The torture memos are filled to the brim with great stuff, things that would make any good Nazi very proud.  I am doing a second video of the memos, not about the tortured children this time.  So I won’t be quite so angry.  The NYT and WP have a difficult task: they have to minimize the memos while at the same time, twisting and turning in the hopes of convincing us all, it is OK to torture and invade all Muslim lands with utter impunity because they are evil and we are good.

First, here is the ‘liberal’ NYT: 


Interrogation Memos Detail Psychologists’ Involvement; Ethicists Outraged

Yet some doctors and ethicists insist that any participation by physicians was tantamount to complicity in torture.

No kidding. When we use the word ‘some’, this denotes a distinct minority. This is presuming the vast majority of doctors and ‘ethicists’ think using doctors and psychologists to torture people is OK.

Ethics isn’t about doing ‘whatever’. It sets up guidelines and rules that determine morality. The plasticity of morals is very stretchy like rubber bands. For example, Hitler and his gang made all their actions perfectly legal and even, moral. The goal: to clean the German people of all social deviants and to strengthen the patriotic state by encouraging the growth and power of one ethnic group.

We are witnessing the Jewish imitation of this odious ethics. It is no surprise to me that the same word for morals is the same word for ethnic tribal groups. What the tribe wishes is moral. This includes killing non-tribal members and looting, warfare and rapine is all rendered moral due to it being done by a tribe against all others. Lawbreaking is intra-tribal: if you loot, rape or kill tribal members, this is wrong. “I don’t think we had any idea doctors were involved to this extent, and it will shock most physicians,” said George Annas, a professor of health law, bioethics and human rights at Boston University.

ALL torture systems that are run by religions and states always uses doctors! This is UNIVERSAL. The Khmer Rouge didn’t use doctors because they were simply working everyone to death and did this with very little discrimination. They were not seeking information.

Throughout history, torturers working for the state always wanted to keep victims alive as much as humanly possible. The only escape for a prisoner was death. This is why we are force-feeding, with tremendous brutality, the prisoners we hold, including prisoners we kidnapped when they were only 14 year old CHILDREN…sigh…always the children come into view here…we keep them alive so we can abuse them.

If they die, they win. In the Spanish Inquisition, they kept prisoners alive for a very long time. The Church even had many rules about degrees of torture and hours tortured. In 1256, after priests who were torturing people complained about how victims were dying without confessing their sins, Pope Alexander IV issued torture rules: They could torture a victim only ONCE. And confession under torture was not allowed. The victim had to be released from pain and then confess.

The Dominicans then got around the rules by torturing CONSTANTLY, in shifts! As word got out, a great time could be had for any and all psychopaths, they ran to join the Dominican order which grew swiftly. Here is the modern Catholic Church giving a ringing endorsement for torture:


  • It was a heavy burden of responsibility — almost too heavy for a common mortal — which fell upon the shoulders of an inquisitor, who was obliged, at least indirectly, to decide between life and death. The Church was bound to insist that he should possess, in a pre-eminant degree, the qualities of a good judge; that he should be animated with a glowing zeal for the Faith,–exactly like the Nazis or the KGB, the CIA or Mossad!— the salvation of souls,–‘this is for your own good, that you are being tortured’— and the extirpation of heresy;–anyone who disagrees with any of the beliefs of the gang are to be tortured particularly brutally—that amid all difficulties and dangers he should never yield to anger or passion;—the very definition of a psychopath—that he should meet hostility fearlessly,—especially while torturing or raping children—but should not court it; that he should yield to no inducement or threat, and yet not be heartless;—anyone who tortures anything is by definition, heartless— that, when circumstances permitted, he should observe mercy in allotting penalties; that he should listen to the counsel of others, and not trust too much to his own opinion or to appearances,—THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: since often the probable is untrue, and the truth improbable. All human groups want a belief system that is exclusive and refuses to accept any or all proofs to the contrary.  People who think they ‘know everything’ are the hardest to deal with if we bring in logic and rationality into the conversation.  Mostly, they get mad and leave or if they have power, will try to impose their world views via brute force.  All groups do this.  Small groups opposing states do this.  All religions do this, all the time.  Rational thinking is anathema to many belief systems.
  •  Somewhat thus did Bernard Gui (or Guldonis) and Eymeric, both of them inquisitors for years, describe the ideal inquisitor. Of such an inquisitor also was Gregory IX doubtlessly thinking when he urged Conrad of Marburg: “ut puniatur sic temeritas perversorum quod innocentiae puritas non laedatur” — i.e., “not to punish the wicked so as to hurt the innocent”. History shows us how far the inquisitors answered to this ideal.—Incredible!  Yes, we use the Catholic Inquisition as the perfect example of amoral viciousness. Far from being inhuman, they were, as a rule, men of spotless character and sometimes of truly admirable sanctity, and not a few of them have been canonized by the Church. This is a crime.  The Church should apologize to the souls of the many dead who were tortured and then burned at the stake.  And the ‘canonized’ are living in hell if there is any Jesus who was tortured to death.  I cannot even begin to imagine a Jesus that would want any of these psychopaths into ‘Heaven’.  He would retch with disgust after reading their life history while they wait for judgement from the Tortured God-human.  There is absolutely no reason to look on the medieval ecclesiastical judge as intellectually and morally inferior to the modern judge. 

A number of Nazi judges were found guilty and executed at the Nüremberg Trials. The Nazis legalized all their hideous things they did. They were outraged to learn, all this was still amoral and utterly illegal.

Annas said the use of doctors to monitor prisoners subjected to torture is “totally unethical” and has been condemned by the American and World Medical Associations, among other professional bodies. “In terms of ethics, it’s not even a close call,” he said.

Correct. Steven H. Miles, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota and author of “Oath Betrayed: America’s Torture Doctors,” said the actions described in the memos were the “kind of stuff that doctors have been tried, convicted and imprisoned for in other countries — and that’s what should happen here.” But Michael Gross, a professor at the University of Haifa in Israel and the author of “Bioethics and Armed Conflict: Moral Dilemmas of Medicine and Warfare,” said that if physicians think particular harsh interrogation techniques do not constitute torture, there is no reason they should not participate.

Note how the Israeli Jew finds a nifty legal excuse to participate in torture: if a person JUDGES they are not torturing, they are not torturing! This is EXACTLY what the Nazis claimed. The fact that JEWS are claiming the same thing [and torturing children, too] is grounds for divorcing our nation from that terrible state and to examine our own selves in a very clean mirror. We are a criminal state, too. “Physicians are faced with a hard dilemma,” he said. “They have professional obligations to do no harm, but they also have a duty as a citizen to provide expertise to their government when the national security is at stake. In a national security crisis, I believe our duties as citizens take precedence.”

The Nazis, when they came into power, were instantly attacked by the international Jewish financial powers.  American and British Jews immediately demanded a boycott of Germany.  So, the Germans pointed to all this and said, ‘See? They are aliens and they wish to overthrow a DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.’  This was all before the Reichstag fire.


Any and all other ethnic groups and religions that are not in power can be claimed to be ‘traitors’ and thus, tortured to death.  We have a government that has many traitors.  They put Israel first.  And this is wrong. Putting Mexico first or putting China first, etc, is all utterly wrong.  And leads to treason if the parties then use our government to manipulate it into supporting their favorite alien state while destroying the US, itself.


The Jews in Israel will only allow ‘echt-Juden’ to immigrate into their military state.  They then must torment the natives so they either die or leave.  And we support this financially, militarily and MORALLY.  I was and very much still am 100% against allowing Opus Dei Catholics onto the Supreme Court bench because the Opus Dei supports the Pope and the Pope [who is now a Nazi!] supports and still endorses, torture. 


And our courts now ape the Catholic Church.  And this is 100% infuriating.  We are losing our most basic civil rights thanks to these guys.  



Similarly, the medievalinquisitors should be judged as a whole. Moreover, history does not justify the hypothesis that the medieval heretics were prodigies of virtue, deserving our sympathy in advance.

The Mother Church is utterly and repugnantly unrepentant!  The people who were tortured and burned as heretics and witches were BAD people. See?  They were evil because they denied the Church all worldly power and rule over the Cave of Wealth and Death!  Obviously, all Jews who converted due to military force were always suspect of backsliding [about one quarter of Spain’s population!] and needed ‘instruction’.  Here is the Teacher at work:

(b) Procedure

This regularly began with a month’s “term of grace”, proclaimed by the inquisitor whenever he came to a heresy-ridden district. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!  The inhabitants were summoned to appear before the inquisitor. On those who confessed of their own accord a suitablepenance (e.g. a pilgrimage) was imposed, but never a severe punishment like incarceration or surrender to the civil power. The Mother Church never burned anyone at the stake.  They would hand over the victims to the blood-thirsty authorities who also confiscated all properties and divided the spoil with the Church.  

However, these relations with the residents of a place often furnished important indications,—Like we do today in all Muslim lands: we pay informants— pointed out the proper quarter for investigation, and sometimes much evidence was thus obtained against individuals.  Many of the CIA rendition victims were bought in this fashion.  These were then cited before the judges — usually by the parish priest, although occasionally by the secular authorities — and the trial began. If the accused at once made full and free confession, the affair was soon concluded, and not to the disadvantage of the accused. But in most instances the accused entered denial even after swearing on the Four Gospels, and this denial was stubborn in the measure that the testimony was incriminating. David of Augsburg (cf. Preger, “Der Traktat des David von Augshurg uber die Waldenser”, Munich, 1878 pp. 43 sqq.) pointed out to the inquisitor four methods of extracting open acknowledgment:

  • fear of death, i.e. by giving the accused to understand that the stake awaited him if he would not confess;  The CIA torture memos mention ‘scaring the prisoners with the fear of death’.
  • more or less close confinement, possibly emphasized by curtailment of food; EXACTLY what the CIA did!
  • visits of tried men, who would attempt to induce free confession through friendly persuasion;
  • torture, which will be discussed below. The OSS took in Nazis and used them to learn how we can ape the Nazi torture machine.  Then, when Russia fell, we sucked into our system a number of KGB agents.  And then there is Mossad: filled to the gills, in the black ops and torture area, with former communist KGB agents.  Many of the torture protocols came straight out of Moscow via Tel Aviv.


To this day, the Catholic Church refuses adamantly to admit any wrongdoing.  This is why I want an international tribunal of non-Catholics to be called in to judge history here and then, issue a condemnation of the Church.  Perhaps the Pope can be beaten with whips in front of the Altar in the Vatican.  We can televise it and then, the Pope can also apologize for the rape and torture of children by clergy, too. 



Had this papal legislation been adhered to in practice, the historian of the Inquisition would have fewer difficulties to satisfy. In the beginning,–the Catholic Church still refuses to understand that once they decided to torture people, they attracted more and more psychopaths who did it with greater and greater sexual deviancy and lust—torture was held to be so odious that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity. Sometimes it had to be interrupted so as to enable the inquisitor to continue his examination, which, of course, was attended by numerous inconveniences. HAHAHA.  Yeah, the tormented victim refused to recant and thus, inconvenienced the Church!  Therefore on 27 April, 1260, Alexander IV authorized inquisitors to absolve one another of this irregularityUrban IVon 2 August, 1262, renewed the permission, and this was soon interpreted as formal licence to continue the examination in the torture chamber itself.

This is called ‘the steep slope down’.  This is why Obama’s refusal to prosecute BUSH and CHENEY as well as YOO and the other amoral, anti-constitutional creeps is DANGEROUS.  Every single torturer is STILL AT WORK TODAY.  Will they cease? 

Hell no!  If we accept this, we must first apologize to Germany and Japan for executing their own miserable war criminals.

The inquisitors manuals faithfully noted and approved this usage. HAHAHA.  Yup.  The general rule ran that torture was to be resorted to only once. But this was sometimes circumvented — first, by assuming that with every new piece of evidence the rack could be utilized afresh, and secondly, by imposing fresh torments on the poor victim (often on different days), not by way of repetition, but as a continuation (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis), as defended by Eymeric; “quia, iterari non debent [tormenta], nisi novis supervenitibus indiciis, continuari non prohibentur.” But what was to be done when the accused, released from the rack, denied what he had just confessed? 

This is why the Church feared releasing people from the rack or the US fears releasing our own Inquisition victims: they go free, they can speak the truth.  Worse, if they go free, they can FIGHT BACK.  We want them to surrender, forever.


Worse, we can’t even have OPEN TRIALS because then, they can openly talk about torture!  So we have SECRET TRIALS which is what the Church resorted to after the very wonderful and amazing and brave warrior, JOAN OF ARC did!  They tortured her and then held a public trial…BRIEFLY.  Then, they swiftly moved it inside because this peasant girl, who was a genius, could counter-argue the top Church lawyers!


She presented her case, clearly and cooly and this was a grave challenge to the Church since she claimed, Jesus was on her side, not on the Catholic psychopath’s side.  Then, they rushed her burning and didn’t let her talk except she cried, ‘Jesus!’ over and over as she died and many who witnessed this murder were very moved. The lowly town priest gathered up some of the ashes and spirited them away.  Many were weeping and saying, ‘She is a saint!’  Gah.


Now, for the Washington Post’s warmongering, nasty business:


Planet War (washingtonpost.com)

This blog at the Washington Post is hosted by a Professor Peter Feaver.  I clicked on Peter’s ‘profile’ to see who this jerk really is.  Guess what?  He is ANONYMOUS.  Just a name!  No information of where he used to work…the CIA is heavily involved in infiltrating the US and foreign media like the BBC.  And Mossad does this even more.  Peter could be both.  

I did find his Peter D. Feaver – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia entry:  

Here is Peter’s take:

President Obama’s decision to release the so-called—this MONSTER dares to call these OBVIOUS documents that OBVIOUSLY details REAL OBVIOUS torture, ‘so-called’????— torture memos, over the strenuous objections of many of the senior national security and intelligence professionals, may go down in history as one of the most consequential of his first 100 days. The ONLY good thing he has done so far! The former Director of the CIA Michael Hayden and the former Attorney General Michael Mukasey argue strenuously that it was a mistake, and that it will hurt U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. There seem to be two principal objections to the Obama decision. One is that the release of the memos “tips our hand” to terrorists so that they can better prepare against interrogation techniques. When they know our methods precisely, they can better develop counters to them. I think there is something to this concern, but only so much; presumably, one can develop counter-techniques to the counters, and so on, and so on. Even people who know exactly what they are getting into and exactly how far the interrogator will go, report that some techniques like water-boarding are so effective that there is essentially no plausible counter.

Aren’t they pleased about THAT!!!! Good gods. This is why all civilized nations OUTLAW waterboarding torture. Just like, we can’t pull fingernails with pliers.

I am far more persuaded by the second objection: that the release of the memos will spur further witch-hunts–So, is this creepy professor claiming the Nüremberg Trials was really ‘witch hunting’?— which will produce an over-cautious intelligence and national security establishment. No one ever accused the Gestapo or the KGB of being ‘over-cautious’. President Obama worried about this, and that is why he took pains to say he would not prosecute intelligence professionals who acted on the basis and within the limits of the guidance in these memos. BUT WE CAN AND SHOULD PROSECUTE THE MEMO WRITERS! But he left open the door to go after those who went beyond the memos, and that, of course, legitimizes more fact-finding to determine exactly what was done by whom. What is ‘going beyond’ mean in this context? The original memo premises are utterly illegal, internationally as well as Constitutionally. That is how Senator Leahy, who is keen to conduct such investigations, read Obama’s statement. But, as Hayden and Mukasey remind us, the bureaucratic response to such open-ended investigations is predictable: national security professionals will be even more cautious and even more reluctant to act going forward. Will such hesitation put America at risk? Candidate Obama repeatedly said that Bush policies made America less safe. If there is another terrorist attack, and if that attack can be traced to government failures due to an over-abundance of hesitation, will the charge apply to President Obama as well?

THE USSR WAS ‘SAFE’!!!  No one could so much as make a peep without the KGB coming knocking on the door in the middle of the night!  All police states are ‘safe’.  This is the DEFINITION of a police state.  Not a free society.  We accept dangers and difficulties, all in the name of being free.  Freedom doesn’t mean, living in a jail cell that locks the rest of the world out.


The US can’t be a beacon of freedom and a police state.  End of story.  The US was attacked on 9/11 because our Pentagon goofed off.  Normally, when a stewardess calls American Airlines headquarters, yelling, ‘A man just sliced the throat of one of the passengers and now are breaking into the cockpit’ and then NOTHING HAPPENS NEXT.  


Normally, a huge number of US military jets takes off and takes action.  Instead, we saw them goof off, not for 5 minutes or 10 minutes but AN HOUR.  And only after a jet hit the Pentagon, itself, did the military stir.  This is treason, of course.  There was no excuse and no investigation and Rumsfeld wasn’t even fired for incompetence.


To show how these creeps writing for the Washington Post operate, here is a paper done by Col. Dunlap which Peter uses for his college course syllabus:



Prepared for the Humanitarian Challenges in Military Intervention Conference at Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Washington, D.C., November 29, 2001 by Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF*


Is lawfare turning warfare into unfair? God, we can’t stop using Mongol eradication of all populations tactics? Rats! In other words, is international law undercutting the ability of the U.S. to conduct effective military interventions? Obviously, this Neue Zeit Krieg Colonel wishes there were no rules at all. Of course, this means that we had no legal right to try the Nazis or the Japanese warlords. Is it becoming a vehicle to exploit American values in ways that actually increase risks to civilians? We show no mercy towards civilians anymore, do we? In short, is law becoming more of the problem in modern war instead of part of the solution?

This is where the military moves towards WWIII and the logic of murdering all pesky Muslims by killing EVERY Muslim via nuclear bombs.

Some experts seem to think so. In his Foreign Affairs review of General Wesley Clark’s fascinating book on the Balkan war, Professor Richard K. Betts laments the role law and lawyers played in that campaign as well as military interventions generally. First, kill all lawyers! He asserts that the “hyperlegalism applied to NATO’s campaign made the conflict reminiscent of the quaint norms of premodern war.” Further, he alleges that lawyers “constrained even the preparations for decisive combat” and declares:

One of the most striking features of the Kosovo campaign, in fact, was the remarkably direct role lawyers played in managing combat operations – to a degree unprecedented in previous wars…. The role played by lawyers in this war should also be sobering – indeed alarming – for devotees of power politics who denigrate the impact of law on international conflict….NATO’s lawyers…became in effect, its tactical commanders…

The CIA gave directions for one missile that very neatly blew up the Chinese embassy and killed everyone.  The Chinese have not forgotten this, oh no, they certainly haven’t.

International lawyers David Riviken and Lee Casey express a somewhat different but darker view in a recent issue of The National Interest. They contend that a “new” kind of international law is emerging that is “profoundly undemocratic at its core” Why is imposing civilized rules on warfare ‘undemocratic’? Is this because, after rancid hate campaigns run by governments and the media, people vote for Herr Hitler and the Nazis? And this is ‘democracy’, no? —-and “has the potential to undermine American leadership in the post-Cold War global system.” With respect to armed interventions, Riviken and Casey insist that the “American military is particularly vulnerable” because of the “unrealistic norms” –

  • especially in relation to collateral damage – propounded by the advocates of this new international law. “If the trends of international law are allowed to mature into binding rules,” they say, “international law may become one of the most potent weapons ever deployed against the United States.”
Professor Betts, and perhaps to a lesser extent Messers Riviken and Casey, might find comfort in my conclusion about Operation Allied Force. I believe the air campaign against Kosovo and Serbia may represent something of a high-water mark of the influence of international law in military interventions, at least in the near term. The aftermath of that conflict, along with the repercussions of the terrible events of September 11th, seem to have set in motion forces that will diminish the role of law (if not lawyers themselves) much beyond the hyperlegalisms to which Betts objects. Explaining why I make this prediction is a prime purpose of the following discussion….

In other words, in Kosovo, where we bombed civilian facilities, bridges, etc as well as utterly illegally bombing the Chinese embassy, was ‘restricted’. But now we can be as vicious as we like, thanks to the US military being utterly asleep at the wheel for over an hour while terrorists merrily flew all over the place, attacking us.

Many NGOs are wonderful, philanthropic groups who do selfless, difficult work in dangerous places. However, Americans are inclined to be wary those NGOs who purport to speak – literally – for the “world” on political issues, to include LOAC ones.

Damn the busybodies of the Red Cross and Human Rights organizers! The Soviet State hated them, too.

Too often NGO positions look like political agendas. ‘Political’ here is code for ‘liberals’. With respect to LOAC issues, it must always be kept in mind that NGOs are not political entities equivalent to a sovereign nation; rather, they are no more thanself-selected, idiosyncratic interest groups who are not accountable to any ballot box. In my opinion these facts get lost at times – to the detriment of LOAC development and interpretation.

I don’t recall any elections for the Red Cross! Of course, organizations that monitor human rights are ‘self selected’ because Nazis and KGB and CIA agents certainly can’t present themselves as lovers of human rights! They are the ones being investigated.

The pacifist and leftist leanings of a lot of NGOs, along with organizational practices that unabashedly discriminate on the basis of national origin,–note this Zionist tool doesn’t dare mention who or why– do not popularize the groups in the United States. Alas, torture and assassinations are very popular inside our imperium. Along this line we also must frankly acknowledge there is an undeniable element of anti-Americanism in international law as it is developing today. Torture, illegal invasions on false intelligence are very Nazi so we love it, eh? Riviken and Casey argue quite persuasively that “the impetus in international law today stems from both our allies and our adversaries, who have chosen to use it as a means to check, or at least harness, American power.”

Any empire that does torture, kidnapping, assassinations and illegal, spurious invasions, hates having its power ‘checked’ or ‘harnessed.’

This may be the real reason for the incessant criticism of U.S. positions that marks so much of the debate in the international legal community.

I hope, if Peter is teaching this guy’s crap, he is hammering this as evil and wrong!  But somehow, I doubt this.

Another factor influential to the rise of LOAC is the Information Revolution. It spawned high-tech global news organizations that rapidly deliver information – to include graphic images of war – to publics everywhere. I have watched the sanitization of war via our lovely media. And of course, the censorship of all crimes committed by Israeli forces has collapsed, thanks to the internet. This is particularly important whenconsidered in conjunction with another attribute of the information age: the spread of democracy. Shaped by raw news footage, public perceptions of how conflicts are being fought significantly affect military interventions.

And a good thing, too! If only we had the internet during WWI.

Professors W. Michael Reisman and Chris T. Antoniou insist: In modern popular democracies, even a limited armed conflict requires a substantial base of public support. That support can erode or even reverse itself rapidly, no matter how worthy the political objective, if people believe that the war is being conducted in an unfair, inhumane, or iniquitous way. …

Viva propaganda! Yes, give the right images and war support will remain no matter how odious the things are, in reality.

In this sense lawfare–I love how the right wing military creeps view laws: as impediments to superior firepower and winning wars via killing as many civilians as possible— has a firm basis in Clausewitzean analysis. Carl von Clausewitz, the great military theorist, spoke of a “remarkable trinity” of the people, the government, and the military whose combined energies produce victory in war. Belligerents attempt to impose the converse on their adversaries, that is, the deconstruction of Clausewitz’s trinity. The traditional U.S. approach to accomplishing that – and the one LOAC endorses – focuses on the military element and seeks to diminish the enemy’s armed strength.

Usually, this involves tormenting civilians.

America’s challengers focus on the people element and seek to diminish the strength of their support for the military effort.

WHOA! Much of the criticism is INTERNAL. We had massive anti-Iraq war demonstrations before the invasion. We gave all the good reasons to not invade, clearly and coherently. Too bad, our rulers refused to listen and the media refused to cover much, if any of the news about our demonstrations.

Evidence shows this technique can work. The Vietnam War – where U.S. forces never suffered a true military defeat – is the archetype that today’s adversaries repeatedly try to replicate. Of course, they hope to use the vastly accelerated news cycle to achieve success far more rapidly and at much less cost than did the Vietnamese. If they can make the American electorate believe, as Reisman and Antoniou put it, that the “war is being conducted in an unfair, inhumane, or iniquitous way” necessary public backing might collapse. Even if U.S. public opinion is unwavering – as it appears to be with respect to the current war on terrorism19 – the cooperation of coalition governments nevertheless might weaken if their people become disenchanted with the way armed force is being used.20 This is especially problematic for the Air Force if it results in the denial of vital basing and overflight rights….

This jerk swallowed all the swill about how we peace demonstrators and people who were very alarmed at how the US abused international laws which WE set up, OURSELVES during WWII, and blame us all for the manifest failures in Vietnam?  Wow.  We see clearly today how one can go from ‘victory to victory’ down to a classic defeat.  Not to mention, the whole business of going bankrupt, fighting irritated peasants in distant lands!
Below is an article from Peter about CIA torture that is amusing in a horrid way:

I found Fareed Zakaria’s latest apologia on behalf of President Obama even more underwhelming than Chris Brose did. Fareed is a very important mainstream foreign policy pundit, so when he criticizes the mainstream, my interest is piqued. As a professor, I can attest that he also has great appeal with the rising generation, and he gets fawning treatment from seemingly the one media mogul in America who can make or break public figures: Jon Stewart. As the second-most frequent guest on the Daily Show, Fareed is a major public figure and probably the closest thing we have to a post-modern Walter Lippmann. (Full disclosure: he is also an old friend from graduate student days).

So I was disappointed to find that Fareed stuck to hackneyed critiques of the Bush foreign policy — a critique that was so cartoonish that a pundit as insightful as Fareed Zakaria could easily demolish it.

There was absolutely NOTHING in Bush’s Presidency even remotely good.  Nothing at all.  Nixon signed bills like the Clean Air Act.  He did many good things along with utterly odious things.  

Bush has NONE of this!  All was bad, from top to bottom.  Bush bankrupted America thanks to wild military spending, sitting and reading ‘The Pet Goat’ while Americans were jumping to their deaths and the military sat on their fat asses.  Bush ended up alienating nearly all our allies, allowing the Israeli Jews stomp on barely armed civilians trapped in a tiny ghetto, etc.  Nothing good to see here, at all.

Undeniably, the Bush administration made mistakes in foreign policy — mistakes of policy development, mistakes of policy execution, and mistakes of personnel and process. But President Bush got a lot of things right, a lot more than the conventional wisdom Fareed celebrates in this piece admits. And, importantly, Bush was sometimes right when the chorus of critics was wrong. Shouldn’t we be glad that in late 2006 President Bush decided for this and not for this?



Hitler built the autobahns! Yes, that is a positive thing to say. I see NO WHERE where we critics were even slightly wrong. The quiet in Iraq was due to our bankrupt empire paying off zillions of Iraqis and their various warlords. Now that pay is vanishing, they are returning to their interior battles. Once the Shi’ites win these, they will turn on us. The stupidity of the whole business is inexpressible. Yet, this Zionist is happy with our ‘results’. Which is a nation that tarred and feathered itself.






P.O. BOX 483

BERLIN, NY 12022

Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’




Filed under Politics, war and peace


  1. PLovering

    Rome is financed by Lizard Central Bankers.
    The Pope will be kissing the Wailing Wall again, shortly.
    Ahh, the blessings of usury.

  2. CK

    The man who was responsible for targeting the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the Clinton war was William Bennet. He was executed in Loudon Maryland a few weeks ago.
    10 years after the bombing, parties unknown attacked and killed ex- Lt.Col Bennet and seriously wounded but left alive his wife as the couple strolled along a jogging path.
    The Chinese embassy bombing was the ONLY acknowledged CIA directed attack of that war.
    It was believed that inside the embassy at the time of the attack were the remains of the only F-117 nighthawk to be downed by Serbian anti-aircraft fire. Parts of that nighthawk are on display in Moscow, parts were on display in Serbia, the remainder of the parts was never accounted for.
    Bennet was supposedly excised from the CIA shortly after that bombing. It has since been discovered that he was merely moved from one area within the CIA to another. Supposedly ( what follows is probably disinformation of some sort for someone’s benefit) he went to work on deteremining how Patriot Missle software ended up being incorporated in Soviet anti missle systems. Supposedly he was able to show a direct link from Israel to the Soviets through the analysis of soviet missles sold to Cyprus that had instruction manuals in hebrew.
    It should be remembered that the Patriot anti missle system was basically a failure during the first gulf war. Incapable of stopping even the shitpoor scuds that Saddam fired on Israel and on Saudi Arabia.
    While I have no doubt that some folks would willingly believe that the Soviets are dumber than whaleshit and the Israelis sharper than a serpent’s tooth. I don’t.
    Supposedly, the Chinese were scientifically unable, at the time that the F-117 was downed, to be able to garner anything useful from the debris. It should also be noted that the F-117 was removed from active service long before its estimated useful life was over.
    Agents of Influence: Dr. Feaver along with the editoral pundit page writers on the NYT. And Fareed Zakaria. Not the only ones of course.
    I wonder if the Mossad thinks of these people as the “useful idiots” of zionism.
    I believe that turncoat senator John McCain is the guest with the most appearances on the Jon Stewart show. ( Which is one of the reasons that I find Stewart and Colbert to be questionable even when Stewart claims his passover breakfast was a bacon and egg on a baguette).
    I further wonder when we will start to see the term self-hating moslem applied to folks like Zakaria.

  3. CK

    ( continued )
    Is one link to the history of Lt.Col Bennett and the Belgrade bombing and the missing F-117 pieces.
    How interesting is the question of loyalties.
    What are you loyal too? What would you gladly die for?
    The further away from one’s own self a construct exists, the more loyalty is demanded.
    I am loyal to my wife. If push comes to shove, I take the blow so that she doesn’t have to.
    I am loyal to most of my family. I will not smilingly die for some of them but for others of them I will take the blow and laugh.
    I have a few friends to whom I feel a loyalty that would allow me to take the blow and smile. I have many acquaintences for whom I would step aside and let them take the blow aimed at them.
    I am loyal to my neighbourhood. Were it to be attacked I would man the barricades unless I calculated that it was ridiculous to do so.
    And that is it.
    I would not die for Bucks County
    I would not sacrifice myself of my loved one for Pennsylvania
    I would not sacrifice myself my loved one or my momentary pleasures for Texas or Georgia or The West Coast or The East Coast or the Red States or the Blue States.
    I would not waste a fart to help any religion or any other fantasy, neither any goo-goo, nor any democratic believer, nor any monarchist, nor any hopester nor any changer.
    But if you come to my door hungry you will probably get a meal, if you come thirsty you will get a drink, if you arrive tired you will find a place to sleep and a hearty “so long, don’t let the door imprint your ass”, the next morning.
    Should you knock on my door and have something to trade, you will find a trader. Value for value. Don’t show me your scars; do not browbeat me with your open sores, I am amused by them. They are not unique. They are not values, they do not raise my bid nor lower your offer. Do not wave a weapon or a bible or a quoran or a talmud at me and tell me about the life after death, soon enough I will find out what is after death, wave crap at me and you might find out sooner than you expected, or I might find out sooner than I wish. Pays your dime; takes your chance.

  4. emsnews

    Can we all come over for a few drinks? And then wreck your bar? 🙂

  5. emsnews

    How about maybe? We can do it in the road… 🙂

  6. CK

    Why would you want to wreck the bar? Is there a profit in that for you that I am unable to ascertain?

  7. CK

    Anyplace that is available to do it is a good place. Although some folks find a Ferris wheel to be an addictive spot.

  8. emsnews

    Just to annoy you, CK.

  9. Simon

    Disclaimer: Full article quoted for educational purposes only


    China seeks oversight of reserve currency issuers
    China sovereign wealth fund plans more investments in Europe: report
    By Lisa Twaronite, MarketWatch
    Last update: 5:28 p.m. EDT April 18, 2009
    SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao called for more surveillance of countries that issue major reserve currencies, according to published reports Saturday.
    Wen did not specify the United States in his remarks at the Boao Forum for Asia in China’s Hainan Province. But Chinese officials have recently expressed their concern about their country’s investments in dollar-denominated assets.
    “We should advance reform of the international financial system, increase the representation and voice of emerging markets and developing countries, strengthen surveillance of the macro-economic policies of major reserve currency issuing economies, and develop a more diversified international monetary system,” Wen said, according to China’s official Xinhua news agency.
    Wen told the conference that China’s economy was faring “better than expected.” China said last week that its economy grew at an annual rate of 6.1% in the first quarter, a slowdown from 6.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008.
    Wen said China would seek to expand currency swap agreements that are seen as a step toward eventually making the yuan more of a global reserve asset.
    “We should give full play to bilateral currency swap agreements and will study expanding currency swaps in scale and to more countries,” Wen was quoted as saying.
    China’s central bank has signed six such swap deals since late 2008, totaling 650 billion yuan ($95 billion).
    China will set up a $10 billion cooperation fund to support infrastructure projects in countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Wen said. The plan was announced earlier this month by Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. Read more on China’s fund for ASEAN.
    Asean’s other member countries are Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Brunei, Vietnam, and Indonesia.
    “We should make greater efforts to promote free trade and expand intra-regional trade,” Wen said, according Xinhua.
    “We should accommodate each other’s concern to the greatest extent possible, build consensus and establish a regional reserve pool as early as possible so as to better protect our region from financial risks,” Wen reportedly said.
    IMF failure
    Also at the Boao Forum, Zhou Xiaochuan, head of the People’s Bank of China, said at a panel discussion that the International Monetary Fund failed to give alarm or diagnosis, let alone remedies when problems occurred in developed countries, according to Xinhua.
    “International financial institutions need reform, and have many weak points,” said Zhou. He added that the combination of international and regional organizations such as the Asian Development Bank would be a good option, Xinhua said.
    Zhou reportedly said he understood that it might be harder for the IMF, a global organization, to make decisions.
    Last month, Zhou proposed the creation a new international reserve currency in an essay published on the central bank’s Web site. Read more on China currency proposal.
    Zhou suggested that the IMF’s Special Drawing Right (SDR) should be given a greater role. The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system. Its value is based on a basket of key international currencies.
    “The desirable goal of reforming the international monetary system, therefore, is to create an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies,” Zhou wrote in the essay.
    ‘Lovable force’
    Also at the Boao Forum, the chairman of China’s sovereign wealth fund said that the fund plans to expand its international investments this year, including those in European nations it shunned after they set limits on its investments.
    China Investment Corp. Chairman Lou Jiwei said that due to financial protectionism limiting his fund’s stakes and voting rights, it “didn’t invest a single cent in Europe,” according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.
    But since last year, Lou said, “there has been a change,” and “Europe is now very welcoming to us, and isn’t talking about such conditions any more.”
    The newspaper report cited Lou as saying, “People suddenly look at us as a lovable force.” End of Story
    Lisa Twaronite reports for MarketWatch from San Francisco.


    Looks like China is auditing someone’s ass….

  10. Simon

    I can’t comment in the IMF gold article, something is broken on that page, so the apparent irrelevant post here

  11. medon

    O is acting like ‘The Company’ has threatened him.

  12. David

    I think to answer many questions on our minds, we must return to a basic question as the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius tried to do when accosted by courtiers who wanted to influence his thinking this way or that.
    What is the basis in and of itself for the US government and intelligence agencies and military wanting to torture captured enemies around the world? Why would a nation that previously claimed to support human rights for all mankind want to suddenly turn so violently and so cruelly upon the weak and wretched of the earth?
    The answer lies, I believe, somewhat in the stories you told about the inquisition. You said: “And our courts now ape the Catholic Church. And this is 100% infuriating. We are losing our most basic civil rights thanks to these guys.
    Things change. Empires and systems crumble from within, and when they do, those who worship and wield power cling to every device possible to hold their cash cow together a bit longer, and those in power,in their desperation to preserve the status quo they have always known, come to believe that if they can be just a little stronger and more cruel than their forefathers or those who came before them, they can preserve themselves and assure their future forever.
    GW(gloves off)Bush and (shotgun)Dick Cheney believed that if they were tougher and more brutal than weakling Bill Clinton and milder daddy HW Bush, they could dominate all of the Middle East and rule over the world’s dwindling oil supply for the future, and could thus preserve the US dollar as the world reserve currency and assure US wealth and success into the future…..much like The Church believed, and still does, that by fighting its decline with The Inquisition,it was saving the souls of those victims who suffered its terrible abuses. Both the Inquisition Church and the US empire were already faltering when the abuse took place….so when a decline is taking place,this is a dangerous time in human affairs whether in a religious organization or in a nation.

    Both were trying to regain a glorious past that was and is crumbling. Back when the Catholic Inquisition took place, the enlightenment was beginning and the written word was spreading secular knowledge and reasonable thought around the world, and things were changing…cities growing and secular movements advancing…the Church controlled feudal system was breaking down bit by bit and this scared the hell out of everyone from the Pope on down.
    What would the world do if the people left the church and moved in secular directions that destroyed the privilege and wealth systems that The Church controlled? This required strength…If inquisitors could become just a little more brutal and heretics and villains could be made to recant and tow the traditional line, all could return to normal…and The Church could regain its stature and wealth.
    Thus, The Inquisition…,but did this solve their problem of decline? Not at all! Military defeat of Spain and enlightenment thought brought it down…and the printing press, and then Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation movement forced The Church into secondary status in people’s lives….and The Church, to this day, hates this and struggles desperately to reclaim its self defined “rightful” first place in all cultures it infiltrates, ostensibly so it can save the poor souls of those it dominates, and of course dominate their lives and collect their wealth.

    These are dark thoughts and concepts, and the thinking behind these motivations is also very cold and dark and well defined by even darker,secretive traditions that are similar to the darkness found in the depths of mens souls…well developed over time into cultlike beliefs, but genuine nevertheless….those who hold these views are true believers…cynical and cold, but true believers.
    So too,the declining US empire is desperately and futilely attempting to regain a status and past that was glorious in the eyes of those who are presently attempting to recover a time of goodness and plenty that is long past.
    The basis for present institutionalized US torture began with US defeat in Vietnam. Wrong thinking from military contractors, a President and and most of the US civilian and military systems brought US defeat in Vietnam…where torture was outsourced to allies in an illegal manner.

    The supreme will of the Vietnamese people to die to the last man, woman and child to overcome invaders, far outclassed the US invaders in every way. But these US war makers, defeated and licking their wounds, with the sounds of enemy bullets still echoing in their ears, left Vietnam with a vow to never let this happen to them again. They still believed that if they had fought a little harder, controlled the country with harsher and stronger measures, penetrated resistance movements by using stronger torture techniques and just using more resources, they could prevent another Vietnam style defeat from happening….and they determined with all their hearts, that they would rebuild American might to its “rightful” place where it could dominate the rest of humanity and spread “democracy and freedom” any damned where it pleased….
    But note that US leader’s devotion to their notions and emphasis on democracy and freedoms became seriously downgraded almost to nonexistence during this time of angry rebuilding of US forces and resources. In fact, like the Church’s advocacy of following Christs teachings in the Sermon on the Mount during The Inquisition, all elements of Christ’ love were removed from Church thinking because it was devoted to “setting things right” and saving itself and its wealth procuring systems….and so it instituted what it’s basic teachings advocated against….usury, cruelty, violence, hatred and causing suffering to the weakest members of humanity.
    So too, the US government and military and conservative right wingers,and many religions came to believe that if we had used nukes in Vietnam, we would have won and we would have preserved our previous glory days status quo….probably not true because the Soviets had more nukes than us during those days…
    But these conservatives also came to believe that if they became increasingly tougher and more brutal toward chosen enemies, they could overcome the willpower of the indigenous peoples they attempted to dominate, and the world would again look up to the US empire as a world leader…but alas, control of a world that kept changing and moving forward kept slipping away….even as the Soviet empire crumbled from its own dead weight..leaving the US as the remaining military superpower.

    Conservatives mistakenly believe that force commands respect….not true. It only forces temporary submission, and the more force applied, the more residual hatred builds up over the long term…..look at WWII, the US and Allies defeated Germany with massive force, but rehabilitated them quickly with the Marshall Plan…and it worked out….US intent toward conquered foes was much more genuine and of a good will nature in those days.
    Not so since…with Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan….and the empire continues to crumble from its own massive dead weight and misdeeds….and change will occur as surrounding civilizations change and progress.
    Right now,in Central and South America, those nations continue to march forward slowly, but surely, just as the US empire declines from its own overreach and debt….and changes are taking place and will take place without US approval, and US shortcomings and hubris in the Americas will be remembered in those nations….and change is unstoppable…it is the order of things….
    The entire concept of conserving and preserving human works and concepts is faulty…and thus, conservative philosophy itself is faulty. From the time of birth, a human begins to die and all of the works of man eventually crumble to dust…look at the pyramids…so conserving and preserving forever is simple faulty thinking…and to demand it of other is foolish in the extreme.
    Perhaps US planners looked at how France broke down the cell structure of the Algerian freedom movement during the 1950s by using electric shock and torture to get cell members to inform on their comrades until all network members were uncovered.
    I suspect this to be the case since I was once given a book to read on French torturing of Algerians by an army reserve colonel who was also my college professor….so this torture of enemy resistance movement members has probably been in the planning stages since right after the Vietnam War….so that when the US invades and takes over like in Iraq, it can uncover freedom fighter organizations with the use of torture and thus dominate the conquered country into submission…so puppet governments can be installed and natural resources can be harvested.
    However, using torture is a slippery slope as has already been discovered. Jose Padilla was kept in a Navy Brigg for three years and tortured until he indited himself for boasting about attacking the US…after three years of torture, no human could resist being indicted or would be willing to defend himself against such charges…so such convictions are probably invalid unless evidence could be obtained by differing legitimate means.
    Now, even television shows like Big Brother use psychological sensory deprivation torture techniques to weed out contestants…so it all becomes commonplace in society….Think about police interrogations of suspects..and violent deaths during arrests are drastically increasing since Police use tasers to incapacitate victims needlessly…even children and the elderly…
    So, like the Inquisition Church, we have become what we once resisted with all our national will….a brutal, heartless society that derives satisfaction from dominating other peoples and our own citizens…and we mistakenly believe that this cruel ability to dominate others with pain and suffering gives us legitimacy.
    This just is not true.

  13. Simon

    Dynastic cycles, usually lasting several hundred years, is a common theme throughout mankind history
    At first, you have the glorious revolution period. Previous corrupt rulers are cast down, new leaders, having come from powerless backgrounds, vow to do things differently. Period of relative good administration follows.

    Then you have the expansion of the empire, this is based on the logic that if something is a good thing, then MORE of the same must be better. So expansion brings more prosperity, but subtle, fundamental changes occur in the government, because of the wealth flowing in, someone realize, they could just survive on shearing the flock without doing any meaningful work.

    The end phase is when all problems come to a head, the system seems to lose the ability to repair itself, chaos is rampant and increasing. The disillusioned population, because of power inherent in their demographics, overthrow the rulers. It may take one or ten tries, but they succeed. This is inevitable. I think we are in this phase

    Various empires of the world, some with longer memories than others, have observed this cycle. They are powerless to prevent this, since to break the cycle would be akin to create a perpetual motion engine, stuck in first and second phase but omit the third. The elites of the early and mid-phase can at best setup a system that minimize the damage.

  14. emsnews

    Yes, it is a ‘moral rot’. Which can be characterized as ‘laziness.’ The people of the Roman empire could have easily defended it. But why? Most were slaves or deep in debt. Many joined the barbarian raiders and ran amok. Then, the wild horse people streamed in. They killed everyone they met.

  15. sharkbabe

    Just reading that first cowardly sentence from the New York Whore Times pissed me off so bad I can’t even read the rest of the post. The entire “respectable establishment” of this country is so fucking rotten, it all needs to be hurled out the window! And Obama and his new dog too!

  16. emsnews

    Yes, isn’t it awful? It makes me sick. But then, they seem to find no harm in bombing children in the first place unless it is someone in their own tribe. Tribal warfare is extremely dangerous. Only thing worse is religious wars and worst than that are religious/tribal wars and then…on to doctrinaire wars like the Cold War.

  17. K-Bo

    I think we all can agree torture is bad.

    “To this day, the Catholic Church refuses adamantly to admit any wrongdoing.”

    Not true.

    In Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente,

    “Another painful chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth.

    Many factors frequently converged to create assumptions which justified intolerance and fostered an emotional climate from which only great spirits, truly free and filled with God, were in some way able to break free. Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness.”

    Another bit about the Church and the Inquisition, from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0029.html

    “The principle upon which the Inquisition was built is entirely defensible; indeed, Catholics everywhere have the duty to defend it. The Church was given by Christ Himself the mission of safeguarding the deposit of faith from distortion or corruption (cf. Mt. 28:16-20; Mk. 16:14-20; Jn. 21:15-19; 1 Thess. 2:13; Jude 3; Catechism, nos. 84-90, 172-75, 813-16).

    However, we must distinguish between this principle and the means by which the faith should be defended. The Church herself, as evidenced in the Catechism, does not defend the regrettable practices of the Inquisition:

    In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors (no. 2298). ”

    Here’s some more about Church apologies:

    ELAINE: Last time I looked, the Catholic Church still deifies the torturers. So that weak apology isn’t real at all. Only after punishing the guilty, can the Church move on and Opus Dei is very much all about NOT renouncing the Spanish Inquisition.

  18. I like the alliteration at the end! 😆
    “Yet, this Zionist [Dunlap] is happy with our ‘results’. Which is a nation that tarred and feathered itself.”
    And plucked itself clean naked for the feathers, I might add.
    On a different note, I wish to add that we on the left need to start talking to those disaffected people on the right — it would be good to have the folks on the right understand where we’re coming from…. That we’re NOT okay with Obama’s continued warmongering against civilians especially with thise godawful drones, that we’re NOT okay with his letting torturers get off scot-free, that we’re NOT okay with his continued bailout of Zombie Banks when they should be put into RECEIVERSHIP, and their CEO gnomes, arrested for fraud and treason, that we’re NOT okay his continuation of all the borrow-and-spend policies that were started by Reagan and has brought us to the very edge of the cliff into insolvency; and, finally, that we’re NOT oksy with him maintaining all the odious “Unitary Executive” policies that would allow him or anyone after him to essentially impose a fascist dictatorship upon We, the People.
    The mainstream media had a FIELD day with the unfocused Tea Party demonstrations (if you can call them that), which were supposed to be grass-roots but were very quickly hijacked by the right-winged minions of conservative talk radio. Because of this, the MSM had the time of their lives, calling them ‘tea-baggers!!!’ (I’ll spare you the details of the double-entendre.)
    Anyway, the reason we should talk and reason with these people is that Herr Fraulein Reichsfuhrer of the Geheimstadtpolizei (Homeland Security), Janet Napolitano, recently released a report, commissioned and substantially completed during the BUSH 43 Administration, that details the threats and dangers posed to “National Security” by right-winged extremists, both actual and so-called. Remember, Bush had us all confined to ‘free speech zones!’ Usually half a mile or more from the event people demonstrated against. For if .com-gov starts rounding up dissidents on the one end of the political spectrum, it won’t be long before the start rounding up dissidents at the other end!
    I am reminded of Pastor Niemuller’s famous prose: First they came for….

  19. David

    Elaine and K-Bo:
    The end times believers, Zionists, single God believers and all religions must be kept out of political movements in the US or there will be hell to pay in the near future, but I doubt that will happen….we seem to be abandoning The Constitution which has protected the US from religions and religious strife until now….and possible religious trouble for the US is also brewing on the horizon unless we return to traditional Constitutional thought in relation to religions.
    Reading about the Catholic Inquisition brought some new thoughts to mind.
    And these thoughts combine,The Catholic Inquisition, The Enlightenment, European religious wars, New World freedoms and influences of The Church on contemporary thought.
    As the enlightenment brought Catholic Church inquisition and excommunication pressures to bear on secular free thinkers and Protestants deviants in the old world of Europe, and resulting religious wars and persecutions ensued, people attempting to escape the violence and Church pressures came to North America seeking freedom to practice their religious beliefs as they desired….and they escaped the reach of The Church for the most part, until the middle of the 19th Century when European immigrants flooded into North America….bringing Roman Catholicism with them.
    Still, the Protestant faiths held sway in much of North America until recently….mainly because the American ideal of “religious freedom” was alive and well until recently, but that will change in the near future, and most certainly, upheavals will result in some cases.
    As I noted in earlier posts, demographers are predicting that by 2050, hispanics will be the dominant race in the US and North America because of immigration. This reasonably means that White Protestant Americans, Jewish Americans, Asian Buddhist Americans, and Black Muslim and Protestant Americans and Native American Naturalist believers will be holders of minority belief systems at that time since Hispanic immigrants, for the most part, are Catholic and their population is growing more quickly because of a higher birthrate (due to The Church forbidding birth control).
    So, in addition to a changing political landscape for We The People in North America, where fascism has taken a hold in politics and popular thought, we can reasonably expect some serious religious competition among We The People in our childrens’ future, and The Church and The Vatican will be a major player in the new North American Order…if not overtly, by its influence on members of The Church.
    And, if the US empire crumbles and the nation or western world returns to to a somewhat updated feudalistic political system in a future dark ages, guess who will again be right there to guide rulers and take charge of wealth producing systems like in the past dark ages–The Church and whichever pope is in charge at the time.
    Isn’t it ironic how history does repeat itself?
    Just some thoughts…I mean absolutely no offense to any person or their religion….but things are definitely changing…to who knows what….unless religion is kept out of politics.

  20. CK

    Control the vagina, control the world.
    Somewhere, there is a female scientist working on creating artificial testes from embryonic stem cells. The rest is just pneumatics, piping, and transfusion equations.
    I hate to break it to you David but keeping religion out of politics is about as reasonable as keeping food out of stomachs.

  21. emsnews

    All religions are about controlling our uteruses.

  22. David

    Elaine and CK:
    You are both absolutely right about “all religions being about controlling [women’s] uteruses”….and “control the vagina and control the world.”
    I sure missed that one because I had always believed that religions wielded power by controlling our thinking and defining our sins….but what you two just came up with gets to the very heart of the matter….
    So, The Church knows it is in the game for the long haul, and if it can control and selectively turn loose members vaginas, and put them in full production, in a specific culture where Catholicism is not dominant, within two or three generations, The Church itself will have major control over that culture and be able to minimize other belief-wealth accumulation systems in favor of its own….damned! Makes a lot of sense.
    I noted this about young women when I was a high school teacher, but failed to understand the full implications of female sexuality. I noted that female freshmen experimented with the effects of their sexuality on boys and those around them, and sophomores went further and juniors had a fledgling understanding….and a reasonably attractive, smart female senior fully understood that her future could be pretty well controlled by the judicious use and control of her vagina, and the power it wielded over the males around her.
    So, this is why the men of the early Church quickly wrestled power away from women like Mary Magdalene. To this day, cynical males completely dominate The Church and its female members. These old boys fear women using their vaginas to gain a hold on the reigns of power in their exclusive male wealth and luxury producing club, and this is the main reason they minimize the importance of womens’ lives, but then these same old boys of the cloth turn right around and use church womens’ vaginas to achieve their place of dominance over different civilizations. No wonder these old boys cling so viciously to their traditions against birth control..and deciding who has committed a sin and who has not…it’s a powerful control mechanism that brings the boys in the robes and beanies wealth and power over the entire world.
    Perhaps, womens’ major weakness is that they appear to distrust and are jealous of each other in relation to men and using their sexuality when competing for male attention…and some will often compete for the same man. If they could somehow work together without this jealousy and competition, they could, in short order, rule the world….or am I being too hard on them in this respect?
    Thanks for the heads up folks, I learned a lot!

  23. CK

    If one reads the screeds from the european nationalists, the islamic uterus is what will conquer Europe. If one reads the screeds of the Israeli statists, the same weapon will eventually turn Jerusalem back into a moslem city. For the American statists it is the catholic mexican uteri that will make the reconquista of the SouthWest a foregone conclusion. If one reads the American Family council and its brethern and cistern, birth control is what must be removed as a right. The abortion wars have never really been about killing the unborn; they have been about all the never conceived and the ability of the female to control conception as she wishes. The birth control pill took birth control our of the leaky or forgotten lambskin era and into an era where a pill a day kept the baby away. And in passing I will note that current commercials for “new” birth control pills all harp on how hard it must be for a woman to remember to take a pill every morning so instead she should just remember to take one a month. Funny about that, things one does every day become rote. Get up, hit the head, brush the teeth, take the pill, have the cuppa.
    Things done once a month, not so rote; easier to slip-up.
    You are correct about the necessity for all religions to define, a priori, certain human pleasures and pleasantries as sins. That is the easy part; the difficult part is getting people to accept that they are sinful from the getgo and that our bodies are temples of filth. Now when you can sell that proposition the rest of the marketing is just repetition and the ocassional witch burning or rack stretching to encourage the backsliders. Shaman is the oldest something for nothing profession. Even older than tax collector. Way older than prostitute.

  24. David

    Yes CK.
    I was raised in a fundamentalist Protestant church, and the thing about original sin from the get go always seemed foolish to me.
    How in this world could someone look at an innocent baby and believe that this little person is born a sinful being (of course needing the salvation of the church)? That is so cynical and asinine that it is unbelievable, but those folks are serious about their beliefs, deadly serious, and they sacrifice the well-being of their innocent children by forcing them to conform to the teachings of the Shamen.
    “Shaman is the oldest something for nothing profession. Even older than tax collector. Way older than prostitute.”
    I really like this and, in my experience, this is so true. My dad and mom supported a large fundamentalist church with money labors and belief for forty years, giving all they could give, and a bit more….thousands and thousands of dollars, a terrific amount of money for working people…and the Church grew into a complex of huge buildings, associate pastors and secretaries and worship in shifts.

    Mom had a stroke, and was home bound for four years. Not a single minister or member showed up to visit or comfort her during her decline.
    Dad quit driving and lived awhile longer, and then had cancer for three years before passing….again same story…not one damned member of minister showed up…and he died surrounded with loving family, friends and neighbors…and 400 people attended his funeral, but not one from the church he had supported for so long.
    Needless to say, these religious folks are not my favorite people.
    Yet,they claim the moral authority to tell us we must go out and murder members of other faiths and we must have children we don’t want or need and we must give them our wealth….Gimme a break!

  25. CK

    It’s an unsupported claim.
    It is the same claim the state makes. Give us your children as slaves to die for domino theories; give us the returns from your brain and your labour to buy killing instruments from our friends.
    Tithing or taxing, the shamen and the tax collectors. Same cloth, same patternbook, same result, different designer labels.
    I read somewhere a year or so ago that Chavez in Venezuela had ordered some group of prosletyzing christianist missionaries out of his country. I liked that. It was a start.
    I read the 1st amendment to the constitution, it was badly written. It promises freedom of religion, it should have promised freedom from religion. And let me be very precise here, freedom from religion does not mean that there are no gods. It just means we are free from the commission based salespeople who pretend to interpret the wants or needs or desires of whatever their might be. In a well ordered world, their would be multitudinous lamposts with yardarms on them, and suspended from each pair of yardarms would be one religious type and one politician…for balance of course; there is nothing quite so unaesthetic as an unbalanced yardarm.

  26. David, Elaine and CK:
    Thanks for quite an eyeful on the Catholic Church’s control of women’s uteruses in order to increase their wealth, power and control over the nations. In the same manner they also control gay men’s genitals — no associating with each other allowed. This is for two reasons: the first reason is what David mentioned: increasing numbers of Catholics to gain the Church leverage over the nations. THIS is why Pope Ratzinger recently said homosexuality posed the greatest threat to humanity! This, of course, is a lie: homosexuality does NOT pose a threat, but is needed to prevent overpopulation!
    The other reason is NOT because the Catholic hierarchy are all homophobic straights; on the contraire, a LOT of them are homosexual gnomes! So it would be natural for them to prohibit male-to-male relations: this is so they can get the most beautiful young teenage altar boys for themselves! God forbid, the boys should be attracted to each other. For then the gnomes would die from sexual frustration!!!
    “Homosexuality is a mortal sin, my precioussss…”

  27. emsnews

    People who have a religion about sharing and condemning greed become greedy. Religions forbidding certain kinds of sex will do that sex, that is, the LEADERS of these religions. The underlings get the full strictures, undiluted. The top leadership gets all the goodies and greed and sex. This is why I am absolutely certain, no religious leaders are in any sort of heaven or nirvana or anything.

  28. emsnews

    By the way, in my religion, being recycled as a rabbit or a cat or a bird would be my definition of heaven. Instead of escaping the cycle of life and death, I would be absolutely delighted to be reincarnated as a dolphin or even a squid! To be a whale, to be a bear, to be a TREE, yes, even that would be WONDERFUL. I look forward to the next adventure!

  29. David

    Yes. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to be a part of nature and surroundings without possessing the drive we humans have to be godlike and change the world around us….I like my earth moving equipment for this reason…I can use it to rearrange the earth to suit myself….my god complex…or wanting to be a god.

    I often tell wife I’ve worked like a dog. She says no way. Tells me, if I worked like a dog, I would lie around all day sleeping and scratching fleas, and someone human would feed me….might be a good life…living a dog’s life.
    when writing a previous post, I had the same thoughts you did about church homosexuals….Now, I’m an ageing male, but I still have a bit of sex drive…..and I can remember how important sex was to me as a young male.
    There is just no way those old boys of the cloth are doing without if they are human at all….or the sisters either…and protestant pastors are notorious for their phalandering. So, if these paragons of virtue are doing without female companionship, they, in my opinion, are seeking out sexual liasions with other males for their relief…and maybe a few choir boys also as recent scandals indicate.
    The ancient male Greek philosophers were much like today’s men of the cloth. The males made the rules and had sex with each other, but also realized the importance of controlling women and using them for reproductive purposes….thus, the same degrading processes for women. So the church gnome leaders who attempt to stamp out male and female homosexuality in the flock, might just practice it freely behind closed doors with each other, but also keep the men of the flock tied to the women with marriage and working to support children who can then become good church members and spread the faith.

  30. K-Bo

    Wow, what a cynical bunch – thinking churches and religions are trying to control everything about everyone for it’s own needs. I’d rather believe the church is trying to instruct me and teach me what is best for me, and help me grow in my spiritual faith, to help me be the best person I can be, the person God wants me to be. Sounds like the crowd despises being instructed on what is good, and knows best.

    As for religion taking things over and causing catastrophe / armageddon / the apocalypse, I think the opposite is happening. Newsweek just did a cover story on the secularization of America:
    Secularization has already happened in Europe. The US poll found the percentage of “unaffiliated” = unreligious people doubled in America between 1990 and 2009, from 8% to 16%. The number of Christians decreased from 86% to 76% in the last two decades, and the percentage of atheists or agnostics quadrupled.

    To tell you the truth, I think this is what the elites, mainstream media, and those on the left want. CNN and Ted Turner (“Christianity is for losers”) are one example. Bill Maher’s new movie “Religulous” is another example that comes to mind that tries to make fun of people because of their beliefs. Remember that fascists and communists do not allow religion or worship of God at all. The state controls all.

    I agree with David that it’s important to have freedom of religion (as expressed in our Constitution). It’s one of the basic human rights, to choose one’s belief system and be allowed to worship / practice that belief system / religion as one sees fit.

    We should all be respectful of others’ religions, and can probably learn a lot from learning about others’ beliefs. I’m sure there’s a lot in common, and that’s what should be stressed.

    As far as freedom from religion goes, well I think most laws come from spiritual and religious beliefs – such as respecting another’s right to property (thou shalt not steal), life (thou shalt not murder), etc… So one can never be truly free from religion if one wants to live in a lawful society. The phrase “what the law requires is written on their hearts” comes to mind. I guess you mean free from being influenced when one disagrees on religious grounds (such as those who are against abortion on religious grounds, and those who think it should be a basic right of women). But a nation / people / culture has to decide what is important and make laws accordingly. Our Constitution I believe says our rights are God given.

    I think religion is a good thing, and I can’t understand why so many are against it. I guess there’s too many religious hypocrites, and too many that are obstinate, extreme, and unrational. Religion is a way of seeking the truth, so long as people don’t become mindless drones accepting everything one is told. Religious people involved in a religious community are happier, get sick less often, and in my opinion are better off – probably because of the social support and peace of mind brought about by religion. At a minimum, it is a wonderful psychological support system, and should be encouraged.
    Elaine, what torturer has the Church deified? Please enlighten me. The Church has apologized. Why won’t you accept it? Who do you want punished, and for what? The people doing the inquisitions are dead.
    “All human groups want a belief system that is exclusive and refuses to accept any or all proofs to the contrary.” Something for you to think about there … Christianity and the Catholic Church probably have a lot in common with your unnamed religion – such as the belief in living simply and helping others, for starters.

  31. emsnews

    I can’t research this information, K-Bo but the CHURCH ITSELF HAS SAID THIS. So I just quote them, I am not making this up. Go read the entire offical Catholic article I linked above.

  32. CK

    That was the old days, now churches at least in the USA are merely handmaidens and altar boys of the God that is the State. The state is much closer than the actuality of any heaven and is most willing to send anyone to his/ner heaven for any reason at all.
    If you need help being good, then there is a high probability that whoever defined good for you set you up to fail.
    Newsweek defines secularization as non attendance to organized functions. Not going to some big building and being led through some otiose rituals is not the same thing as being non-spiritual. It does have some financial implications for the big building owners bottom lines. And again, unaffilitated does not mean non-spiritual, it does mean non-membership. ( I do believe that the number of people who have adopted Wicca, Neo-Paganism, Paleo-Paganism, the Holy Spaghetti Monster, Scientology, and Jedi as their faiths is climbing exponentially ).
    The fascists and communists both allowed religious institutions, but both isms are quite explicit about the ranking of religious institutions versus the importance of the State. As long as the institutions knew their place and kept to it, all was well for them.
    Your right to practice your belief stops at my ear. Marketing agents for organized faiths can avoid my property and my person.
    God is not mentioned at all in the US constitution, when asked about the omission, Alexander Hamilton is supposed to have said that the USA did not need foreign aid. God is mentioned twice in the Federalist papers and twice in the Declaration of Independence. The most famous of course being the “Endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights”…, In God we trust appeared first on US currency during the Civil War when the North did need all the help it could wheedle, “Under God” was a late addition to the Slavery pledge in 1954 during the McCarthy good times and witchhunting bulemic episode.
    I don’t believe anyone here is interested in removing your comfort.
    Some of us find our comfort and succor and solace in different ways and search for provisional truths by different means.
    Some provisional truths have lasted longer than others, death comes to us all is still a provisional truth, all must go before Herod to be enumerated and taxed is a provisional truth. Some do need absolute truths, those being in short supply; faith is a workable substitute.
    Or as that old geezer P.Pilate once supposedly asked “What is Truth.”
    He too did not recieve a workable answer.

  33. K-Bo

    Thanks, CK. Very insightful and informative post. I had to look up “provisional truth” having not studied much philosophy recently.
    You might like this essay about provisional truth and religion and what religious beliefs mean to certain people, I know I did:
    Reminds me a little bit of what I said a few years back during my disillusioned adolescence regarding truth, and reflecting what the essay above says – “The only thing I believe in is love.” So if that is the only universal truth, then Pontius Pilate did get an answer from Jesus: “For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” That truth is “love is all that matters”, and Jesus was the perfect example for us.

  34. K-Bo

    Heck, while I’m at it (philosophizing on religion and truth and who knows what else), here’s another nice essay about provisional truth, religion, and uncertainty, reviewing the famous skeptic, Michael Shermer’s book “The science of good and evil.” The article says certainty is an illusion. It’s something that Elaine harps about all the time.

    I’m trying to grasp what you mean by “If you need help being good, then there is a high probability that whoever defined good for you set you up to fail.”

    Shermer’s book reviewer says “Michael Shermer’s book is about morality—the distinction between good and bad—and he says that humans have a “moral sense” that urges us in the direction of good, but which is seldom specific enough to guide us in our everyday lives, especially in our relationships with other people. We depend upon the opinions of others, or upon rules of various kinds. Probably the oldest guideline in human history is the Golden Rule, which has appeared in nearly every culture that we know of. Religion codified the rules, carving them into the stone of tenacious institutions.

    Other impulses, often as strong or stronger, may conflict with that moral sense.”

    So that is the role of religion and laws, to guide our moral sense to do the right thing, against our selfish and animalistic impulses. Our own conscience and will-power is often not enough, our moral sense needs to be properly formed and instructed. So yes, I do need reminders to be less selfish and more loving. I think we all do.

    The best quote from the article from my previous post, especially related to others’ religious beliefs is
    “What a different world if we regarded all human truth as subject to change. Each of us willingly would embrace as equally valid the beliefs and opinions of our fellow travelers, with dignity and respect and kindness, demonstrating, in turn, that pure form of self-sacrificing love.” Yeah. Tolerance. World peace. All we have to do is love each other.

  35. CK

    “I’m trying to grasp what you mean by “If you need help being good, then there is a high probability that whoever defined good for you set you up to fail.” Take your definition of good, is it attainable here and now? Where did your definition of good come from? Is there a profit to the person or organization that defined good and whose definition you accepted if you, in your own mind, fail to live up to their definition. If there is a profit, monetary or psychic, available to them for your own acceptance that you are not yet “good.”
    Then you have been set up to fail.
    Goodness, beauty, love. Three areas where we are primed to believe we are failures because we do not meet someone else’s subjective criteria.
    Now about the golden rule, there are really three of them.
    1) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. ( Not too bad as rules go, but do notice that YOU are the standard here. Your personal morality defines how you want others to treat with you. People who are not quite as moral as you probably do not like this rule. Politicians do not like this rule. Managers of organized religions do not like this rule. Evil people in general do not find this a comforting rule.)
    2) Do unto others before they do you. ( Assumption that others are evil and will do to you things that you think are evil so you must prempt them.) This Golden rule is the basis of all Just War theory.
    Twice armed is he whose cause is just
    Thrice armed is he who gets his blows in first.
    3) He as has the gold makes the rules. ( And the truth of this Golden Rule explains why money had to be disconnected from Gold ).
    You set up “moral sense of right” versus selfish and animalistic.
    If you believe their is a morality that requires you to not care for yourself first then you believe in a consciously evil morality.
    One cannot be cahritable if one has nothing to be charitable with.
    It is not altruism or morally right to willingly become a slave.
    It is neither altruistic nor moral to turn off your brain and allow others to define you, define good for you.
    Thou shalt not steal has a unmentioned corollary. Thou shalt not be an accomplice in your own victimization. If one can be made to believe with all one’s brain in an imaginary and unattainable concept, the rest of the theft of value is just mechanics and perpetual self acceptance of failure. One’s failure to be “good” in effect becomes the measuring rod of their inherent goodness. The more you fail and repent with real valuables the better you are. When you stop repenting, stop giving away your brain and your labour, stop accepting someone else’s agenda ridden scam as truth, then you become the apostate. No longer the good but sinful but striving victim, now you have become the enenmy. At this point refer to Golden Rule 2 as surely as sunrise it will be used upon you.
    The first thing the conman must make you sacrifice is your sense of self.
    But love is indeed a high value item, so the next thing that is necessary is to make one believe that loving only one or only a very few is selfish. One must love all and sundry, promiscuously, without any standards. Existence alone is the only qualification to demand unending love. Prefeably in the form of 10% of your wages every two weeks, given to a self appointed intermediary. Said intermediary will intercede for you and spread your love to all and sundry and put in a good word for you with a God who, while omniscient and omnipotent and omnipresent, doesn’t see your goodness without a human minion telling Him about it. No sparrow may fall without His notice, but your striving and tithing he doesn’t see.
    That all provisional truths are be definition subject to change does not mean that any of us will willingly embrace another’s current provisional truths as equal to one’s own. Allowing others to go their own way is not embracing, neither is it validation of their current belief. The idea that all is change does not lead to self-sacrifice, does not lead to love, might lead to toleration.

  36. Pingback: The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Enough With The “Nazi” Analogies

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s