China is trying to pull itself out of the direst poverty and it is doing it with sleek cities and horrible ecological degradation and the strong remainders of terrible Maoist political habits. Even so, its economy is doing much better than America’s. Now, because some French kooks, some British eccentrics, and the usual lot of American provocateurs have been trying to extinguish the Olympic flame, the USA media have been churning heavy-black headlines as if China were about to collapse. The Dalai Lama himself has been deploring the unneeded, unnecessary, and prevaricating publicity. The Dalai Lama may not be the soul of eloquence but he is no imbecile, so it is likely that, as he revealed recently, he really is in touch with Beijing however indirectly. What is happening in the American media is not freedom of expression but freedom to exaggerate and lie. Though it might sound anti-Semitic, the plain fact is that Jews control the media en the USA. So why would they in heaven’s name be gratuitously ganging up on China? The explanation is also a fact. Israel is the greatest problem in the world today. Anything that distracts attention from the issue that Israel’s foreign policy is dictated by the Nazi principle of Lebensraum, or space into which to grow, is seen by Jews, wittingly or unwittingly, and of course not by any means all Jews, as a godsend. But of course since all this provocation is in the media on a daily it is supposed to be “freedom of expression”. Xinhua is probably closer to the truth on this question, although admittedly it is often not very good at freedom of expression.



Iraq has mostly dropped out of the current American electoral debate. Is this justified? The influx of three brigades into Iraq in mid-2007 stabilized Baghdad and internecine killings dropped dramatically. The question for America now seems to be not whether it will evacuate Iraq but how and when it will do it. But suppose it can’t? That appears not to be troubling any one. But the facts do not justify the belief in the inevitability of American withdrawal.
            Iraq has not been pacified. American soldiers are still dying at the rate of one a day. Murderous bombings are less frequent but still regular. The formula that the American press uses, at the prompting of the occupation army, is that Sunni resistance is due to Al Qaida in Mesopotamia or Iraq, a “home-grown movement with possible international links”. It is generally recognized that Shiites are collaborating with American policies because Mokhtada al-Sadr, head of the Mahdi army, declared a truce and recently ratified it. Formerly a bête noire, Mokhtada al-Sadr is now a good boy. But he is an Iraqi patriot and wants America out and has never budged from this stance. He is also said to be anti-Baath, and the core of Baath were and probably are still Sunni.
            Let’s assume then that America starts evacuating Iraq. It will not be hampered by Shiites, but it is entirely likely that the Sunni will launch renewed hostilities with Shiites. The heart of Iraq will be torn apart. Shiites will surely control southern Iraq. But northern Iraq is another question, one on which Shiites and Sunni will coincide. With the recent ill-considered American recognition of an independent Kosovo, Kurdistan will very likely declare its independence. Shiites will invade and there will then be in Iraq two civil wars: one between Sunni and Shiites and another between Shiites and Kurds. There might even be the possibility of a Turkish invasion of Kurdistan, which the Shiites might conditionally welcome or might condemn.
            Iraq obviously would be coming apart. And America which began the process to start with? It will obviously not be wanting to go back in a massive way, but it cannot evacuate Iraq completely. Given the internal instability, stability in Iraq cannot be realistically considered outside of the regional context. Turkey we have mentioned. No solution for Kurdistan will come about without Turkey’s consent. Iran will be supportive of the Shiites, as well as having to say something about Kurdistan, for it too harbors a substantial Kurdish minority. Syria will not stand pat and let the Sunni be excluded from any power arrangement, but Syria hasn’t that much clout and it is more likely that Saudi Arabia will be the ultimate defender of Sunni rights in Iraq. Since America hates and fears Iran, and it is heedful to any perceived threat to Israeli security, there is no imaginable scenario in which America will not be present in any regional stabilization scheme for Iraq. But to do this, it will have to be present militarily in Iraq. Not only is the American withdrawal from Iraq not inevitable; it is the contrary that is surely the only real inevitability..    



Wealth has always been the cornerstone of progress. Plutocracy is the system of government of the wealthy for the wealthy. It is fully developed capitalism that creates true plutocracies. Plutocracies are ruled democratically. Very poor countries are ruled by the corrupt for themselves, which is analogous to plutocracy but not quite plutocracy. The true plutocracy creates wealth and spreads some wealth, but it does so only to the extent that it will not create a social backlash. To preserve themselves, plutocracies need not go beyond preventing destructive discontents. Primitive plutocracies do not create wealth and they concentrate rather than share riches. But their international importance is minimal. Real plutocracies do not necessarily have the same international politics. If such were the case there would not have been a World War I. America today is the greatest plutocracy that there is or ever was. Capitalism cannot dissimulate social inequalities. Yet American plutocracy is considered extremely fair by a vast majority of the population, down to the poor and perhaps even the very poor. So what gives? Public opinion is a ghost. Media lead the masses. The media are owned by the plutocrats. By and large, the media have induced in America the belief that taxes are bad and that it is better to have the plutocrats increase their wealth inordinately than to pay taxes at all. This is stupid but it is a fact of American life. It is possible for societies to be extremely developed and have moronic social attitudes, as was the case of Nazi Germany. In America too social morons frequently have the final say. All advanced capitalist countries—the members of OECD—are plutocratic, but they are not in quite the same plutocratic category as America. So how does America get away with it? Plutocracies not only originate in capitalism but are linked by capitalism, which still has America as its linchpin. Trade imbalances come and go as do market busts and booms, but the international capitalist mesh today is not likely to put the American economy out to hang.
            During the Cold War, the plutocracies considered the USSR to be bureaucratic, certainly not plutocratic. But communist China did not share this view and considered the USSR as plutocratic as the capitalist plutocracies. It placed itself in the same league as poor countries exploited by plutocracies. This world view started to change with the reforms of Deng Xiaoping. In the 1990s, the old Cold War scheme was obliterated. The USSR broke up and Russia went plutocratic in a seemingly chaotic way. In reality, Soviet Russia was a plutocracy in ovo and it hatched an extremely plutocratic Russia, worse in its excesses than the capitalist plutocracies. Russian plutocracy was engendered not by capitalism but by communism. Chinese was becoming plutocratic under the hand of the Communist Party. With the exception of a handful of dumb, hard-line communist states—actually, only two: North Korea and Cuba—the new world system was plutocratic.
            The translation of plutocracy to international relations is called globalization. The aim of globalization is to make all national economies function for the capitalist plutocracies. The instruments of globalization are the IMF and the World Bank and other such institutions, but especially the IMF, curiously enough designed by a Jewish Soviet spy acting in the name of America. Actually, globalization in its essence had existed from long before the 1990s. The development of South Korea and Taiwan were two crown jewels of globalization, as were the previous economic ”miracles” of Germany and Japan. It was understood before the 1990s that globalization was to serve strategic purposes and make international exploitation smooth. Unstable economic conditions were not good for multinationals. During the 1990s, America was preaching the myth that globalization was the means to make the world economically stable and to wean poor countries from primitive greedy oligarchies to true prosperous plutocracies. But that did not happen. And the reason was plain to see: globalization is meant to turn in profits and capital flows do not hang around poor countries which are not profitable or are only provisionally profitable.
            By the 21st century globalization was taking blow after blow. It is now nearly discredited. But the fundamental fact that we started with remains unchanged: it is wealth that creates progress. A flourishing plutocracy is still the way to prosperity and eventually also to some form of democratic governance. Is the majority of mankind condemned to perpetual poverty? Not necessarily. While the capitalist-bred plutocracies sustain their wealth by trading among themselves and hogging capital flows within and across themselves, the communist-engendered plutocracies, and particularly China, cannot, except marginally, break into the “traditional” capitalist system. China’s growth is in large part due to its exports to America, but Chinese capital accumulation is not in a position to compete with the capital flows between the powerful, inter-meshed “Western” plutocracies. So what outlets does it have? To maintain its rate of growth China needs raw materials and especially oil. And being communist-bred, Chinese capitalism has no political scruples or prejudices. The world is still vastly unequally divided between the haves and the have-nots. The have-nots need the capital and the expertise that capitalist-bred plutocracies are not interested in providing. But China has shown that it is willing to provide them. It is investing in Chad, for instance, a nation no sane capitalist would even think of sinking money into. Of course, its main interest is oil. An American reporter asked the Chinese embassador what advantages would Chad be getting from China and the diplomat answered that Chadian goods were to be imported free of Chinese tariffs. The reporter then pointed out that Chad exports nothing. The imperturbable answer was: “It is not producing now, but it will produce in the future.” China is providing the cradles for plutocratic development among the have-nots. Russia too is doing something of the sort but it has its work cut out for itself in the former countries that were part of the USSR.   



American media link 9/11 and Muslim fundamentalism. That link has become unbreakable. Fundamentalism is so identified with jihadism that even in courts the two concepts are interchangeable. And jihadism is attributed principally to Arabs.
            But 9/11 was in great part, if not principally, payback for Israeli oppression of Palestinians. It was about the struggle of Palestinians for statehood and, try as you might, the Palestinian conflict with Israel cannot be shown to be a fundamentalist endeavor, and it certainly cannot be described as jihadist. How does Hamas pretend to convert Jews to Islam by firing Qassam rockets against Sderot?
            It cannot even be said that fundamentalism and jihadism are equivalent. Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist kingdom, but it condemns the terrorism of Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Its foreign policy is not orientated by Wahhabism, which is the only version of fundamentalism which the Saudis allow. Iran is a theocratic and fundamentalist state, but it is Shiite and does not connect with Saudi Wahhabism. Shia has historically been oppositionist rather than aggressive. Hizbollah is anti-Israel but not jihadist in any reasonable sense of this ism.
            Arabs are of course not Iranians, but it is a huge catachresis to say that fundamentalism and “Arabism” are inextricable. Where social conditions are hard, Arabs turn to Islam, often in its extreme jihadist manifestation, but, aside from Saudi Arabia, all Arab states are secularist. This means that they accept the compatibility of Muslim and Western political values. Yet there is not one single democratic Arab state. Would Arabs go massively for fundamentalism and jihadism if they were allowed to vote freely? That cannot be demonstrated for or against. The question is more liable to a negative answer. Arab-speaking Algeria did annul elections which extreme Islamists had won. But Morocco and Tunisia are unlikely candidates for fundamentalist or jihadism. Egypt is a conundrum, but it has never experienced the kind of fundamentalist/secularist civil conflict that took place in Algeria.
            The tendency nowadays is to seek for the roots of Muslim fundamentalism, except where they are obvious as in Saudi Arabia. The major figure that Westerners have fastened on is the Egyptian Saayib Qutb. But word-for-word, written or spoken, Arab secularists beat fundamentalists hands down. Baath is historically the paradigm of Arab secularism. Baath only shakes hands with religious fanaticism in extreme cases, like the American destruction of Iraq. American media, as usual conformist and led by officialdom on basic political and international issues, have taken to boxing Iraqi resistance to occupation in “Al Qaida in Mesopotamia” or some equivalent. This suggests that any one that opposes America in Iraq is fundamentalist and jihadist. This is ridiculous, but ridicule has never prevented America from being clumsy, inept, or arrogant. Imperialistic, Marxists would say, but the American “empire” has too many economic rivals now and it is so weakened that it does not deserve that qualifier.



Kenya was a stable country under one-party government. Pro-democracy internal and external pressure finally led to free elections. The opposition won. Recent elections were rigged so that the former opposition could stay in power. Kenya is now in the throes of the African damnation of ethnic conflict that colonialism bequeathed it. Is democracy worth the tearing apart of society? Sometimes it is said that what Zimbabwe needs is a dose of real democracy. But who can say emphatically that Mugabe would not win any free electoral contest? Misery in Africa does not make subtle distinctions between one-party and “democratic” states, nor between strongmen and elected presidents. South Africa is a stable one-party state. But an easy prediction is that the Zulus sooner or later will start rioting because elections do not give them sufficient voice. Oh, but these are Africans, it might be objected. Well, Japan has been a stable, rich, and democratic one-party state since shortly after the start of the Post-War.
            The president of Pakistan, former general Pervez Musharraf, is the object of frequent tirades by The New York Times, the influential daily, flag-bearer of democracy all over the world, who forgot its convictions with a sprightly snap of the fingers when the democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, was overthrown for two days by a cabal of imbeciles and the newspaper rushed to congratulate them, just a small step behind official American support for the faux coup. Venezuela is as democratic as a developing country can be, but it is also the great exemplar of the incompetence of democracy for economic development. Ah, but that’s those misguided and feckless Latin Americans, you could say. But Asian India is “the largest democracy” in the world, where 200 million of its inhabitants are put upon pariahs. There’s talk now of an Indian “economic miracle”. Well, live there and see for yourself how this “miracle” is “trickling down” to its masses. According to conventional wisdom, China is not a democracy. At best, for many, it is not Stalinist. But visit any city in China and compare it with any counterpart in India and see if democracy stacks up to “un-democracy”. And have Musharraf democratically removed in Pakistan to see that already very troubled country slide into nuclear-armed chaos. Democracy was definitely not made to Pakistani specifications.
            Oh, come on, let’s talk of real Western-type democracies like Israel and the United States. Israel is so democratic that, through its rigid (though anti-Arab) proportional representation system, not one vote is left uncounted, which gives the religious right a political clout that far outweighs that of the million or so Arab citizens of Israel. Democracy in Israel brought the Oslo peace process to a halt. Its great promoter, Yasir Arafat, was refused respect, not to mention recognition, through impeccable democratic practices. Arafat was always blamed for complicity in Hamas terrorism, which he condemned. Democratic Israel reduced Arafat to political impotence and his political heirs, with Israeli support, have divided Palestinians into two quarreling sides. Is democracy defensible when it promotes conflict rather process and negotiation?
            America is democracy, and that’s all there is to it. Wrong. America is a plutocracy, which is government for the rich by the rich. The American government and the media have brainwashed Americans into believing that taxation is evil and that all tax cuts, including those for multi-billionaires, are good. But tax cuts lead to bad governance. With more attention to basic social needs, tax cuts would be unthinkable, as they are in Europe, where social welfare is much higher than in America. Is plutocracy the democratic model for the world? Plutocracy’s international counterpart is globalization. Poor countries need skills that rich countries have. It is not in the nature of plutocracy or globalization to provide for the needs of poor countries. American democracy has to rid itself of its extreme plutocratic practices before it can offer itself as a model for the world. And needy countries will only have democracy when they have achieved economic development. In the meantime, democracy is bunk.      



Simplistics is the ground for more complex thought. But the word does not mean what it implies, because (1) the facts must be incontrovertible and (2) facts entail logic. It is not possible to substitute that “the Arabs were expelled from Palestine” with that “the Palestinians left of their own accord”.
            The problem in dealing with Jews is that it is nigh impossible to define “Jew”. Every one knows what a Jew is but no one can find an all-purpose, all-encompassing definition for Jew. We shall “simply” make certain conventional assumptions.
            The Pale, which had its axis in Poland, overlapped to east and west, so that eastern Europe including much of western Russia, the Ukraine, and Belarus, were Jewish territory, as were cities and provinces in Austria-Hungary. Jews were not a majority in this diverse political geography, but they were in the aggregate more numerous than Poles, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Lithuanians (it goes without saying), but not of course Russians or Germans. The Jewish population was so large that three million or more Jews emigrated to America from The Pale and this did not affect the ethnic balance in the region.
            Without Jewish inspiration and leadership there would have been no Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. A great deal of Stalinist mayhem was carried out by Jews, who had to have been instrumental in Stalin’s rise to absolute despotism, frequently, certainly most prominently, against Jews themselves.
            The American Communist Party was constituted almost totally by Jews. That its few leaders were not Jewish only signifies that American Communists needed a token non-Jew. It is often said that the American Communist Party did a lot of government infiltration and espionage. How effective this was is debatable. The greatest communist spy in America ever, Klaus Fuchs, was not Jewish. He was a German who hated Nazis at a time when only Communists were warning about Hitler and he did his duty as he saw it. It is not a fact but, historically, as between Nazism and Communism, it would be insane to prefer Nazism.
            It is a fact that in Hollywood the Jews created “an empire of their own”. We shall explore in another version of Simplistics the relation between freedom of expression and filmdom, but, to summarize here, Hollywood did not shape American “public opinion” (whose existence as such also will require exploration) but pandered to it in doing which it became the very quintessence of lowbrowism. The Jewish Hollywood empire was vulgar to the core, and merit-less. Apart from some musical sequences in the 30s, it is difficult to find one single redeeming feature in the vast Jewish Hollywood opus. If dumbing down has any meaning it is what Jews did with movies. (They are still doing it, successfully as usual, because, then as now, Americans are pretty dumb, which is a value judgment and not a fact properly, as it is that all studio movies are necessarily worthless.)
            The Holocaust was not a strictly Jewish catastrophe. A knowledgeable Jewish historian of the Holocaust, Henry Friedlander, calculates that running at full capacity the Nazi extermination camps could have killed just over three million human beings. Of these a not insignificant percentage were not Jewish. Assuming they all were, this still leaves out of the count the other three million needed for the conventional, and probably concocted, figure of six million Jews killed by Germans. Without some statistical jiggery-pokery it is impossible to have a majority Jewish Holocaust.
            The Holocaust is a historical lesson which the world learned, but since there have been other attempts at genocide in the Post-War, the most important lesson was the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. Indeed, the Holocaust lesson was almost immediately disregarded with the creation of Israel and Israeli oppression of Palestinians is still the principal focus of world instability.
            Behind Israel is America. There is always much talk of Czech armament during the first Arab-Israeli war, but these weapons were bought with Jewish-American dollars. There is no apposite case in history of the bonding between American Jews and Israel. But this is to misstate the issue. It is not American Jews that back Israel: it is America itself because America is Jewish. Still, it is in America itself that much is made of a “Jewish presence” close to but in some inscrutable way different from “pure Americanism”. The only social terrain which American Jews have not overtly taken over is government. This barely applies to the presidency and to the Congress, and they made a good try with John Kerry. But Jewish-Americans have been central to American policy towards Israel. Truman recognized Israel under pressure of American Jews. This was not heavy because Truman himself is a paradigm of the American Jews/Americans equivalence. Eisenhower told Israel to back off Egypt in 1956, but in Dulles global cordon sanitaire against the USSR there was no need to include unconditional Israel. Kennedy did not have time to shape a characteristic policy towards Israel, because during his presidency no crises arose that warranted one. Johnson did not lift a finger to restrain Israel in 1967. By the time of Nixon, Israel had the atomic bomb. His Jewish secretary of state Kissinger put the American armed forces on global alert when the USSR threatened to intervene against Israel in 1973. Ever since 1967, Israel had begun grabbing more land from the Palestinians. Reagan did nothing to prevent this, although his successor, George Bush, did once oppose Israeli expansionism, possibly one cause of his loss to Clinton. Reagan was a “citizen” of the "Hollywood Jewish empire". He could no more have criticized Israel than he could have betrayed his own country. Clinton propitiated the Oslo accords and then crossed his arms when Israel repudiated them.
            The acme of American support for Israel was the Second Iraqi war declared by George W. Bush ostensibly against terrorism. The background instigators were Jewish and many of the lies that Bush told about Iraq were fabricated by Jews. This is not to say that Bush was a puppet of Jews. But the one sincere motivation he had for this war was to settle the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Victory in Iraq probably meant in his mind that he could dictate terms to Palestinians. His war was a failure not least in having made the Middle East more unstable than it ever has been. As it is possible that Iraq has suffered upwards of half a million civilians deaths, they could be put down in the ledger for or against Israel, depending on your passion; and if we add the Arab and Israeli lives that have been lost in conflict since 1948, the total of casualties in the cause of Israel is inching towards the one million mark.
            Now, Israel wants America to rid it of its last threat in the Middle East by destroying Iran. But Americans, even Jewish-Americans, have not reached such a degree of idiocy as to even consider attempting that. Bush will go, probably charged in some tribunal of crimes against humanity, but do not expect American policy towards Israel to change. So what’s going to happen? We don’t know, but we guess that somewhere along the line, maybe if the Iran crisis escalates and Russia gets really angry, Israel will have to dismantle settlements in the West Bank. So why worry? America paid for them and America will pay to tear them down. There is, however, a constraint that would make Israel balk at even a strong threat from America and it is the issue of lebensraum, which means that Israel is in the real situation which Hitler imagined for Germany and led directly to genocides in eastern Europe and Russia.

More Simplistics (see below)

Some analyst recently wrote that the solution for the American economy was for every one to start living within their means. This sounds as if foremen are trying to imitate CEOs. But wouldn’t it be better instead if CEOs started paying taxes through their noses? With one fell blow, the budget would be balanced, inflation contained, and the trade imbalance halved, not to speak of the benefits that would accrue from socials spending. But you cannot do this in a plutocracy. Just as under the USSR the people were brainwashed to believe in the virtues of proletarianism, so in America the brainwashing is about the virtues of zillionaires. There are different theories of how this became doctrine. Some say it was Ayn Rand’s gigantic brick Atlas shrugged. Others blame Michael C. Jensen, a Harvard professor who became a millionaire by preaching the gospel of Ayn Rand. Steven R. Weissman argues that Americans have never believed in taxes. Historically, Reagan set the trend for tax breaks for billionaires and now George W. Bush has so consecrated that policy, possibly his greatest feat, that an American politician would be committing hara-kiri if shehe would even dare mention taxes.
            There are two issues here: brainwashing as freedom of expression. But so what? America’s still the greatest country ever. “Freedom” to promote a set of beliefs and to create a society of conformists is hardly a freedom of any kind. Take a trivial case. Condoleezza Rice used the expression “silver bullet” and now every spokesman and expert in the land is using that metaphor, which means basically “dunno”, like “we don’t have the silver bullet for this or that problem”, explicitly comparing problems with werewolves. Or take a weightier issue: The USA destroyed Iraq and now it is blaming the Iraqis for the problems in that country. This is the way “American freedom of expression” works. The government adopts a policy. The media slavishly follow it and drum it into every brain they can reach. Oh, but the media are free to criticize. The criticism is usually shallow and doesn’t go to the cores of the issues.
            But America is still the A-OK country of the world. Yes, but plutocracy creates a lot of big problems. The zillionaire-doctrine is a sure-fire formula for corruption. And need we say that most of the big news from the corporate world recently has been about corruption? America is like a Johnny Appleseed planting corruption instead of apples wherever it goes. This has been true through its history, but now the problem might be getting out of hand. It is so implanted in the Pentagon that it would be next to impossible to root it out. O yeah, well the media certainly make a stink where and when it is found. Well, this is like another powerful American tradition: lynch the bastards and apologize later. What good is turning up individual cases of corruption if plutocracy is there gnawing away in so many ways that no amount of freedom of expression, if it existed, and if it wasn’t an accomplice of plutocracy, will ever find them? The values of plutocracy are so sacrosanct that, with the exception of some Jews, most American spying for the USSR or Russia has been done for gain. The big mortgage-debt crisis that is terrifying world capitalism is being focused not on how to rescue the half a million or so Americans who are about to have their homes repossessed but about how banks will recover the losses they will take from their fraudulent business practices.
            Even so, plutocrats have consciences—haven’t you seen the deep, sincere contriteness of convicted zillionaire CEOs?—and the former USSR and “Rogue States” and people like Putin and Chávez have no consciences at all. Just look at the figures: millions of dead in famines and gulags, and the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam Hussein. Give us a break here! OK, let’s look at the facts. Who started the Central American cycle of civil-wars that began when the CIA overthrew the government of Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala back in 1954? Who sabotaged the fragile process of independence in the ex-Belgian Congo if not CIA interference again? And how many million of Congolese have died since then? How many civilians did America kill in Vietnam? If you’re just thinking “My Lai”, think again because what you are doing is putting more faggots in the pyre of “American freedom of expression”. Who made it possible for the Khmer Rouge to take over in Cambodia by bombing and undermining the vulnerable political stability of that country? How does the Iraqi war breakdown in terms of population loss? Have niggers in America fared better over all than the persecuted by Stalin? And when we get into the issue of genocide, didn’t American Indians get about the same treatment as Armenians in Ottoman Anatolia? And how about those Texas Rangers keeping the border closed by shooting thousands of Mexicans on sight? Now, wait just a gold-darn second here! Americans have not killed a fraction of a fraction of what the Soviets did. Let me put it this way then. Ethics is not in the numbers. States are not ethical at all and the USA is particular unethical, and hypocritical by saying over and over that it is.
            Let me put it in even more basic terms. Iraq was much better off under Saddam Hussein than it has been since Bush’s plutocratic administration decided to invade it. Bush recently sent a “Dear Kim Jong-il” letter to the tyrant of North Korea. So, in what conceivable ethical scheme of things did Saddam Hussein have to be executed when Bush is writing to a dictator, who according to “freedom of expression” in America, has killed millions? And what did the Second Iraqi war achieve, if anything considering that “war on terror” is a fading dumb-dumb cliché? There are some circumstances that surrounded the invasion of Iraq. Israel and American Jews wanted it. Jewish leverage in the media in America is so powerful that it even makes media-brainwashed Americans not to even think of it. The brain-washing or conditioning includes even the use of the word Jew by non-Jews, which is considered anti-Semitic. Of the “Axis of Evil”—Bush deserves to be tried as a war criminal if only for this doctrine—the push-over was Iraq. Jewish films had been conditioning America for years about hating Saddam Hussein. Americans are virtually incapable of being critical about the lies and the pap they are bombarded with through every means of communication, which are not subtle about the distinction between “news” and “pap”.  
            Americans should be worrying about Iraq a lot. They are feeling triumphalist about the de-escalation of the violence. This is an incipient brain-washing by the usual culprits. There is less violence in Iraq now because the detested Moktada al-Sadr declared a six-month truce, the Iraqi government is showing some independence from the pressure from Washington, and American patrols outside of Baghdad have been reduced. The war in Iraq will continue as long as one American soldier is in Iraq. The only solution for Iraq is by getting its neighbors, hated Iran and Turkey, agree on a peaceful settlement of the internal situation on Iraq. The Turks will keep the Kurds in line and Iran will put constraints on Iraq Shiites. And as to Israeli oppression of Palestine, it will go on and on until Israel comes down to the ground of history. And for this the Jewish-controlled media in America and the American government itself will have to bite the bullet. Some say that Jews are brilliant, but they were pretty stupid when Israel started building atomic bombs whose use would cover tiny Israel itself with a deadly radioactive cloud. Now, is that un-brilliant, or what?




Simplistics is the science of simplification. It is very much like pop-history except that it dispenses with anecdotes and quotes but also it cuts across the spectrum of human knowledge. Let’s do some simplistics to prove the point. Kant put to rest the Cartesian theo-philosophical nitpicking about reality, like that the computer I am using is real because God would vanquish any demon that wanted to undermine Microsoft. But Kant was dogmatic about ethics and Nietzsche debunked any illusions about the goodness of humility. Wittgenstein said that logic is tautological. Therefore, any future metaphysics must be based on determinism and history. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is pure German balderdash. He was a good physicist but a bad philosopher. By now science has sapped most of philosophy, so even talk of “future metaphysics” is hogwash. Let’s talk about OPEC. Prices of oil and its derivatives have always been set by the multinationals. The Arab-Israeli 1973 War was the pretext the “seven sisters” grabbed to raise very low prices to prices that would make real profits. The price rises today again are not the doing of OPEC. Inflation-adjusted they are barely above heights reached before. And the reason the multinationals are doing this is that it costs $15 just to get petroleum from its geological traps. If you add to this transportation, refining, distribution, and so on, what you come up with is probably a figure not far below 100$. Let’s grapple with corruption. Third World countries, according to the conventional wisdom, are corrupt. But corruption is made from money. And the country that has more money is the USA, which also makes it eo ipso the most corrupt. It was America that so corrupted the Chinese nationalists that the communists could defeat them. The more money CEOs make the more corruption in the corporate world. America is rotting with corruption. Since Bush has been working for corrupt CEOs he is the most corrupt of all Americans. Let’s now explore simplistically who rules the world. Jews do not, the world that is, but they certainly rule America. They have almost all the levers of power in America. Americans think what the media tells them to and the media are controlled by Jews. But here’s a dilemma: the American government gives the media the lines to follow, so Jews must be dominant in Washington also. This is possible. American foreign policy is certainly determined by Jews. But caveat emptor that this is not necessarily a conspiracy. There’s no cabal of three million or so Jews. Americans and Jews are indistinguishable. Jews constitute at least one sixth of the population of the USA. In sum, America is a Jewish country, but since Jews are still a minority non-Jewish Americans are reluctant to elect a Jew to the presidency. Simplistics is getting to the “essences” of things. But isn’t talk of “essences” a simplification? Precisely!  


Easy predictions (a branch of Simplistics)


Hilary Clinton should clinch the Democratic candidacy and the presidency. But this might not happen if her husband keeps butting in, in which case John Edwards will be the beneficiary. Barack Obama will not be the vice-presidential candidate of either. Giuliani will not be the Republican candidate for president (maybe vice-presidential). He's Italian and a New Yorker. Neither will McCain. He was a POW. And Huckabee is not a very presidential name.That leaves who? Mitt Romney, we predict. The American exit from Iraq will have to involve Iran and this means that with Hilary as president the chances for withdrawal are less than with Edwards. She has to win the 20 million or so Jewish votes. There will be no independent Kurdistan. The USA will not attack Iran. Putin will have his way with the weird American shield against “Iranian” nuclear-tipped missiles. India and Pakistan will agree on their own nuclear pact. Taxes in the USA will be raised but corporate corruption will escalate. There will be a consensus on some means to legalize illegal immigrants. Americans will not be having to shovel manure in the near future. Israel will stand in the way of any solution to the problem of Palestine, but eventually the Israel-USA twin yoke will crack (we emphasize eventually). When this happens, Islamic fundamentalism will ebb. Wikipedia will go commercial, after the Britannica makes its pages access-free. The CERN accelerator will find Higgins bosons, but Alan Guth will not get the Nobel prize.


The theory and the practice of American “freedom of



This is the theory of freedom of expression in America. “News” is reported “objectively”. No taking sides. Official government policies are not to be accepted at their face value at any time. That’s what Pravda did in the USSR. Dailies and the media in general are allowed to opine in “editorials”, clearly identified as such.
            This is the practice of “freedom of expression in America”. Bush and America hate Iran. This is reflected in American foreign policy. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a branch of the UN that functions in Vienna and has as its main task preventing nuclear proliferation, is disliked by the American government because he is accused of contemporizing with Iran on the issue of its uranium-enrichment program. Be it said in passing that the USA, short of invasion, could not prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear bomb at least. ElBaradei and the IAEA were awarded the 2007 Nobel peace prize for their efforts to “prevent nuclear energy for being used for military purposes”. Iran has always claimed that its nuclear-power generation program is for peaceful purposes. but it has not allowed the free and complete inspection of its nuclear plants in Esfahan and Natanz. America and members of the EU have been plugging for greater sanctions on Iran by the UN. The invasion of Iran is not on any realistic agenda. That, obviously, leaves diplomacy. Recently, ElBaradei and the IAEA negotiated with Iran an accord committing Iran to more openness though not in any specifically concrete way. The New York Times assigned two “reporters”, not “editorialists”, Elaine Sciolino and William J. Broad, to writing a piece on ElBaradei and this is what they came up with.
            They start with ElBaradei’s “mangled metaphors”. Irrelevant, naturally, but not in the context of the article. “According to diplomats” in Vienna, the “staff members [of the IAEA] have become restive…with what they see as [ElBaradei’s] sympathy for Iran”. ElBaradei “alludes to a sense of destiny that has pressed him into the role of world peacemaker”, yet when a large crowd gathered in front of his hotel in Oslo to pay him a tribute “he froze”. A shy prophet? Ok. “Despite Iran’s long history of nuclear deception” is thrown out as if it were a giveaway line, but the only argument actually deployed is that Iran admitted to having achieved industrial-level enrichment. The article then becomes very ad hominen. ElBaradei is “a compulsive name-dropper…he’s almost like a child”. The originality dazzles. ElBaradei attained his actual position because of an American friend who convinced the American government to back him because he was “an Egyptian who is a passionate Knicks fan”. Then the piece does an incredible death-defying leap. It claims that ElBaradei ran for a second term because Bush named John Bolton as ambassador to the UN and then proceeds to quote Bolton: “He’s naïve and idiosyncratic and that amounts to being dangerous”. Following that objective assessment its authors cite vice-president Dick Cheney warning from an aircraft carrier off Iranian waters that America would make war if needed to prevent Iran from “gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region”. ElBaradei’s response was the sensible one that Iran had already achieved whatever it had and warfare could do nothing about it, but which in the context is made to seem as if ElBaradei by himself was preventing America from attacking Iran. Well, how about North Korea? Who prevented America from attacking that country? No point in flogging a dead horse. Read the article by clicking News link. It is, if nothing else, an exhibit on the case Practice v. Theory pertaining to American freedom of expression. And as if to corroborate the point of this argument, the NYT then did an editorial expressing the arguments in the "objective" article. In fact, the editorial is less vitriolic about ElBaradei than the "reporters".


News link                Comment

America’s war and how to get out of it


So far America has not gotten one thing right about Iraq. The New York Times (NYT) and The Washington Post (TWP), the two most liberal dailies in the USA, repeat over and over Bush’s “chaos” and Bush’s “mess” and Bush’s “disaster”. But it is not Bush’s anything but America’s. It is even arguable that in whatever happens in Iraq the NYT and TWP, and the American media in general, have as much of a hand as Bush.

The war itself was wrong. Iraq had no WMD and the Saddam Hussein regime had no links to Al Qaida. No serious resistance was expected and the invasion was undermanned. The American pro-consul in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, promptly disbanded the Iraqi army and fired all Baathists in the administration that Saddam Hussein left in place. Shortly after the occupation, the resistance began. Saddam Hussein and his chief military commander Gen. Izzat Ibrahim were blamed. When Saddam was captured, he denied that he had anything to do with the resistance. For a time the American command was bewildered as to whom to blame, so it tried to pin it on Al Qaida. At first it had no idea of the existence of the Mahdi army and it was perplexed by Shiite resistance to the occupation. Ironically, the one who got it right was Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, later removed under a cloud of complicity with torture, when he compared Iraq to Vietnam.

 News link                Comment         Entire article

m***                                  l***



History of the World
World-Historical Chronology
World History Pictures
Brief History of Venezuela
South East Asia
Essays in Practical Philosophy
A-Z of Philosophical Issues
Being and Knowing
Carlos Ramirez Faria
Curriculum Vitae
Schroedinger's Cat
Historical Dictionary of World Political Geography

Copyright 2007 All rights reserved Powered by :