatred and fears in the Israeli people as the Zionists attempt to provoke Iran by the use of lies and twisted translations. And they still use the excuse of their actions only ever being ‘retaliatory’ when they attack the peoples of the Gaza and Lebanon when in fact these attacks are planned months in advance of their ‘retaliatory’ actions – another lie that the Zionist liar Will Howard attempted during last years war against Lebanon.

Will Howard – Zionist propagandist and Israeli Loony Lobbyist; he hides behind the mask of respectable academia. He’s no better than the sickening Islamophobic racists Geoff Pahoff and Noelene Konstandinitis.


I note that the extreme right-wing propagandist Jenny Hume at Webdiary, that’s the one who Margo Kingston thinks is left of center, is again promoting the US governments conspiracy theory with regards to 9/11 in order perpetuate the idea that the entire Western world is under attack and that we must therefore continue to be in a state of fear; this is despite recent news that at least one ‘terrorist’, this one in Iraq that the US had been promoting as a leader of terror there doesn’t actually exist. One has to wonder how many others don’t exist.

Those on the right that continue to base their propaganda on what they thought was the solid foundation of the US governments 9/11 story had better soon look elsewhere for a framework upon which to base their propaganda and lies. The controversy over the deliberate demolition of WTC7, a building that was not hit by aircraft and the government’s failure to account for its destruction is beginning to gain traction in the US and around the world.

The lies of the Bush administration and their allies, including John Howard in Australia, are unravelling quickly and the recent farce in Australia over the fearmongering that is the arrest and detention of Brisbane doctor Mohammed Haneef is testament to the West’ and Howard’s desperation to perpetuate the fear factor among the western people. It’s become a joke.

John Howard and his neo-fascist government have made a mockery of Australian justice into the bargain over this travesty – and when justice, along with honesty, goes out the window, then so does democracy. Welcome to John Howards New Fascist Australia ably helped along by the right-wing at Webdiary and the likes of lying propagandists like Jenny Hume who’d feel right at home with the likes of One Nation and Pauline Hanson.


Over at Webdiary the liar and fraudster who now calls himself Eliot Ramsey reckons:
“The Soviet KGB had a novel programme in its dealings with Middle Eastern terrorists after a couple of Soviet diplomats were taken hostage in Lebanon. It rounded up the kids in the suspected terrorist’s home villages. And killed them one at a time until the hostages were released.”

This ‘Ramsey’ is one very sick person.

Thursday, July 19, 2007


Apparently cars that are being stolen in the US are turning up in Iraq and being used as car bombs. (Sounds familiar.)

The story in the International Herald Tribune reckons that: “Bought and sold on the international black market, cars and trucks help fund criminal operations and can be turned into the terrorist weapon of choice against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians: vehicles packed with explosives. The FBI declined to estimate how many stolen U.S. cars have turned up as car bombs in Iraq but said the number is believed to be at least in the dozens.”

One really needs to ask the most obvious of questions: Why on earth would an insurgent want to go to the trouble of nicking a car in the US, have it taken to a US port, smuggled on to a cargo ship, sailed around to the Middle East, have it unloaded at a ME port, smuggled into Iraq just to stuff it full of explosives and then blow it up when that same insurgent can just get out of bed in the morning, stroll downtown, nick a car, drive it round to his lock-up, and then fill it up with explosives and blow it up? Alternatively, why would an insurgent want to buy a car stolen in the US when he could pop downdown and nick one himself?

There are the dumb and there are the gullible that will actually go along with this story.


Out of a population in the world that’s reckoned to be about 6.6 billion there are millions… well, not millions; hundreds of thousands… well, not hundreds of thousands; hundreds… well, maybe not hundreds; scores… no, not scores; dozens… well, not dozens, maybe a dozen… well at least eight at Harry Heidelberg’s right-wing lie and hate-site that don’t like me.
Tim Blair’s hate-site could at least muster fifteen. Mind you, three of them were from Heidelberg’s.
Even Will Howard said something horrible about me; but then, he’s such a lying little toe-rag it’s difficult to tell whether he’s lying about that or not.
Ah well.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007


It seems that most of the foul-mouthed right-wing liars and delusional lunatics from the schizoid Harry Heidelberg website have managed to impose themselves at Webdiary – not only that, but Margo Kingston has actually welcomed these warmongering guffaws with open arms.

This mob of blustering propagandists and pseudo-libertarian thugs that have nothing to say at all that would make the world a better place have now ingratiated themselves at Webdiary where the standard of debate will plummet to the kind of waffle from the likes of Chief Piss-Taker (both literally and metaphorically) Park, the Islamophobic Ziononazi lunatic Pahoff, the very seriously ill and delusional Warton, tag-along-me-too-I’m-with-you Farrelly, et al, that has been appearing at Heidelberg’s for some time.

One wonders how long it will be before the pseudo-academic and lying propagandist Will Howard and the Great Predictor Jay White show up at Webdiary. Perhaps it would have been easier for Kingston to simply have posted at Club Chaos leaving Webdiary for those that want to have an input into making the world into a place where liars and warmongers don’t govern.


Oh dear! Jenny Hume just couldn’t help herself; she just had to respond. She, and anyone of the other right-wing liars and warmongers that seem to have gathered at Webdiary, can rest assured that there will be plenty more ‘sprays’ to come.

I have no problem at all with making ad hominen attacks on liars and warmongers regardless of who they are.

I note also that Jenny Hume is still as manipulative as ever as she attempts to patronisingly pit another Webdiarist on the left against me, and she still remains arrogant enough to think that such classic divide and rule manipulation is not transparent. Truely pathetic!

Talking of pathetic, I note also Craig Walton’s pathetic attempt to find an ally in Jenny Hume to share the burden of being known as a proven liar. For those who do not recall or who do not know, this delusional lunatic actually claimed that he witnessed someone he knows fly an aircraft around an airport circuit having had no actual flight training whatsoever but having had only spent several hours in a flight simulator. Unadulterated garbage from an unmitigated liar.

As for Geoff Pahoff, I should remind readers of this Islamophobic extreme right-wing Zionist’s classic piece of hate-speak:

“I celebrated wildly when that filthy bag of puss, ‘the old blind wheel-chair bound spiritual leader’ finally kissed what was left of his miserable fanny and did the world the enormous favour, albeit somewhat forced, of departing from it for all eternity. Thereby correcting a major anomaly in the order of things by being born in the first place. Or not drowned slowly at the first opportunity. The slimy ignorant lying slice of toxic shit.”

Now that Jenny Hume, really is what you call ‘hate and bile’!

Tuesday, July 17, 2007


Last week I emailed this letter to Margo Kingston; as expected, she has not even acknowledged it. I therefore have no problems in publishing it here as I said I would.

Margo, I shall be withdrawing from further comment at Webdiary. Your outrageous nepotism has become transparent – especially as you have not allowed me to respond to Jenny Hume’s arrogant and self indulgent comments to me. Furthermore, on the several occasions I have written to you about this and other matters you have not even had the common courtesy to respond.
Despite having withdrawn from further comment at Webdiary, I shall nonetheless be ensuring that my words are heard at Webdiary by the use of my own blog which I know many Webdiarists visit and where I shall be making known your bias and the hypocrisy that you call a ‘code of ethics’, at least three of which you have violated yourself. You will find details at my blog later. I shall also be publishing the full details and extent of the bias you have displayed toward and in favour of your friend Jenny Hume. (Already done.)
I shall continue to criticise right-wing commentators at Webdiary when necessary. I shall be exposing the sham of Eliot Ramsey/C. Parsons which you have continued to allow to post at Webdiary for whatever reason. This liar and deceiver has absolutely no credibility whatsoever and it is shameful that you continue to accommodate him. (His recent denial that he was C. Parsons only compounds his deceit.)
I’m afraid to say that I lost my considerable respect for you some time ago when you failed to stand up to the threats that were made against you and caved in for purely mercenary reasons to the extreme right that used to frequent Webdiary then, most of who have since left (and have now returned) to spew their hatred and garbage elsewhere (and now back at Webdiary); three of whom I have since exposed as unmitigated liars. (One of these, Craig Warton, has now returned and you have welcomed this proven liar.) They, it seems, have simply been replaced at Webdiary by more right-wing liars and deceivers to the point now where one needs to wonder if indeed you have not practiced at least some deceit yourself as did your brother Hamish Alcorn who lied as well as deceived; certainly you were not particularly honest with Webdiarists with regard to the reasons why you so abruptly left Webdiary. (And I’m not talking about the deterioration of your emotional or mental health but the reasons for it.)
It is a shame that you have sacrificed your integrity by accommodating warmongers and racists at Webdiary just to satisfy your own ego and to protect those that have manipulated you. Hundreds are dying daily but all you seem to care about is protecting the image of some of your more arrogant favourites in order to maintain an audience at your site rather than to allow that audience to debate the real issues of the day.
Rest assured that I shall be doing all that I can to expose the liars and deceivers that use Webdiary to peddle their hatred and propaganda. You will find me utterly relentless in attacking right-wingers at Webdiary and, if necessary, Webdiary it self.
You make a mockery of your credo; ‘Webdiary – independent, ethical, accountable and transparent’. It seems to me that the only people that you are ‘accountable’ to are the right-wing warmongers and neo-fascists that you entertain at Webdiary. Webdiary has now turned out to be not much better than some of the other hate sites one finds around the blogosphere; the only difference is that they don’t attempt to hide their bigotry behind a fa├žade of faux liberalism.

Monday, July 16, 2007


In continuing to expose the lie that is in the deceit of Jenny Hume we should examine some of the postings made by her on just one thread at Webdiary. We’ll take a look at the ‘Yep, says Honest John, Iraq is all about the oil! Hallelujah!” thread at Webdiary.

In her July 5 2007, 11.18pm post Hume writes: “Well most people would know and accept that any policy or intervention in the ME will always have at least something to do with oil. So it makes little difference what Howard and Nelson say, or don't say on the subject.” The first sentence is a concession to the painfully obvious. The second sentence attempts then to excuse Howard and Nelson by virtue of ‘it’ not making much difference, presumably to the reality. What Hume ignores entirely, however, is the fact that Howard had previously said quite specifically on several occasions that it was not about the oil. By ignoring this Hume is supporting Howard’s lie.

In her July 6 2007, 12.00pm post Hume reveals her true aspirations: “So while surveys show that 70% of Australians are appalled at the determination of Governments to continue a live animal trade while knowing that it is grossly inhumane and has been found to be so by its own inquiries, they will not vote a government down on such an issue, much as I would like them to. Moral outrage is rarely if ever the cause of election failure or win in this country.”

Here Hume would like the Australian people to express moral outrage over the live animal trade but is quite happy for the Australian people to remain quiet over the 650,000 Iraqi humans that have perished as a result of the allied invasion and plundering of the Iraqi nation that the same government was has been a party to. This astounding hypocrisy is from one that claims to be of the ‘left’.

It shows where Hume’s priorities lay! It also demonstrates where many Australians sympathies lay as well! The live animal trade for Hume seems to be far more important than the lives of Iraqis as far as she is concerned. The sheep, after all, are Australian!

She goes on in the same post to say: “If people consider international issues at all they will look at climate change, and at the rise of Islamists world wide.” This is clever stuff. She chucks in a bit of meaningless left-wing stuff about ‘climate change’ but then throws in the fearmongering Islamaphobia crap to go along with it to create the impression of political balance within her rhetoric. This is classic right-wing propaganda tactics. The deceit highlights the lie that is Jenny Hume.

Then, again, in the same post she says: “I find it a bit difficult to relate to the views on this site about the US. It seems to me that no matter what the issue, most here have to look for any evidence they can find that will support their anti-America line and yes, one could say hatred.” This again is classic pro right-wing American propaganda. She sees everything that is to the left as being anti-American when the reality is that the left is anti-Bush, not anti-American. This is not the rhetoric of anyone that is remotely to the ‘left’ as she claims she is. Jenny Hume is a liar and a fraud.

By now, in the same post, Hume is nigh on hyperventilating as she broaches the point of her post; the question of discussing 9/11.

She says: “I would see the left's views [and this is from someone who professes to from the left herself] as more balanced and reasoned if some were able to admit that in going into Afghanistan the US had justifiable cause. But even Afghanistan is to many on the left only about oil, and nothing but oil.” This, as I later pointed out to Hume, is not the case; other motives related to energy resources were also considered when the US attacked the Afghan people.

She goes on: “And to support that argument some give credence to 9/11 conspiracy theories suggesting the US engineered that event in order to justify that particular war. In the absence of any verifiable facts whatsoever that that was so, I find that view appalling to put it mildly.” The destruction of WTC7 alone is enough to question all that was 9/11. Hume demands ‘verifiable facts’ to support theories that the events of 9/11 was anything other than what she was told by the US government but doesn’t demand those same ‘verifiable facts’ from the US government whose story is losing credibility daily as more and more people come forward to refute the governments version of events. Ignoring the fact that the governments story about 9/11 is in itself a conspiracy theory, why should anyone believe that the US went to Afghanistan except for the hegemony it would have over the resources of the region. Hume’s overall view here is typical right-wing reactionary – and she insists on the lie that she is of the left.

Then there’s the exposure of Hume’s blatant manipulative skills. She writes in the same post: “I think Margo is right to not allow that issue to be debated on WD. It would kill the site completely. It would bring every type of crank here from all over the world. And I suspect Margo has little energy for that and I don't blame her.” This is a totally unveiled attempt to manipulate Kingston into censoring debate on the events of 9/11. Hume’s attempt to influence Kingston by reminding her of her ‘fragility’ in the face vigorous debate is a blatant attempt at manipulation and abuse of Kinston’s emotional weaknesses in order to stifle debate for purely political purposes.

At this point Kingston gets on her high horse and confirms in an oddly back-handed way that indeed she has been manipulated. Kingston writes: “I am personally offended that you accuse Jenny, who is a dear friend of mine, of attempting to emotionally manipulate me. That is preposterous.” Kingston played straight into Hume’s hands. And, just to top it off, Hume then shows how deceitful she really is by accusing me of personal abuse and at the same time tries to promote her own self-importance by writing this piece of desperate nonsense: “Though just for the record I am a bit put out, coz Damian, dear boy, I am definitely not middle class. I'm upper class, at least on one side of the blanket. Old family, squattocracy, aristocratic blue blood don't y'know.”

Jenny Hume left-wing?

Jenny Hume arrogant right-wing liar more like!

To be continued…


Paul, I caught up with your post at Webdiary regarding my stoush with Jenny Hume. I have now written to Margo Kingston and have told her that I shall be withdrawing from further comment there but shall continue to comment on various aspects of topics that are being discussed at Webdiary at my own blog. This way I don’t have to suffer censorship as a result of the right-wing lobbying that goes on there.
You know me too well Paul. I don’t so much as ‘get frustrated at the opposition’ – it’s just that I simply cannot abide liars, deceivers and manipulators, especially arrogant ones! Nor can I abide the kind of nepotism that Margo Kingston has displayed in political debate.

Sunday, July 15, 2007


Dangle a wee bit of bait and watch the pseudo wannabe left-wingers bite! The more arrogant they are the more likely they are to put on a show for you as they tug on the bait. Those that are on the right but call themselves ‘left’ are the ultimate liars and deceivers.

Hats off to Jenny Hume’s husband, Ian MacDougall, who, while not quite as arrogant, nor even as bright, as his wife, did nonetheless dash to defend her honour at Webdiary. Ian MacDougall’s piece at Webdiary did, however, demonstrate one thing; that the charge I had levelled at his wife needed to be responded to. Only the guilty respond with anger to an accusation – the innocent ignore it.

But this isn’t about Ian MacDougall, it’s about Jenny Hume; perhaps I’ll catch up with Ian MacDougall another time.

Margo Kingston claims that her friend Jenny Hume is left of centre. I argued that she was nowhere near the left and that her attitude and some of her views demonstrated otherwise. To show this I invited Webdiarists to do an online political ‘self-test’ designed to show where individuals are on the political spectrum. The test itself was of no particular merit and its accuracy has not, a far as I’m aware, been qualified. All that, however, was incidental in this case because the prime idea of introducing the test was to see if Jenny Hume would respond.

She did of course. It was a challenge she couldn’t resist. This was her response:

“Well I am always curious to know where I stand on these sorts of scales and am not afraid to have a go. How accurate they are is another matter and my political leanings have changed considerably over my lifetime and could do so again. Those who never change their mind on anything must live in a very rigid mental cage.
When one does not have to reveal what the scale result is one can be totally honest with oneself, so I was. And yes, it was a bit of a surprise.
But for what it is worth it tells me I am -6.63 on the left/right axis and on the A/L axis -0.56 on the A/L axis.
I would have thought I was more to the centre on the L/R axis, but there you go. Is it a reliable measure? Who knows? I found a few questions a bit obscure as to what was meant so had to take a punt on those. But on the face of it, it looks like the country party would not take me back.
Incidentally, you take my remarks about class far too seriously. I happen to value the poor settler side of the family the most, by a British mile.
But BTW: You refer to Al Quaeda as a myth. Are you saying there is no such organization, that there are no and never have been any training camps run by such an organization for the purpose of committing terrorist acts, and no such acts have been perpetrated by any such organization? Now don't post me a long list of links as I do not have time to read them. Just tell me, briefly what you mean by Al Quaeda, the myth. I am sure you can summarize the conclusions you have reached in that regard.

I then wrote this in reply:

“Jenny, the ‘Political Compass’ test is, in the way that I used it at least, more about psychology than it is about accurately measuring peoples position on the political spectrum.
I should explain.
I’ve used this test before to subliminally measure people’s psychological reaction. I won’t bore you with how it’s used in an experimental setting but I’m happy to explain how and why I used it in this instance. It needs to be done in a group setting and in this case the group was Webdiarists. It also needs a target; in this case it was you. You were the obvious target both because of our recent vehement debates and the fact that I had already made an assessment of your political position – one which Margo, presumably on your behalf or to your satisfaction, denied. It was at this point that I thought of the political compass test.
You see Jenny; I knew that, for you, the test would be a challenge from me to you. (For other Webdiarists doing the test it would just be a personal challenge out of idle curiosity.) Historically you’ve always responded to me when challenged; you’re the sort of person that likes to have the last word, so you couldn’t resist this challenge. The reason why you couldn’t resist is because you needed to prove me wrong. There was two ways you could have done that. First, you could have said words to the effect that it is ‘a silly boring piddly little test that I couldn’t be bothered with’ or some such, or you would have done the test. Either way I would have succeeded in getting a reaction from you. You needed to respond to my challenge in order to prove me wrong either by showing that you wouldn’t lower yourself by doing such a test or by doing as you did, actually doing the test. But not only did you do the test but – and this is the really important bit – you couldn’t resist mentioning the result.
I don’t know how many other Webdiarists did the test; it’s not really important, but what is important is that you did, and, furthermore, you just had to mention the result. You needed to prove me wrong. No one else even said they did the test and certainly no one else gave their score – only you.
The problem with disclosing your score is that it’s unverifiable. This is where your deceit comes in. You wanted so desperately to prove me wrong that you almost ‘willed’ yourself if not deliberately then at least subconsciously to do the test in a way that would provide an answer that would prove me wrong. In a way you verified that because you actually admitted pondering over a few questions claiming that they were a bit obscure. (Frankly, I don’t believe for one moment that a person of your intelligence would have found any of the questions ‘obscure’.) You see Jenny, your psychological profile, based on reading your work here on Webdiary, doesn’t at all fit the political profile that you claim. There are little things that you say – and sometimes don’t say – which provide clues as to your psychological profile.
I’ll give you two examples. In the post regarding your queries about my views on al Qaeda you wrote: “Now don't post me a long list of links as I do not have time to read them.” This tells me a great deal about you. You hadn’t given a thought to the idea that other readers might like to have links even if you don’t. It demonstrates self-centredness and shows lack of consideration for others, in a word, selfishness, all traits – among many others that you have displayed in your writings – that are not associated with the position you have located yourself on in the Political Compass test.
In the same post you wrote in the first paragraph: “…my political leanings have changed considerably over my lifetime and could do so again. Those who never change their mind on anything must live in a very rigid mental cage.” In the first part it’s all about you and in the second part it’s all about what you think of other people relative to you. It indicates judgemental arrogance and self importance, in a word; conceit, neither of which, again, are traits that would place you where you would like to think you are on the political spectrum. And then there is always the right-wing’s classic favourite last resort in debate; ‘I don’t want to debate with you any more’, followed up in your case by ‘over and out’, when it all gets too hard or frustrating for you. And have you noticed it always ends that way with people you are debating with who really are on the left.
Interesting is it not!
Try the test again only this time don’t tell us the result.”

Needless to say, this post wasn’t published.

But what makes Jenny Hume’s remarks deceitful is the way she delivers what she says is opinion as ‘fact’ without any attempt whatsoever at substantiation. Example:

“I suspect most Australians anyway do not subscribe to the view here that Australia and the US is in Iraq deliberately murdering for oil. Most are able to see that the deaths in Iraq are a direct consequence of internal hatreds and power struggles between the Sunnis, dispossessed of their brutal power, and the Shia’s who are determined not to be the oppressed ever again.”

This is a most subtle form of deceit that borders on lying and is a typical trait of the extreme right-wing. She says to start with ‘I suspect’ using her well-known conceit as the qualifier for what she is about to say as being a given, and then says ‘most Australians anyway’ without any qualification at all; not even a link to any survey to substantiate her suspicion. She goes on to say: ‘Most are able to see that the deaths in Iraq are a direct consequence of internal hatreds and power struggles between the Sunnis, dispossessed of their brutal power, and the Shia’s who are determined not to be the oppressed ever again.’ This again is a totally unsubstantiated remark delivered as fact. The reality is that most Australians are only able to form an opinion (and that’s assuming that they actually are interested enough to want to have an opinion anyway) based on what the Western mainstream media has told which means, of course, that it remains only an opinion, one that is not based in any way at all on substantiated fact. The fact is; most Australians do not have a clue about what is going on in Iraq nor, indeed, do they have any interest. Jenny Hume knows that.

To sum up, it is Jenny Hume’s calculated and deliberated deceit that makes her a liar. To claim to be on the left of politics when she demonstrates all the traits of being on the right and up there with the likes of Pauline Hanson, is a claim that is a deliberate lie.

And, of course, having an interest in animal rights does not a left-winger make – even Hitler had an interest in animal rights.

Friday, July 13, 2007


Margo Kingston, in continuing to pander to the fraud of C. Parson/Eliot Ramsey at Webdiary, makes herself complicit in this liar’s deceit.

Since C. Parsons disappeared from Webdiary, a character calling himself ‘Eliot Ramsey’ has appeared posing as a newcomer to Webdiary. Since his emergence at Webdiary there has been a lot of speculation based on very strong evidence that Eliot Ramsey and C. Parsons are one and the same.

Lets take a brief look at some of the syntax similarities used. One only need to visit Webdiary to back read C. Parsons past comments and then read Eliot Ramsey’s current comments to see the startling very strong circumstantial evidence of fraud quickly take shape.

C. Parsons, 2 June 2007, 12.52pm on the ‘Yep, says honest John, Iraq is all about oil! Hallelujah!’ thread at Webdiary.
“So why wouldn't they just fly over Lebanon? What, for fear of upsetting the Lebanese? While on their way to attack Syria? With whom the Israelis actually share a border?”

Eliot Ramsey, 5 July 2007, 9.07am on the same thread.
“That's odd, isn't it? That the Fuhrer's second most important ally of 1940 (after the Soviet Union of course) was thinking that the invasion was being taken sufficiently seriously to want to be a part of it? And to offer troops?”

Eliot Ramsey, 4 July 2007, 9.21am on the same thread.
“What, Canada? And didn't Spain pull out of Iraq? To the warm congratulations of al Quaeda as I recall. So, now Spain is attacked again?”

C. Parsons, 24 April 2007, 1.11pm on the same thread.
“There. Does that all sound familiar?”

It certainly does all sound familiar; all too familiar!! The syntax that Eliot Ramsey uses is identical to that which was used by C. Parsons – not just similar; identical. Many Webdiarists who have contacted me simply don’t believe that Eliot Ramsey and C. Parsons are not one and the same. Eliot Ramsey feigned shock when Kingston confronted him and mentioned that his writing is like C. Parsons writing, and, while he insists that he is ‘Eliot Ramsey’, what he hasn’t done is deny that he was also writing under the name of C. Parsons. That’s a line that ‘Eliot Ramsey’ is not prepared yet to step over because once he has and it is subsequently confirmed that he is a fraud then it’s all over.

As far as most Webdiarists are concerned, however, for Eliot Ramsey, it’s all over now. He has absolutely no credibility. The overwhelming circumstantial evidence is enough to condemn and expose him for what he is – just another right-wing liar and deceiver to be put on the list with those other right-wing lying and deceiving Webdiarists that have been exposed including the wannabe academic Dylan Kissane and the pseudo academic Will Howard together with the Islamophobic racists Geoff Pahoff and Noelene Konstandinitis.

Margo Kingston should put a stop to this fraud – or wear the guilt with him.


Jenny Hume at Webdiary: “Just being in Sydney was nearly too much! But a nice touch as we walked out was our barrister saying to me: You are the most intelligent people I have ever had to work for.”

One could be forgiven for feeling ill.

Remarks like that tell you much about this extraordinarily arrogant person. But there’s worse; beneath the arrogant personality lies a personality that is far more sinister – one that practices deceit under the pretence of being ‘left-wing’, a person that lies about her manipulative skills and one that carefully attempts to disguise the reality of her true right-wing views.

More next week! Stay tuned!

Thursday, July 12, 2007


Yesterday I posted a link to the recently released full length feature documentary titled ‘9/11: Ripple Effect’ at the slowly becoming extreme right-wing Australian blog called Webdiary. Overnight the link has been removed from the Webdiary site thus denying Webdiarists direct access to the film. Webdiarists will now have to visit elsewhere in order to view the film. (I have linked the film below this piece.)

The blatant censorship of this important film comes as a result of pressure from the extreme right-wing that frequent Webdiary and who have manipulated the sites proprietor, ex-journalist Margo Kingston, who made the ban on discussing alternatives to the US government’s conspiracy theory, amongst other controversial subjects, some time ago.

Once again it seems Margo Kingston has caved in to the extreme right-wing that frequent Webdiary and she has done so for purely mercenary reasons. Discussion of the most important event of the twenty-first century is not allowed at Webdiary.

It’s a shame that a website like Webdiary that started life with so much promise in a world offering little more than chaos should slide into the hands of a handful of right-wing racists and warmongers that frequent there.

To view the documentary go here:

Tuesday, July 10, 2007


Over this last weekend the ‘New York Times’ decided that enough is enough and called for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The backlash from America’s right-wing media was inevitable and heading the list of reasons that the right have used to justify the continued presence of US troops in Iraq is appeasement; they have invoked, directly or by inference, the so-called ‘Munich analogy’.
There have been whole processions of post-Second World War American Presidents that have invoked the so-called ‘Munich analogy’ in order to justify a range of America’s wars or threats of war. Here’s a few of them.
Harry Truman reckoned: “That communism was acting in Korea as Hitler and the Japanese had acted ten, fifteen, twenty years earlier”. (1) After the Korean War ended Eisenhower when speaking of the victory of the communists over the French in Indo-China said: “…we failed to halt Hirohito, Mussolini and Hitler by not acting in unity and in time… May it not be that [we] have not learnt something from that lesson?” (2) And when Kennedy confronted the Soviets over the Cuban Missile Crisis he said the “…1930s taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked, ultimately leads to war”. (3)
President Johnson told Doris Kearns, the historian, that “…everything I knew about history told me that if I got out of Vietnam and let Ho Chi Minh run through the streets of Saigon… then I’d be doing exactly what Chamberlain did… I’d be giving a fat reward for aggression.” (4) Nixon, also talking of Vietnam, said: “…what had been true of the betrayal of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938 was no less true of the betrayal of South Vietnam to the communists advocated by many in 1965.” (5)
In 1983 Reagan, when contemplating intervention in Granada and Nicaragua said in a speech: “One of the great tragedies of this century was that it was only after the balance of power was allowed to erode and a ruthless adversary, Adolph Hitler, deliberately weighed the risks and decided to strike that the importance of a strong defence was realised.” (6) Then, of course, there was George Bush senior who, reacting to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait said: “…if history teaches us anything, it is that we must resist aggression or it will destroy our freedoms. Appeasement does not work. As was the case in the 1930s, we see Saddam Hussein an aggressive dictator threatening his neighbours.” (7)
The problem with the so-called ‘Munich analogy’ in each and every one of the cases mentioned above, including the latest one regarding the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, is that they are all completely misplaced and out of context.
The original ‘appeasement’ was that of Britain’s appeasement of Hitler as Hitler prepared to take over Eastern Europe. Basically the idea was that, in exchange for allowing Hitler to have bits of Czechoslovakia, Hitler would promise that he would not make any more territorial claims and that their would therefore be continued peace. Chamberlain returned to England and waved a piece of paper about announcing ‘Peace in our time’. The rest, of course, is history. Misguided as Chamberlain was, the point was that, apart from wanting to avoid war with Germany, Chamberlain also wanted to ensure that Hitler did not want to take any further territories for himself. (Chamberlain was a bit old fashioned and thought that a bloke’s word was his bond.) It’s this aspect of the ‘Munich analogy’ as used by American Presidents, and their allies others, that takes the analogy out of context.
In every single case mentioned above it is the US that uses the analogy yet it is the US that ends up behaving as Hitler did going on to invade or threaten another nation. If the ‘Munich analogy’ is used in its proper context one can see that it is in fact the rest of the world, including Britain and Australia, that is appeasing the US by allowing it to invade bits of the world just as Hitler did when taking bits of Europe.
It is the likes of Tony Blair and John Howard and co that are the real appeasers. It is they that have appeased Bush in his determination to occupy Iraq under the pretence of giving us ‘peace in our time’ from someone that was of no threat to us. Not only that, but we were told that the world would be a safer place as a result of it. It is the likes of Tony Blair and John Howard that are the real Neville Chamberlain’s of the twenty-first century masquerading as wartime leaders and Churchillian wannabes.

(1) Harry S Truman, ‘Memoirs, Volume 2. Years of Trial and Hope, 1946-1952’. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1956.) p. 335.
(2) Eisenhower letter to Winston Churchill, 1954, excerpted in Robert J. MacMahon (ed.) ‘Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War’ 2nd. ed. (Lexington MA: D.C. Heath, 1995.) p. 373.
(3) Quoted in Theodore C. Sorenson, ‘Kennedy’. (New York: Harper and Row, 1965.) p. 703.
(4) Doris Kearns, ‘Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream’. (New York: Harper and Row, 1976.) p. 252.
(5) Richard Nixon, ‘The Memoirs of Richard Nixon’. (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1978.) pp. 269-270.
(6) Radio address to the nation on defence spending, 19 February, 1983, in Ronald Reagan, ‘Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan, 1983’, vol. 1. p. 258.
(7) Address to nation announcing deployment of United States armed forces to Saudi Arabia, 8 August 1990, in George Bush, ‘Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George Bush, 1990’. vol. 2. p. 1,108.

Thursday, July 05, 2007


In a sensational speech today Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard revealed to the world that the war against Iraq was about oil.

For years I’ve been calling Howard a Lying Tyrant but it hasn’t stopped the dumb and gullible from continuing to vote for him and his warmongering cronies in the Liberal Party. Howard now shows himself once again to be a liar and a fraudster as he tells an audience of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra in a major foreign policy speech that the war against Iraq was indeed about securing oil.

This is in direct contradiction to the lies that Howard told the Australian people just a few weeks before the invasion and plundering of Iraq which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and displaced millions more from their homes when he told Jon Faine of Radio 3LO on 14 February 2003:

“Well can I deal with the question of oil. I mean this suggestion that America wants to do what it does because it wants to get hold of Iraqi oil is just completely wrong, it's completely dishonest, it's not based on any reality.”

A week later on 21 February 2003 he was lying again. A caller at Neil Mitchell’s radio show at Radio 3AW said: “I think the point is it's all about oil, it's about US domination and it's about reshaping the Middle East to suit Israel”, to which Howard responded, lying, of course, “Well it's not about any of those things. It's about the danger to Australia if countries like Iraq continue to have chemical and biological weapons, and those weapons get into the hands of international terrorists. That fundamentally is what this is about.”

But, of course, the repurcussions of Howards remarks don’t just affect the Howard government in Australia; it also reflects on Bush and Blair who are just as complicit in the lies.