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.

Saturday, June 07, 2008


Geoff Pahoff, one of the most obnoxious Islamophobes in the blogosphere, has posted at Webdiary to support his delusional lying friend Craig Warton.

I remind readers of Pahoff’s disgusting hate-speak:

I celebrated wildly when that filthy bag of puss [sic], ‘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.

One wonders if the equally obnoxious Noelene Konstandinitis is likely to show up at Webdiary at any moment to complete the display of assorted liars, fraudsters, warmongers, hatemongers, decievers and manipulators that Kingston entertains at Webdiary these days.

Kostandinitis will be rembered for this piece of hate-speak:

Of course it is EXCELLENT news that Israel is FINALLY sticking up for itself! What neither the Pals, nor the western bourgeois left, seems [sic] to be able to get their think [sic] heads around is that Israel could have destroyed Egypt, Syria, AND Jordan AND kicked the Pals out in 1948, 56, 67, 73, etc. The only thing stopping them every single time was the US! All this would have been over DECADES over [sic], if the U.S. had just let nature take its course.The wretched camel-jockeys have NO right to be in the Holy Land and the sooner they catch the next magic carpet or camel sleigh to Jordan, Syria, or Egypt the better! The Israelis MUST seize this opportunity to totally turn around the whole tedious farce of the middle east. It is time to bitchslap the fetid Mohammedans into next week. Vaporize the pigs! A world without Muslims would be a lovely world indeed!

These are the sorts of people that Kingston gives space to at Webdiary. Free speech is one thing but allowing this bunch of right-wing lunatics space to strut their stuff is pure hypocrisy for someone that professes to be left-wing. Let them spout ther evil garbage and propaganda somewhere else.


Anonymous said...

fact vs. lies ...

 .. goodies vs. bad


G'day Damian,

 .. and what a fine kettle of (rather stinky[1]) fish you refer to!

Without naming names - it's not *who* says it, so much as *what* is said, with the refinement that it's not only *what* is said but also heavily *how* - I'd like to reflect a bit, on the 'state of play.'


In the beginning was the revulsion, as the US planned "Shockin' whore" for Iraq was revealed.

Then came the howls of protest: "Leave it to Blix!" "No war!" - "No in my name!"

But we the sheople®, our fine democracy's voters were spurned, called a mob.

And so the awful witnessing began; who knows how many murdered ('obliterated'), and others' lives destroyed, and how many hapless collaterals 'only' terrorised? But they are 'the other,' so little respected that (this time around) no body counts are revealed, if any done at all.

We 'tracked' the invasion (illegal), as it was morphed into occupation (brutal), we saw Bremer's orders promulgated and now we await the 'oil-law' (patrimony) and 'security pact' (sovereignty) to complete the stage-setting for the ultimate oil-theft. Of course it wasn't *only* oil - undeniable though it is but still a major key (aka war must pay); it's inseparable from the not-so-small matter of permanent military bases, and last but certainly not least, the Zionist (filthy, wet) dreams of a "Greater Israel." But what we see is what we're gunna get, and that is the Middle East dominated by the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag hanging on.


So. Throughout, I have maintained that I am a seeker of truth; the idea being to expose the lies, reveal the truth, and thereby to seek the justice owing to all. Back now, to the kettle of rather stinky fish; I (as others) have encountered opposition during my quest for justice via truth, and it's always puzzled me, Q: "What's in it for them?"

Seems to me there are two possible answers:

A1: Money. (This involves corruption; any in this 'bucket' would naturally deny it, and feign outrage.)

A2: Not money, in which case, what then? Before we attempt an answer here, recall that as a seeker of truth, I claim to have discovered much, the largest aspect (IMHO) being 'murder for oil,' the others being mentioned above. So now, any (A2) answer involves lies (to spell it out, lies in opposition to my discovered truth), and I posit that only (erroneous!) ideology fits. But whatever. Here is a quote - thanks to Bob Wall and g'day! The quote is a bit long:

  «“They are so frightened of their own complicity in bringing death, disaster, destruction and ungodly sorrow to Iraq that they can now only resort to astonishing levels of self-delusion to maintain their sanity.”

America, and likely the human race, is undergoing a polarization today that looks suspiciously like the way cellular material gathers at both ends of its capsular playground just prior to mitosis. One camp is making the evolutionary bet that a cooperative enterprise, based on a recognition of universal rights and collective effort, is the way to go. Such beings display qualities of conscience: altruism, responsibility, even guilt. The other camp remains committed to the law of fang and claw, betting that their survival is best vested in dominance and destruction of their competitors i.e. everybody not themselves. We are in an ongoing process of speciation, which is to say that given time, we will evolve into two distinct animals unless one of us proves unviable. It will be easier to tell us apart when we become morphologically distinct and unable to exchange genetic material.

My point is that the belligerents of group 2 are congenitally without conscience or remorse for the sorrow and destruction they cause. It just isn’t in them. When you talk to them about these things - the plight of Mexican immigrants, the suffering of Palestinians, the victims of the Iraq occupation - you may get some boilerplate arguments and justifications, though these are oddly unaccompanied by even a hint of empathy or concern for their fellow man. Such concern is mere poetry to them. Hippie nonsense. They do not struggle with this, or repress their complicity or sandbag themselves behind delusional ideation. They sleep like babies. This is the sign of true monstrosity, that you do not know you are a monster. You go down to the mead hall, eat a half dozen vikings, then go back to your cave for a nice nap.»

[voxclamantis June 6th, 2008 1:58 pm]


So now we know some critical things about the anti-truth opposition - or at least, we can get a good idea from that quote. Following on from «eat a half dozen vikings», it may be worth something at this point to look up 'blood libel.' Although this in turn may well spur a few rants on anti-Semitism, it is not so meant; rather to fix/enhance the context which is criminal, bloody murder. Further: I make no accusations that do not automatically follow from that which is directly observable, which in this case is murder for spoil; i.e. murder for oil by the US in Iraq (Iran next?) - and murder for land and water by Israel in and around the now sadly, mainly ex-Palestine.

IF we have criminal, bloody mass-murder going on (I say directly observable) THEN who will bring the perpetrators to justice? UN? France? Germany? They all seem to have piked, but if it's not one of those three, then who?

I see only one real possibility: people-power. But then, see the referred-to opposition. Boo! Hiss!


To come full circle, and return to the fine kettle of stinky fish, I have a quote and a challenge:

1. Quote: «...old chap, does it matter if PM is JW? After all JW was a non de plume as well.»

2. You know who you are, so to the challenge:

a) IF this statement is not truthful, THEN you are a liar. (Add own qualifiers, i.e. filthy, bloody etc..)

b) IF it is the truth (my 'tip'), THEN how do you know, and what *else* do you know?

So which it? Note: I do not expect an answer; IF the person were at all honest THEN s/he would'a cleared this up looong ago - or perhaps the whole sad story may never even have happened. The quote shows an utter liar (unlikely, why lie at all? Why this lie?) - or someone up to their armpits in a conspiracy; we know where that conspiracy originated, and where it was played out. I bring it up for the specific purpose of illustrating the gross ethical failures that *swamp* 'that other place, over there.'



[1] «or a fine kettle of fish! - meaning that some awkward state of affairs has arisen.»

[cross posted]

Damian Lataan said...

G'day Phil. Sorry about the delay responding; I caved in to a craving for flight!

How about this from Alan Curran at Webdiary: "As for ethnically cleansing the natives (Palestinians), I don't think they have finished the job yet."

Why does Kingston give these people space to peddle this stuff?

12:04 PM