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.

Sunday, September 27, 2009


When Iran is attacked (that’s ‘when’, not ‘if’), Israel will likely simultaneously attack both Hamas in the Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and will also overrun the already occupied West Bank. It will overrun the West Bank because, despite the differences between Hamas and Fatah, such a massive onslaught by the Israelis will be seen not as an attack against Hamas, but as an attack against the Palestinian people. The Palestinians will quickly realise that such a massive attack will be for one purpose – the destruction of all Palestinian resistance, Hamas and Fatah, the complete occupation of all of the territories, the subjugation of all of the Palestinian people, and the dissolution of the Palestinian Authority putting an end once and for all any hope of any Palestinian state.

Israeli forces will also attack the south of Lebanon with the aim of occupying it and destroying all traces of Hezbollah. All this will be done on the pretext that Hamas and Hezbollah will likely retaliate against Israel in the event of an attack against Iran, and Israel’s attacks against the Palestinians and Hezbollah will be seen in the West as simply pre-emptive action to deter retaliatory strikes against Israel by those who they claim are ‘Iran’s proxies’.

To most in the Western world, Israel’s actions against the Palestinians and Hezbollah will be seen as merely a necessary side action of the main ‘event’; the attack against Iran.

While just a few weeks ago it seemed that Israel would have to go it alone or at least make the first move against Iran, it now seems, in the light of recent events in the US at the UN General Assembly and the revelations about Iran’s so-called ‘secret’ nuclear facility and the pronouncements made during press conferences at the G-20 meetings, that the US may be more inclined to take on a first strike attack against Iran itself or give the go ahead to Israel to launch a first wave attack and then finish it off for the Israelis while they deal with Hezbollah and the Palestinians.

Because an attack against Iran would be more than just the destruction of Irans nuclear facilities – that part of the attack would be for propaganda purposes only to justify the attack – the US would also have to launch massive attacks against Iran’s military and government institutions in an effort to get the Iranians to capitulate to US demands which would include the removal of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs and the installation of a provisional government nominated by the UN as dictated to by the US.

The war against Iran will be so massive that Israel’s attack against Hezbollah and the Palestinians would seem little more than a side show to the West, yet the overall operation in reality is not so much about bringing Iran to its knees, but allowing Israel to achieve its life-long ambition of creating a permanent Greater Israel.

For Israel and the US many birds will be killed with one stone; Israel gets the West Bank, the Gaza, an impotent Syria, and access to the Litani River in south Lebanon after having destroyed Hezbollah. The US gets a friendly government in Iran which, in turn, will give the US far more clout in both Iraq and Afghanistan now that there is no longer a theocratic Iran to wield any influence in either country.

For Israel and the US an attack against their enemies is not about Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons program’ but about a carefully planned and manipulated set of events using a relentless world-wide propaganda campaign that will culminate in the long-term aims of the Zionists of Israel and the neoconservatives of the US.

Check out

Saturday, September 26, 2009


For years I have been writing at this blog and elsewhere about the inevitability of a ‘final confrontation’ between Israel and the US, and Iran and its allies, Hezbollah and Hamas. Today US President Obama moved a step closer toward that final confrontation.

In rhetoric reminiscent of the threats Bush made about Iraq ‘coming clean’ about its nuclear activities, Obama has told Iran that it must ‘come clean’ about its nuclear activities. At a news conference at the conclusion of the G-20 meeting, Obama told reporters "Iran is on notice that when we meet with them on Oct. 1 they are going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice." He went on to say that if the Iranian’s didn’t ‘give ground’ that they would be “on a path that is going to lead to confrontation”.

The world seems to have learnt nothing from the mistakes of the Iraq war and the deceit that led up to it. The Middle East is headed down the path to disaster that has been instigated by Zionists and neoconservatives.

This is not about Iran pursuing nuclear weapons; this is about Israel seeking regime change in Iran and using the ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ meme to con the world into bringing about that regime change for them. Once regime change has been affected, Israel will feel free to deal with Hezbollah and Hamas. This they will do using any attack against Iran as cover arguing that in doing so they would be fighting a pre-emptive war – a war that this time there will be no going back from.

The world should wake up before this nonsense blows up in all of our faces – yet again.

Thursday, September 24, 2009


One wonders how long it will be before the world wakes up and realises that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is taking the world for a ride over peace talks with the Palestinians.

There was a time, only a little over a year ago when George W. Bush was still President, that there was a demand for settlements in the West Bank to be dismantled and withdrawn before there was any peace deal or serious talk of a Palestinian state. Then Benjamin Netanyahu became Prime Minister of Israel and Obama became President of the US. Netanyahu drew the line; in line with Likud party policy, there would be no withdrawals from the West Bank. So Obama then insisted on a freeze of settlement expansion and new settlements before talks could get underway. Netanyahu, just to show his utter contempt for the whole notion of peace talks and negotiations for a Palestinian state, announces that it will approve more houses in settlements in the West Bank. And now, in the latest twist on talks and settlements in the West Bank, President Obama, desperate to make it at least seem as though some headway is being made, has conceded that talks should go ahead ‘without preconditions’, that is; without any settlement freeze. Now, in the latest effort to squeeze as much mileage out of Obama’s weakness in the face of the Israel lobby, Netanyahu is now only suggesting that Israel might restrain from building more or expanding existing settlements in exchange for talks about peace talks.

Let’s be perfectly clear about what is actually gong on here.

There will never ever be a Palestinian state while the US and the Zionists of Israel have anything to do with it. This latest move is as much a waste of time as all the other talks have ever been.

Apart from anything else, Abbas is not the representative voice of the Palestinian people and has no mandate whatsoever to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, it is Likud party policy to create a Greater Israel that includes the West Bank and to never allow any kind of Palestinian state to exist.

In the latest moves, Netanyahu has successfully played Obama as a Zionist puppet on the world stage of the UN General Assembly. There’ll be no peace and there’ll be no Palestinian state while Netanyahu is pulling the strings. All Netanyahu wants is time while he finds a casus belli to attack Iran thus leaving him free to do as he wishes with West Bank, the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon up to the Latani River.


Now that he has President Obama dancing to his tune over the settlements issue in the West Bank, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now consolidating support among Western and Arab allies for moves to push for sanctions against Iran over Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program.

Netanyahu clearly feels that he is on a roll after his series of meetings with Obama and other Western leaders, including Canadian, Australian and New Zealand, at the UN General Assembly this week. Netanyahu is fully aware that sanctions are unlikely to deter Iran from continuing its nuclear power generation program so is hoping to push through with the formalities of sanctions so that the next phase of attacking Iran can be implemented after it has been shown that ‘sanctions’ aren’t working. Reports as to whether or not Russia and/or China will support sanctions are mixed today with the ‘Washington Post’ saying that ‘Russia and China appeared to rule out sanctions or military action’ while Israeli ultra right-wing newsagency ‘Arutz Sheva’ reports that ‘Russia and China will likely not oppose new tougher sanctions on Iran’.

Time will tell.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009


If the war hadn’t been such a disastrous tragedy for the Palestinian people, Israel’s counter-claims in response to the Goldstone report criticising Israel’s behaviour during the 08/09 Gaza War would be laughable.

According to a ‘Jerusalem Post’ article, the Goldstone Commission “never asked about:

1. Launching rockets at Israeli towns and villages from within residential dwellings.
2. Firing mortar shells into Palestinian neighbourhoods when IDF soldiers were operating in or near the area.
3. Firing anti-tank missiles, rifles and machine guns at Palestinian buildings in Gaza suspected of having been entered by the IDF despite the presence of Palestinian civilians in the area.
4. Seizing private homes from which to ambush IDF units.
5. Booby-trapping houses before and during the war and detonating the bombs.
6. Planting various types of anti-personnel and improvised anti-vehicular bombs near houses and detonating them.
7. Sniping and firing heavy machine guns at Israeli soldiers within residential areas.”

One needs to ask if the person who wrote this, Jonathan D. Halevi of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, actually stopped to think about the implications of what he was writing.

In item 1 Halevi seems to think that the rockets should have been launched from open paddocks where the Israelis could spot where they were launched from and then destroy them and the people firing them. As if.

In item 2, 3, 4, Halevi is implying that Gazan fighters, there to protect the Gazan civilian population from the Israeli invaders that were indiscriminately killing them, should not have done so.

In item 3 Halevi concedes that the IDF were using Palestinian civilians to cover their presence in civilian areas. In other words, the Israelis by their presence in the civilian areas were using the Palestinian civilians as human shields. To then complain that the IDF were being fired at while they were using Palestinian civilians as human shields and claiming it as a war crime is pure Chutzpah.

Apart from anything else, the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated places on the planet. Buildings and neighbourhoods become the battlefield. The IDF went into built-up areas and they became legitimate areas for Palestinian fighters to defend. It was the IDF that made the civilian areas battlefields, not Hamas.

The Chutzpah is transparent. The crimes are inexcusable and utterly indefensible. Palestinian fighters have every right to defend themselves and their people. The Israelis are clearly the aggressors; their Chutzpah is nothing less than deceit.

Monday, September 21, 2009


One needs to ask; why are Israel and the US insisting that Iran has a nuclear weapons program when neither can provide any evidence whatsoever that it does? And, even if Iran did have a nuclear weapons program, why are Israel and the US so fearful of it?

If Iran, indeed, did have a nuclear weapons program, it would only be able to produce two to three warheads. While two or three, or even just one warhead would be enough to destroy Israel, one would need to ask; why would Iran risk such a move considering that, even if it succeeded in destroying Israel, Iran itself would be destroyed within hours, or possibly even minutes, in retaliation by the US. Furthermore, an Iranian nuclear attack against Israel would not just affect Israel disastrously, but would almost certainly cause considerable and lasting damage to the Palestinians in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israeli Arabs and also possibly Syria and Lebanon, all of who are Iran’s allies.

Part of Israel’s, and to a lesser extent, America’s, rhetoric opposing a nuclear armed Iran is that Iran is a state that is prepared to accept the risk of annihilation of itself if it is for what they consider to be the greater good. This, however, remains only rhetoric since there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Iran, its people, its theocratic leaders or its political leaders, would be prepared to risk annihilation over Israel. Yet, despite this, Israel continues to vocally claim that Iran is an ‘existential threat to Israel’.

The ‘existential threat’ claim is based on the Israeli claim, a false claim that has been exposed and noted elsewhere, that Iran’s President has threatened to ‘wipe Israel of the map’. This rhetoric continues to be perpetuated despite having been totally discredited by scholars.[1] It continues, nonetheless, to have a hold on the public at large in the West who are not inclined to pursue or even be aware of any scholarly rebuttals and refutations preferring instead to continue to accept with little debate or question the Western mainstream media’s deliberate perpetuation of the ‘wipe Israel off the map’ meme.

If then Israel and the US are aware of the fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, yet persist in continuing with the rhetoric and propaganda that it has, then one needs to ask why are Israel and the US going to such lengths to convince the world that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program. One also needs to ask; do Israel and the US really believe that Iran is willing to destroy itself in order to destroy Israel? Furthermore, one should also need to ask; why would Iran be prepared to go to such lengths.

It has been claimed that Iranian leaders have alluded to self-annihilation or, at least, care little about self-preservation.[2] This assumption is based almost entirely on the words of Ayatollah Khomeini who told his audience in a speech in Qom in 1980 shortly after the American hostage taking incident: “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”[3] While it is true that historically Iran has been prepared to make significant sacrifices in times of war, it has only done so in pursuit of victory rather than in the face of certain defeat. During its long war with Iraq through the 1980s, Iran sacrificed thousands of her young who died clearing minefields in preparation for advances on their enemy.[4] However, sacrificing an entire nation, one of the world’s oldest civilisations, in order to bring justice to Palestinians and Arabs in and around Israel, one of the world’s youngest nations, would not possibly be in Iran’s interests.

So, given that Iran is unlikely to attack Israel even if Iran did have a nuclear weapon, and considering, furthermore, that Israel actually does have many nuclear weapons, why are Israel and their neoconservative supporters in the US and elsewhere so intent and persistent in this rhetoric of Iran being an ‘existential threat’ to Israel?

The answer lies in Zionism’s long term objectives of creating a Greater Israel. The main forces that stand between the Zionists and their objectives are Hezbollah in Lebanon who have defended their country against attack from the Israelis on several different occasions, and Hamas who have struggled to defend and regain the Palestinian lands that have been taken from them by the Israelis. Both of these Arab and Palestinian entities are supported by Iran via Syria. Without Iran’s support, both Hezbollah and Hamas would not be able to sustain their resistance to Israel’s aggression and ultimate aims.

However, Israel is not able to simply attack Iran; world opinion simply would not support such a blatant act of aggression. In the past, whenever Israel has decided to launch an attack against its enemies, Israel has always managed to find a casus belli that Western governments have been able to accept. The Israelis have always been able to manipulate events in such a way as to allow the world to believe that Israel is the victim rather than the aggressor. With the careful use of propaganda distorting the true nature of events coupled with outright lies and the occasional false flag or ‘psychological’ operation, Israel has been able to control the Western mainstream medias presentation of news via its influence on the owners of the mainstream media so that it favours Israel.

The only way that Israel can effectively and permanently cut Iran’s influence on Hezbollah and Hamas is for Israel to bring about regime change in Iran. In order to bring about regime change one of two things need to happen; either the country needs to be invaded and its government toppled, as happened in Iraq, or the government toppled by internal forces. Since it would be logistically impossible for Iran to be invaded as Iraq was, the only alternative is to have the government toppled by other means.

Iran is a country almost four times the area of Iraq and has 2.3 times as many people as Iraq. The US and their Western allies are hard pushed to contain Iraq properly even today and could therefore not possibly invade and then contain Iran. The US and their Western allies are also very much committed in Afghanistan as well. Recent elections in Iran showed that, despite the upheavals of the disputed elections, the present regime remains safely in power. The upheavals also demonstrated that, while there is internal disagreement and squabbling over domestic and economic issues, the people of Iran are still overwhelmingly loyal to the theocratic state and, more importantly, fully supportive of Iran’s nuclear power generation program.

The US and Israel have only one option left and that is to attack Iran’s military and government institutions with such force that the government capitulates and bows to the demands of the US via the UN – demands that would include ‘regime change’. In order to make such an attack the Israelis and the US will require a casus belli that would be supported by public opinion. Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons program, it is hoped, will be that casus belli.

An alternative casus belli could be that evidence, manufactured or otherwise, shows that Iran is substantially supporting Hamas and/or Hezbollah to a level that is a threat to Israel. Since it is now virtually impossible for the US to unilaterally launch an attack against Iran, particularly after the IAEA and their own NIEs have not been able to show that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, it is now left to Israel to launch a unilateral attack that must not be seen to involve the US which the US can then join on the basis that a fait accompli has been established and the US has no alternative to but to come the aid of its ally, Israel.

Since such a scenario could not be realised without a trigger casus belli such as a war with either Hamas and/or Hezbollah in which it can be shown that Iran is involved, Israel will first need to find some reason to launch an attack against one or the other or both. Israel’s well proven ability to covertly provoke its enemies suggests that this scenario has been attempted before when in 2006 Israel launched attacks against both Hamas and Hezbollah on the pretext that these groups had first captured Israeli soldiers which became Israel’s casus belli, when in fact, as has been shown, it was Israel that provoked the captures in the first place that ultimately led to these one-sided wars, and then again in 2008/2009 when Israel wrongly accused Hamas of breaking a ceasefire which was used as an excuse to massively and indiscriminately bomb and kill Gazans in an effort to enrage Hezbollah and Iran into reaction and thus provide a casus belli for Israel to launch an attack against Iran. Such a massive escalation would, in the turmoil that followed, provide an opportunity for Israel to invade and permanently occupy both south Lebanon and the Gaza Strip and also the West Bank while the US completed the military strike against Iran to effect regime change.

Regime change in Iran is also very much in America’s interest as well. Iran is strategically well placed to cause havoc to the Middle East oil trade. It is also able to support insurgent militias in both Iraq to Iran’s west and Afghanistan to Iran’s east.

So far in Israel’s various attempts to provoke Iran into a confrontation, Iran has resisted, but Israel and the US still seem determined as they continue to accuse Iran of having a ‘nuclear weapons program’. As Paul Craig Roberts observes, propaganda persistence seems to be an established method these days of preparing public opinion for an inevitable event.[5]

As part of the ongoing rhetoric to provoke conflict, it has been reported that Israel will hold military exercises that simulate a response to a simultaneous missile attack from Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran.[6] Despite the fact that the reported exercises are to be joint exercises with the US, there are currently some attempts to put some distance between Israel’s aggressive rhetoric and the expectation that the US will simply allow Israel to attack Iran. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, has even suggested the US forces should forcibly prevent the Israeli Air Force from reaching Iran to bomb Iran’s facilities.[7] The simple reality is that Israel could not possibly launch any kind of an attack against Iran without the connivance of the US. It would be impossible for Israel to launch any truly unilateral attack against Iran. Israel needs US military jet fuel and it needs US ordnance to conduct such an operation. The US does not need to forcibly prevent Israel from attacking Iran; it simply needs to refuse to supply it.

The rhetoric is far removed from the geo-political reality. When Israel launches its attack against Iran, despite all the rhetoric and propaganda, the US will be backing it all the way. It will not be shooting down Israeli aircraft overflying Iraq because they will more than likely be overflying Saudi Arabia, and, once the initial attack has been launched, the US will launch massive follow-up attacks against Iranian defence installations and its government’s institutions claiming it needed to prevent Iranian retaliatory action against Israel.

It’s not a matter of ‘if’; it’s just a matter of ‘when’ and what will be Israel’s casus belli for the initial attack?


[1] Arash Norouzi, ‘’Wiped off the Map’ – The Rumor of the Century’,, 26 May 2007. Available online:
[2] Stephen J. Sniegoski, explaining Michael Ledeen’s view in; The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel. (Norfolk, Virginia: Enigma Editions, 2008.) p. 311.
[3] Cited in: Amir Taheri, Nest of Spies: America’s Journey to Disaster in Iran. (London: Hutchinson, 1988.) p. 269.
[4] Matthias K√ľntzel, ‘A Child of the Revolution Takes Over: Ahmadinejad’s Demons’, The New Republic, 24 April 2006. p. 16.
[5] Paul Craig Roberts, ‘Threatening Iran’,, 20 July 2009. Available online:
[6] ‘IDF, US military to simulate Iran missile strike on Israel’, Ha’aretz, 20 September 2009. Available online:
[7] ‘Brzezinski: US should forcibly prevent IAF strike on Iran’, Ha’aretz, 21 September 2009. Available online:

Friday, September 18, 2009


Recent weeks have seen a number of developments that have put Iran back on the front burner. In the latest development, Israeli Air Force commander, Maj-Gen Ido Nehushtan, has told the ‘Jerusalem Post’ that the Russian S-300 surface to air missile defence system must be stopped from reaching countries which Israel may wish to attack. Naturally, he has Iran in mind.

Israel knows that, once this very advanced missile system is in place, it would make it almost impossible for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is clear from Nehushtan’s remarks that Israel has Iran clearly in its sights. In a report written by the preposterously named ‘Bipartisan Policy Center’ titled ‘Meeting the Challenge – Time is Running Out’, the authors asserted that, if Israel was confronted with a “game changing technology – such as Russia’s S-300 anti-aircraft system – Israel, more likely than not, will act on its own”.

On the surface, the way relations between the US and Israel seem to be strained at the moment over the issue of settlements in the West Bank, it may appear to some observers that Israel, indeed, may have to act alone. However, this would be burying ones head in the sand in order to avoid reality. The fact is, despite relations appearing to be strained, the US Congress, firmly in the pay and clutches of the Israel Lobby, will ultimately support the Israelis. However, the Israelis will not at all be able to act without the active connivance of the US. The job that Israel feels it needs to do can not be done without US ordnance and, even if the Israelis were to gain clearance to pass through Saudi Arabian airspace in order to avoid overflying Iraq and the diplomatic problems involved, the massive amounts of military jet fuel required to mount such an operation (an out and back trip of several thousand miles necessitating in-flight refuelling) would also have to be supplied by the US.

It seems the Israelis are very perturbed by the threat of Russia’s S-300 anti-aircraft system being in place in Iran and have, if recent unconfirmed stories about Netanyahu’s secret trip to Russia and the Israeli’s involvement in the high-jacking of a ship at sea are true, gone to great lengths in order to prevent it happening.

Now, it may be that the stories about a visit to Russia to discuss the S-300 sale to Iran and the stories about the ship sailing to Iran laden with missiles are just a part of a deception to provide a casus belli to attack Iran arguing that, by receiving the S-300 anti-aircraft defence system, Iran has crossed a ‘red line’ that Israel cannot let go unanswered.

Whatever happens, one can rest assured that, if push comes to shove, Congress and the administration WILL back Israel.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009


Recent demonstrations in the UK have revealed a phenomenon that one would have never have thought possible; an alliance of anti-Islam ideologies between Zionist extremists and ultra right-wing neo-nazis and fascists who apparently hate Islam more than they used to hate each other.

While not exactly marching arm-in-arm in the streets just yet, ultra right-wing skinheads belonging to the fascist English Defence League have been photographed prominently displaying an Israeli flag at their demonstrations. Clearly, the two groups of extremists that would normally hate each other have found a common enemy. It also seems that the strengths of their hatred for Islam have been enough to form some kind of provisional alliance. It may be that the old animosities of the last century between racist Nazis and Jews have been dulled by time and events. It may be that today’s youthful right-wing extremists, instead of following the Nazi creed of racial superiority and anti-Semitism, are following more in the footsteps of the old Italian style of Fascism whose ranks in the early days was full of Italian Jews and financed heavily by Italian Jewish bankers who saw the Fascists of Italy as a bulwark against communism. It may be that today’s youthful right-wing extremists now view Jews not as Hitler and the Nazis viewed them but rather as a people defending their nation and the world against what they view as the Western worlds enemy, Islam.

It is unlikely that die-hard Nazi-style white-supremacists will ever become allied to the Zionist cause – indeed, many actually see themselves more in sympathy with Islam who are battling Zionism for totally different reasons than the Nazi style right-wing.

This new phenomenon has only recently emerged. It is far too early to predict how it will evolve but it is possible that a split will occur among the ultra right-wing of Europe where some will remain staunch anti-Semitic Jew-hating neo-Nazis while others will see themselves more along the lines of early Italian Fascism where even hard right Zionist Jews will be among their ranks.

On the other hand, it may all simply be a flash in the pan and Europe’s skinheads will settle down again to ultra violence at soccer matches once the soccer season gets properly underway again.

Monday, September 14, 2009


We should be properly up front about the use of the ‘Zionazi’ label; it is strictly a propaganda tool designed and used deliberately to both shame those it refers to and also to emphasise to those who would otherwise be unaware that there is a comparison between the behaviour of the Nazis of the last century and the behaviour of today’s modern Zionists and their supporters.

As part of their propaganda technique, Zionists like to present themselves as being representative of all Jews. In this way they can then justify, at least to themselves, labelling everyone that criticises them as being ‘anti-Semites’. This is done in the hope that those ignorant of the fact that Zionism is actually a political ideology rather than a religion or a race of people will support them simply because they would not want to be labelled anti-Semites.

Hitler had a similar approach in Germany and, later, throughout occupied Europe during the 1920s through to the 1940s. He argued that to be anti-Nazi was to be anti-German. Just as today Zionists accuse their Jewish opponents as being ‘self-haters’ and such like, so Hitler labelled those opposed to him as being traitors to Germany.

Part of Hitler’s Nazi ideology was the notion that Germans as a race of people were somehow superior to all others and that Jews were at the other end of Hitler’s racial spectrum. Today, the Zionists believe that Jews are superior to all those that surround the nation of Israel and that Palestinians in particular are at the other end of Zionism’s racial spectrum. History is littered with examples of Zionism’s racial hatred of Arabs and Palestinians.

Just as Hitler yearned to create a Greater Germany in Europe at the expense of other non-Germanic peoples, so Zionists dream of a Greater Israel which they hope to create at the expense of the Arab and Palestinian peoples. The methods that the Zionists use to expand their ideology and their empire are similar to those methods used by Hitler. There is, of course, no way that Zionists can exterminate the Palestinians as the Nazis attempted to exterminate European Jewry, however, the Zionist have demonstrated their ability behave as the Nazis did in other ways. Just as the Nazis used Ukrainians and Latvians to murder Jews after the Nazis had invaded those countries, so the Zionists, when they invaded Lebanon in 1982, used local Lebanese fascists (Phalangists) to systematically murder Palestinians at the refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila.

The Zionists have also successfully ghettoised the Gaza Strip using deprivation as a means of subduing dissent and resistance and have resorted indiscriminate bombing and shooting of the Gazan populace to subdue any attempt by the Palestinians to retaliate with resistance fighters just as the Nazis did in the Warsaw Ghetto. Similarly in the occupied West Bank, the Zionists have used mass arrests, torture and detention without trial against those Palestinians that oppose and resist the Zionists them. Just as the Nazis attempted to move ethnic Germans into occupied lands as part of the Germanisation process of creating a Greater Germany, so the Zionists in the West Bank are creating settlements within the territories they occupy as part of the Zionisation process of creating a Greater Israel.

Remembering the brutality of the Nazis during the Second World War and their attempts to eliminate European Jewry, the label ‘Zionazi’ is not one used without consideration of the immense connotations associated with the word. But it is for that exact reason that when used in the proper context, it is the most appropriate label to use when describing modern Zionism and its ideology.

Sunday, September 13, 2009


It’s good that the neoconservatives have the warmongering frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic Michael Ledeen in their ranks. Despite all the clever sophisticated rhetoric and propaganda that some of those other neoconservative writers and commentators try to feed us, one can always rely on Michael Ledeen to put the nonsense they come up with into its proper perspective.

In his latest piece the entirely delusional Ledeen thinks that there is “a global alliance directed against the United States, running from Moscow to Tehran, Damascus and Caracas”. Indeed, the way Ledeen carries on, one would think that the whole world is against the US.

Well, it probably is; what else can one expect after all that the US did when Bush was in charge. Not only did he alienate the entire Islamic world but also a goodly measure of ordinary Western folk around the planet as well. But to infer that there is some kind of global alliance directed against the US is nothing short of plain paranoid.

It may be that he and his fellow neoconservatives are deluded enough to think that it is they that actually represent all that is American and that because there actually is a global (albeit very loose) alliance ranged against neoconservatism that consists of writers and commentators that oppose neoconservatism but who come from all places on the political spectrum, the neoconservatives, or at least Michael Ledeen, thinks that it is some kind of global conspiracy going on. It’s as if he’s regressed to the bad old days of Reds under the Beds.

If it wasn’t for the fact that some people – people of influence – actually believe what this crackpot writes it would be laughable.

But the world shouldn’t laugh at him – the world should be frightened of men like this. Ledeen had a major hand in getting the Iraq war off the ground, a war that has resulted in the death’s of hundreds of thousand, maybe over a million, Iraqis, and thousands of young Western kidz sent to kill Iraqis have also died.

Ledeen is an embarrassment to neoconservatives because through his lunacy he exposes them for what they really are.

Say ‘No’ to these lunatics in future.

Thursday, September 10, 2009


As we arrive at the eighth anniversary of 9/11 we find that more and more people than ever before are finding themselves, at the very least, having serious doubts about the official version of events as told by the government and its agencies or, alternatively, are now utterly convinced that what happened on 11 September 2001 could not possibly have happened the way the government has told it. And, for many of those that at first believed what the government told them, the reality of having been lied to have been brought home to them, not so much by the science behind the destruction of WTCs 1 & 2, but by the blatant and obviously deliberate demolition of WTC7 on the same day.

The images of the aircraft crashing into the Twin Towers followed by the images of the Towers then collapsing into a massive pile of dust was seared into our collective memories. Most people were so busy trying to cope with the most bizarre sights they had ever seen that being told who was responsible for these terrible events almost as soon as they had happened also became indelibly etched in to our collective memories that for many it became difficult to rationalise what had happened or accept that their may be some other explanation for these events.

Add to this the fact that to believe anything other than the government’s version of events would be to completely and utterly surrender all of our notions of Western values and society. Unable to even contemplate such a life changing idea, most folk instantly put up barriers to prevent all those things that for our entire lives we had believed in from being demolished in the same way as the World Trade Center had been. To believe that our own government would be capable of being involved in any way whatsoever with such a horrendous act against its own people is utterly unpalatable to most people.

Time, however, has brought about change; not just changes in attitudes as the initial shock of what happened begins to fade into history, but changes in beliefs as time, as it inevitably does, brings us new hard evidence.

For most people, the collapse of the Twin Towers is still an event that is difficult perceive as having been caused by anything other than aircraft flying into them. Without being privy to scientific or engineering knowledge or skills, plus the trauma of having to cope with the inconceivable idea that our government could have had anything to with it, the refusal to accept that their maybe an alternative explanation to these events is quite understandably a normal response.

But as time went by, people slowly became aware of the fact that the Twin Towers weren’t the only buildings to come down that day. World Trade Center Building 7 also came down that day and it is the destruction of this building that has convinced so many that there is indeed far more to what happened on that day than the government is saying.

The 47 story building that was WTC7 collapsed at 5.20 in the afternoon of 11 September 2001. The official line is that the building collapsed as a result of a critical structural column on the 13th floor buckled which then triggered a catastrophic structural failure of the entire building which collapsed entirely into its own footprint. The problem with this explanation for the buildings collapse is that the photographic simply does not support it.

The several films showing the collapse of WTC7, films taken from various angles, show quite clearly that the building collapsed completely vertically, evenly and at free fall speed; a phenomenon completely consistent with a classic deliberate and professional building demolition and totally at odds with the theory that the failure of one column could have caused the building to have collapsed in this way.

To clinch it for many people has been the recent release of the latest film of the building collapsing which shows quite clearly explosions at various mid level floors simultaneously blowing out windows in the building the instant before it begins to collapse.

Here’s the clincher.

See for yourselves.

Saturday, September 05, 2009


UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday told an audience at the International Institute for Strategic Studies that Britain is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan. Brown made his speech on the same day as 130 more Afghan people were murdered by Western forces that invaded and attempted to occupy Afghanistan in October 2001.

Brown’s announcement came just a day after 19 years-old Gavin Elliot was shot dead in the Babaji district of Helmand Province, Afghanistan. The day before Elliot’s death, 24 years-old Richard Brandon had been killed by an explosion, also in Helmand Province bringing the number of UK young men killed while trying to kill Afghanis to 212.

So far, 1340 young Western soldiers have died in Afghanistan while trying to kill Afghanis. Many of those killed were teenagers. However, during the same nearly eight year period since the West invaded Afghanistan, tens of thousands of Afghanis have been killed and millions have been displaced from their homes.

And all because the US wants to build a gas pipeline across Afghanistan.

One wonders how long it will be before the West finally wakes up the fact that the war against the Afghan people is unwinable and that the Afghan people – Taliban or otherwise – simply don’t want the West in their country.


It seems that, of those that have been displaced from their country because of the war, some tried to seek refuge in Australia, one of the countries involved in the invasion and killings that drove them from their home. As they approached Australia their boat blew up and many of them found themselves in the water. As they tried to scramble aboard the Australian Navy vessels sent out to inspect the rickety boat just prior to it blowing up, the Australian crew members kicked and fended the refugees off from the Australian’s vessels.

Not only are they being bombed and killed in their own country but those that are able to survive and escape are then refused rescue from the sea after their boat is destroyed.

No wonder Australia has a reputation for being one of the most racist nations on the planet.