There are so many questions worth asking and none answered.

Let's try just one set:

Of all the tax dodging criminals who were nominated for places in the Obama Government, why did Timothy Geithner alone get approved?
What gave him the chutpah to bluff it through in a blizzard and tsunami of shame?
Who persuaded Obama to keep his confidence in a tax evader to be the chief tax collector, and why?
Why did Obama keep his confidence in the man who personally intervened to maintain the law allowing the AIG rip-off conmen to keep their stolen goods?
Remembering how Robert Maxwell got an unexpected State Funeral on the Mount of Olives and that all the world's intelligence services use privately generated funds to finance their operations, does Mr Geithner's being the only one of those nominees to share Rahm Emanuel's ethnic, cultural and religious background have anything to do with it?
Serving two masters is always a risky business for all concerned.

You're a bit premature aren't you? He's only been in office a few weeks and his focus has been on the economy. Ho Chi Minh was once asked if the French Revolution had made a difference to the world. He said it was "too soon to tell" - this response seems to be seen as witty and wise on the left yet you are judging Obama after only a few days. Your list of heroes puts you in with some dodgy company. Lloyd George and his links to appeasement and Zionism? Gladstone saving whores? By the way, Morris was a socialist. As for Carlyle, he was very unhappily married and a wag wrote that, "It was very good of God to let Carlyle and Mrs Carlyle marry one another, and so make only two people miserable and not four."

Craig, you're not the only one who has major reservations about Obama.

Watch this, "The Obama Deception", an excellent film:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756&ei=AFvLSa-GO43U-Qbil7DOBQ&q=obama+deception

Yeah, excellent. Which makes you and Rush Limbaugh bedmates. I've always known that the far left and the far right were basically one and the same. And I have fairies living at the bottom of my garden. It's a well known fact.

eddie

I have saved a few whores myself in my time. Gladstone was a great man. Lloyd George too, though he went downhill in his dotage which set in about 1920. With Carlyle, as with Gladstone, I can't see why you are obsessed with people's private lives. Have you read Carlyle? Morris was a socialist, but not in the state-ist sense the word implies now.

I am not claiming any of these people was a flawless messiah. They were all human. If you can name a more benign set of political infulences, I should be fascinated to see them.

What did you expect? As Hilaire Belloc wrote ["On a great Election"]:

"The accursed power which stands on Privilege
(And goes with Women, and Champagne and Bridge)
Broke - and Democracy resumed her reign:
(Which goes with Bridge, and Women and Champagne)."

American presidents aren't the most powerful men in the world; they are merely the most prominent glove-puppets.

Anticant

Hilaire Belloc, yes. This one has a better tune:
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Won't-Get-Fooled-Again-lyrics-The-Who/761EF79AAB42FA9C48256977002E72F9

eddie

It's a bit much for someone who places his trust in a man who has taken nearly all his money from Wall Street,who has filled his administration with Goldman Sachs/Federal Reserve financiers to solve America's financial woes (they being the ones responsible for causing them) and who has already reversed almost every pre-election promise he made by 180 degrees, to accuse others of being credulous.

I suggest you take a serious look for those fairies. You'll probably find them.

As Ken Livingstone [among others]has said, if voting changed anything they'd have abolished it.

Both the US mainstram parties are far more right wing than most European ones. And the scale of corrupt lobbying and bribery in Washington is such that it would be extremely difficult even for someone ostensibly committed to a clean-up as Obama actually to change things much.

Until the mindless American love-in with Zionist extremism ends, there will be little progress towards genuine peace in the Middle East.

There is only one American party, with two branches. As for Obama, I was trying not to rush to judgement, but I've been thinking just about everything that Craig has said. Especially about habeas corpus, Bagram, rendition, etc, and the non-prosecution of anyone in the Bush admin.

"Diplomatic talks continue. Interestingly, I hear from my Uzbek government moles that they have stalled over Karimov's demand for a photoshoot with President Obama."

I hadn't realised that bit, and now I think even worse -- of Obama. Do business with Karimov but avoid a photo. Typical US double standards (which have been making me sick for years.)

Craig
Dickens, William Morris, George Orwell, Nelson Mandela, Atlee, Bevan, Michael Young, Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens to begin with. I was only teasing about your list. But then I am not a liberal. I don't think many of your posters are either. As I say, they are closer to Rush Limbaugh than they think.

Speak for yourself, Eddie

Yeah, speak for yourself eddie. For the record I voted Lib Dem last time.

Glad to see Craig's initial infatuation with Obama has waned. We knew where we were with Bush. He looked and sounded like the gangster that he is. Obama's different that respect. As an articulate and educated orator he's more of a throwback to the 19th century tradition of US presidents. Apart from that, well yes, thanks for the reminder Craig:
"Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss"
(One of the great rock lyrics of all time, so simple and so true).

There be be the odd difference though. As a protege of Brzezinski expect more of an emphasis on war with Russia as the key to controlling the Eurasian land mass (hence the intensification of the war in Afghanistan at the expense of Iraq).

I was disappointed to see the old lie about socialism in an otherwise good article.
Just because the state capitalist USSR claimed to be socialist does not mean that it was just as the claim by the western capitalist states to be democracies does not mean that they are.
Put simply socialism is economic democracy not of the representative sort but of the delegatory and participatory kind! This is the socilism of Marx and Engles as espoused in the seminal work Das Capital, a stunning work of both historical and economic insight and importance. Perhaps you should add them to your list.
p.s I was glad to see Morris in there as his News from Nowhere is probably one of the best socialist depictions that I have read.

Too soon to tell and hopping on an anti-Obama wagon is useless at best and a fit of pique at worst.

At least you waited a bit, most people did it far sooner.

I'd love to see you or anyone else manage to lead a nation, the amount of compromise involved is quite huge and as a diplomat I thought you'd know that.

But what are blogs for if it's not blue sky thinking by people who'll never be in charge of anything.

"if voting changed anything they'd have abolished it."

I'm no Ken Livingstone Fan, but that little gem is right on the button, as is Antican's 'glove puppet'.

The 'Deep State' arbiters of US policy and power could see perfectly well that their interests required a 're-branding' of America. A Bernaysian transformation of appearances for the gullible that would leave the substance largely unchanged. Enter a thoroughly vetted Obama. It is not surprising that Wall St - the embodiment of those interests - supported his campaign disproportionately. He is their man, bought and paid for, no less than was GWB in his day.

Visible politics is little more than distracting theatre put on to absorb the energies of the Eddies of this world and to give them the soothing illusion of influence.

Daniel,

Certainly too soon to judge result, but I think we can get a fair idea of direction. Anyway, I genuinely hope that you are proved right.

Too soon to tell?

An administration packed with dual-citizen Zionist psychotics; the climbdown over his Guantanemo pledge; the deafening silence over Gaza and the Freeman affair; the escalation of the killing in Afghanistan; the shovelling of yet more tax-payers' billions into the back pockets of crooks.

How much time do you need?

MJ I hadn't realised that voting Lib Dem makes you a liberal. How interesting.
It almost sounds like you preferred Bush - do you need a pantomime villain that you can hiss and boo at and unite your people behind you? Did Bush make you feel safe in your black and white view of the world? This is exactly what the Iranian theocrats feel. They don't like Obama because he is appealing directly to their people who are desperate for a better relationship with the "Great Satan". Without an enemy to unite against the regime has no focus and no purpose.

Daniel, how true. All these words expended on nothing. "When all is said and done a lot more is said than done". It's one of my favourite sayings and should be a reproach to all of us who waste time on these places. Selma, what did Marx say about changing the world? "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it". He certainly did, but not in a way he would have liked, perhaps.

"I hadn't realised that voting Lib Dem makes you a liberal"

You probably didn't realise either that being a liberal can sometimes lead you to voting Lib Dem.

Unless there is a demonstrable change in policies then yes, I probably would prefer Bush because of the congruence between the man and the deeds.

The Iranian response to Obama has been cautiously welcoming. Given that they receive almost daily threats of annihilation from Israel one can perhaps understand the caution.

@Daniel Hoffmann-Gill: whilst I'm probably situated somewhat to the political left of Craig, his piece perfectly illustrates the 'two sides to the same coin' problem of US politics (not unlike the situation we have in the UK, I'd suggest).

I am one of those who was cynical about Obama to start with. I smiled in hopelessness at the neocon voter base who genuinely thought America was going to start "experimenting with socialism", and was furious at ordinary democrats who inadvertently propagandised for him by treating him like he was the Promised One, or Martin Luther bloody King.

I am intrigued at your defence of Obama - it seems that despite his demonstrated militarism, his surrounding himself with financiers and Zionists, and even his doing a deal with Hillary Clinton despite her lurch to the neoconservative right - you think he just he needs to "compromise" a bit, or maybe be given a bit more time?

The only reason I can think of for your criticism of Craig is that you disagree with his broad assessment on militarism, Zionism, the Middle East, social inequality and so forth, and you think that the US establishment, across Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Clinton again, have these things about right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/quiz/questions/0,5961,211619,00.html

MJ perhaps you should take this test to see if you really are a liberal. The questions are rubbish but I haven't got time to devise one that would really test your liberal credentials. Thanks for being honest about Bush - it confirms my view that many of you are obsessively anti-American at all costs and prefer their villains to be clear cut. As for Israel, isn't Iran delivering daily threats in the same vein?

"it confirms my view that many of you are obsessively anti-American"

I'm certainly not anti-American. I'm pro-American in that I admire the American constitution and the Bill of Rights. My problem is that that once great nation has been hijacked by a bunch of criminals and its constitution and Bill of Rights effectively torn up. Only Ron Paul seems to speak for the America of old.

"isn't Iran delivering daily threats in the same vein?"

No.

By the way eddie I took that test. The result was:

You scored 22
Congratulations! You are a liberal: you annoy New Labour just by being there

How true!

Eddie,

Particularly silly test. But I did it to keep you happy, and answered each question honestly. I scored

You scored 22
Congratulations! You are a liberal: you annoy New Labour just by being there. Why don't you condemn a little more, and understand a little less? Oh - it's all to do with your upbringing. Ever vigilant on human rights, you champion the underclass around the dinner table. Let's just hope your kids don't have to mix with them.

Well, it's certainly right about the annoying New Labour bit.

So what did you score eddie?

A Bildeberger-tastic administration.

Expect few changes other than superficial ones...

It's the media-age.

Simulacra abounds.

I scored 15 so presumably the difference is significant!

With regard to Iran, I suggest you read this speech from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - as far as I am aware his views have not changed for thirty years or more. Describing Israel as a bridegehead and calling for the " annihilation of the Zionist regime" is a threat to destroy Israel as far as I am concerned, unless you disagree?

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4164

Craig

I have always had doubts about whether Obama really represents such a big change. He could not have been elected (and let's not forget that he only got 53%, not a "landslide", and most white people voted for McCain) if he REALLY represented a different approach. He was just a fair bit better than the alternative of a 72 year old guy and a crazy lady from Alaska.

The obsession of the media with representing him as "different" simply or mainly because he is half African-American was always lazy journalism.

I also doubt whether any US president has the will or the means to change anything fundamental in the eight years they can have, still less in under three months.

"Whichever politician you vote for, the government remains in power" is about as pithy a summary of politics as you can get.

So I will personally reserve judgement for maybe 18 months or two years but won't expect him to do anything major. "Rendition" and torture will continue. Support for Israel come what may will continue. Afghanistan will continue.

Plus ca change...

I'd be interested also to see proof of your "daily threats" to Iran claim. As far as I am aware, Israel has threatened to attack plants in Iran that are involved in Iran's ongoing attempts to create nuclear weapons. In the light of the disturbing contents of the second link below this seems legitimate to me. However, I wonder if you have seen Shimon Peres' recent message to the Iranian people? It is remarkably conciliatory - "when the current regime in Iran is calling for the destruction of Israel, we call for Iran to prosper".

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072982.html

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

You'll recall eddie that my point was about daily threats.

Since the best you can find is one piece of rhetoric from three and a half years ago I take it that you tacitly concede that Iran is not making threats in the same vein.

MJ - you show me yours and I will show you mine. You haven't given any evidence of "daily threats" so no I don't concede, tacitly or otherwise. Are you saying that the President of Iran has changed his opinion from three years ago? I don't think so.

I did this ( far more serious ! ) test years ago, which put me outside the UK Greenies on the Left / South quadrant .. An unconscious Anarchist peut-etre.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I'm still waiting for proof that the new boss is much different from the old one ... and I'm not holding my breath .

Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Unlike Israel, its nuclear facilities are under constant surveillance by the IAEI. Said inspectorate has consistently reported that Iran is not producing uranium that is sufficiently enriched to make a nuclear weapon.

Israeli threats to Iran are to be found everywhere and new ones arise almost everyday. I can't give links right now but just keep your eyes open; you'll soon see one.

Peres is powerless. Just listen to Netenyahu.

Craig

Somewhat but not entirely off the current topic, for which apologies, but I take it you have seen or are getting the Foreign Office's latest annual report on human rights?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7965187.stm

The BBC quotes the report as saying:

"The government has not approved and will not approve a policy of facilitating the transfer of individuals through the UK to places where there are substantial grounds to believe they would face a real risk of torture".

Will this report come up at the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights hearing on 28th April?

"Those rendered to the unspeakable torture of Uzbekistan came on CIA flights from Baghram and from the secret prison at Szymano-Szczytny in Poland. Most if not all now lie in graves in the Kizyl Kum desert. The Americans must have lists of who they transported. We - and their relatives all over the World - don't know their names".

Just like life in Argentina when I was there back in the 1950s. People were snatched, made to disappear, tortured, and killed. Sometimes, for fun, the military torturers would fly them out over the ocean and throw them out alive.

"The government has not approved and will not approve a policy of facilitating the transfer of individuals through the UK to places where there are substantial grounds to believe they would face a real risk of torture".

I suspect the key phrase there is "through the UK"

By the way eddie, just put Netanyahu+ Iran into google and you'll get links to half a dozen threatening remarks from Netanyahu in March alone.

MJ

There are lots of weasel words here, which is why I posted the quote.

"approved" vs condoned
"policy" vs practice
"facilitate" vs allow or ignore
"through the uk" vs through UK territories eg. Diego Garcia
"substantial grounds" vs reasonable grounds
"believe" vs fear or suspect
"real risk" vs risk

Draw your own conclusions!

@eddie - I am intrigued what logic you used to deduce that comments from MJ show that many of us are anti-American. Really, that was a bit of a silly rant, wasn't it? For the record, I don't see there was anything in MJ's post that was racist, even if you intend to insist there was. For the record, I am a big fan of America's stated values - I am just looking forward to their administration practising them!

Meanwhile - using Iran Focus as your source? Wikipedia casts doubt on it. And I am surprised that you put this forward despite the alleged owners of that website being marked as a "terrorist organisation" by US, Canada and EU. Given your record of overblowing terrorism, I would have thought you'd have steered well clear.

Either way, the "occupying regime in [Jerusalem] be wiped off the face of the earth" - that mistranslation, from the original Persian, will probably be repeated ad nauseum by shady sources despite the thorough debunking it has received. I am no fan of Ahmadinejad's anti-semitism, but, whilst you are furiously pointing out the specks in his eyes, you are being whacked in the back of the head by the enormous logs in Israel's eyes (see MJ's later comments on Netanyahu). And, for some peculiar reason, you are pretending not to notice them.

Craig,

I believe your views on Obama are sound.

I think he's a fantastic bag of wind, rather like Blair.

He knows virtually nothing about foreign policy or economics. His ambition was to become President, now that's over with he's able to relax. I think he'll evolve, and very quickly, into another Jimmy Carter. Obama has the right rhetoric, but lacks the balance, substance, or policy or ideology. But rhetoric without content is an empty vessel. Obama can't rule by making great, set-piece, speeches; Lincoln actually had ideas, rather than merely rhetoric.

This is the crux of the problem, Obama's concreted policies aren't substantially different from Bush's, only his style is more sophisticated and urbane.

I think he was chosen, as most president's are, by the ruling elite, who saw his potential and backed him to the hilt, the Bush model having gone well over it's sell-by date.

@ John D. Monkey

Eddie never notices anything that doesn't fit Eddie's agenda.

Just because Obama's got feelings, doesn't mean he hasn't got baggage. Nobody expects Bush or Blair to show regret, but Obama does. The question in my mind is whether his humility extends to admitting that others have got U.S. policy wrong or whether he will just build on top of the ruins of his predecessors.

At this time what is needed is a reversal of U.S policy about imposing a Shia regime in Iraq through demography and a refusal to use Iran as a surrogate power against Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The current Obama overtures to Iran signify a further shift against Sunni power. It would be so nice to have William Morris as leader of the Western World. We could be talking about books and history instead of torture and war. Now is not the time to give any U.S. administration the benefit of the doubt. It's justa question of which direction the volcanoe will explode in first.

writerman

If I thought Obama would evolve into Jimmy Carter I would be delighted. Best US President in my lifetime - which is why, peculiarly, Americans hate him.

Craig,

I don't think one can describe Carter as a particularly successful president. It's generally accepted, or, at least perceived, that Carter was a failure, though one could argue that he was a man ahead of his time, I'm thinking about his attitude to the environment and energy consumption. Carter attempted to treat the American people as adults, who could take some hard truths, and he paid a very heavy price for this 'mistake.' He was undermined by powerful interests and Carter's dose of reality was replaced by Reagan's fantasy world, thirty years of fantasy, Disney Land, politics; the hollowing-out of democracy and the concept of citzenship.

I think the American people will realise, remarkably quickly, that Obama, is all style and very little character, and this at a time when strength of character, courage, and profound understanding, are desparately needed.

Obama isn't a Liberal, or Radical. He is deeply conservative on almost every issue that matters to most ordinary Americans. He isn't even a true reformist. He's totally out of his depth in this crisis, as are his top advisors, who believe it's just a temporary 'slowdown' and not a fundamental, systemitic crisis, that can be cured by a return to 'normalcy' and business as usual. Their policies are actually making things worse, not better, and dragging the United States down into a long and deep slump that will probably rival the Great Depression. This is terribly sad, because we all know what that lead to.

Eddie

You can't seem to separate propaganda from facts. The 'Wipe Israel off the map' line is well known to be a distortion and mistranslation. He never said it, and you very well know it, the same applying to 'holocaust denial'.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

As for 'Iran's ongoing attempts to gain Nuclear weapons', it is also widely known that they gave up the idea in 2003, so says the International Energy Agency and all 16 US intelligence agencies.

However one would wonder why they shouldn't have Nuclear weapons since Israel is known to have 150-200 - a fact even let slip by Ehud Olmert in a TV interview. Not to mention that at any time there are a couple of Nuclear armed US Carrier groups within striking distance, Permanent US bases in Iraq (most likely with US Nukes present) and of course Nuclear power and US ally Pakistan next door.

If you're going to play this game of factual imbecility, not to mention double standards, you would do better to go and comment on the Sun newspaper comments page where you'll be able to find enough ignorant people to suck in your Western Power Ideology nonsense.

Jon, forgive me but I don't think I said MJ was racist. Just anti-American. The quotes from Ahmadinejad about wiping Israel off the map are well known and most scholars agree that there is no confusion over the translation. I suggest you read the speech again. This is a man who says there are no Gays in Iran remember. Also, the nuclear programme is not under his control. Also, he hosted a Holocaust denial conference only recently. There is a long tradition of this stuff in the Islamist world. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini collaborated with the Nazis and made speeches from Berlin calling for the extermination of Jews. Many nazis enjoyed a comfortable life in Egypt after the war.

Orwellian - I've seen your garbage on Media Lens where I am pleased to see that they have started fighting each other over the dodgy Lancet report. About time too. I think your name is a disgrace. For the record, I've read every word Orwell ever wrote and I think he would turn in his grave if he thought fools like you were taking his name in vain.

Oh god, no. Tell me that you didn't really write the sorts of things I've been trying hard not to think for a few weeks now....

Of course, we have to give a guy a chance to get into his stride. But this was The One crucial time that we all really really needed the new POTUS to hit the ground running Olympic-style.

I was overjoyed that the US finally had a black prez and rather pleased that the Rep blight had been ended. Like a good number of others, it seems, I'm so hoping he doesn't Carterise himself.

Oh god, no. Tell me that you didn't really write the sorts of things I've been trying hard not to think for a few weeks now....

Of course, we have to give a guy a chance to get into his stride. But this was The One crucial time that we all really really needed the new POTUS to hit the ground running Olympic-style.

I was overjoyed that the US finally had a black prez and rather pleased that the Rep blight had been ended. Like a good number of others, it seems, I'm so hoping he doesn't Carterise himself.

With the references to Carter, I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned the rather obvious link between the two men - Zbigniew Brzezinski. If you've read any of his books you'll know this Trilateral kingmaker prefers his controlled frontmen to at least appear to be thoughtful realists. It was all he could do to stifle his embarrassment at the Bush/Cheney way of conducting business, so at odds with his own realpolitik.

Personally, I can't listen to Obama mention Pakistan (or any aspect of foreign policy) without seeing Zbig's face immediately.

It's impossible for me to feel any disappointment with Obama so far, as I never had any expectations. He will simply play his part in the slow-motion coup that is the dismantling of America.

One key thing left to do is disarm the civilian population. Expect some 'helpful' events to this end.

Eddie

You say you've seen my 'garbage' on medialens, however you've not had the courage to post there probably because you know that everyone would see what that you're a paid fraud.

As for the lancet report, it may not have been perfect but it's accurate enough. I myself haven't bothered wasted time arguing over it anyway.

Your pathetic baiting won't rile me, but I wonder - if you've read every word Orwell wrote, why do you insist on spouting the very propaganda he exposed?

'Orwellian' is a term, describing an aspect of politics or society that display similarities to Orwell's nightmare world of 1984 and other writings. I believe we are living in the beginnings of such as society, hence OrwellianUK. It is not a claim to literary achievement.

I'm surprised to have to explain this to you.

Eddie: "most scholars agree that there is no confusion over the translation"

You're perfectly correct, there is no confusion whatsoever. He obviously didn't talk about "wiping Israel off the map" for the good reason that there is no such expression in Farsi. You'll appreciate that in fact what he said was, quoting Khomeini, the "regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history". You'll appreciate further that, from the context of the speech - in which he cited the Soviet Union and Iran under the Shah - he was referring to powerful regimes that collapse from the inside, with no assistance from others. For a full and sober analysis of the speech, by a scholar bilingual in English and Farsi, see http://tinyurl.com/hrrrx

So yes, no real confusion at all. The only confusion has been deliberately manufactured by an Israel lobby keen to misinform and misrepresent in pursuit of its own rather narrow and repugnant agenda.

"he hosted a Holocaust denial conference only recently"

No, he hosted a holocaust conference that was attended by deniers, but not exclusively so.

"The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini collaborated with the Nazis"

As did the Zionists, who also funded him.

"Many nazis enjoyed a comfortable life in Egypt after the war"

As did even more in the USA.

Honestly eddie, your Islamophobic tunnel vision is quite astonishing to behold.

Since no one else has mentioned it, I shall.

Upon leaving college Barack Obama spent two years with a firm by the name of Business International Corporation. This has been widely identified as being a CIA front company with even its own founder confirming CIA links. And honestly what sort of name is 'Business International Corporation'? If the naming brief had been 'must be meaningless, bland, and instantly forgettable', it couldn't be improved upon.

Apparently BIC thought so much of young Barack that they paid off his entire student debt. That was nice of them don't you think?

Astoundingly in Obama's autobiography, those two years of his not particularly long life, warrant a single paragraph. Or was it a single sentence? I can't recall now.

Somebody tell me that that's not weird.

Still it's better than the ten year long blank space that George Bush had on his resume. Mind you, between ten years spent on cocaine, and two spent at a CIA front company, I'm not sure which is scarier.

Oh! And is Eddie back flinging shit at Muslims again? Sure enough! Cheers Eddie! Long may you remain utterly predictable. Also I want to commend you for not signing up for that tedious Megaphone program. Really one can be so much more effective just focusing on one website. A fig for the the Megaphone flock!

Orwellian
That is nonsense and I think you know it. If you think that living in England in 2009 is anywhere close to the horror depicted in 1984 then I feel sorry for you. Your life must be a very sad affair. Orwell was an anti-totalitarian who nearly died fighting fascism. He was a democrat and a socialist - he believed in decent human values and free speech. I don't think you, with your hatred of the USA and your support of theorcratic fascism, believe in any of those things. I have tried to sign up for the media lens message board but been denied each time. It seems to be a closed shop of people who all have the same narrow mindset, which is why the Lancet furore is such fun. If you can tell me how to do it I would be delighted to bait the saddos on there.

MJ two rights don't make a wrong.

Eddie, how old are you?

1984 is an alegory of the british society in 1948. As every alegory it musn't be taken literaly, but all the elemensts of the society described in 1984 can easily be identified around us, if you pay enough attention. Ovbiously you do not.

Bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about.

There are some rather striking similarities between 1984 and today which surely even eddie can see. Ever-growing surveillance; the perversion of language; a never-ending war against a vague, non-existent enemy...

I am affraid I know very well what I am talking about. It is not my interpretation, but rather Orwell's own description of his work.

MJ, I fear young eddie cannot tell his ass form his elbow. I hope that'll change when he grows up

eddie
You seem to engage in very little other than personal attacks on other posters.

I said "the beginnings" of such a society. With the attacks on civil liberties, the increased power of the police and state, the deluge of pro-war propaganda and an increasingly controlled media, we are definitely heading in that direction - the very core theme of Craigs site.

From where do you get your assertion that I "hate the USA?". On the contrary, most of my favourite writers and websites are from the US. It is Imperialism I am opposed to. Not just Western imperialism, but since I live in the West I feel inclined to direct my criticism at our governments more than say those of the other major powers, in order to help preserve the freedoms we still have which are being eroded ever more rapidly.

Try emailing the editors at medialens if you are having problems registering as this appears to be a common technical problem.

As for Orwell, your description of him is accurate but your interpretation appears to be one sided in that you appear to believe that the authoritarianism he wrote about could not possibly apply to our own governments.

By the way, you are the first person who claimed I was taking George Orwells name in vain. Everyone else seems to think it's a perfectly decent handle

MJ You're right, in the same way that a cat resembles a dog - a face, four legs etc. Other than that your analogy is utterly false. I think I have said it before, but if you compare 1948 to 2009 the freedoms we enjoy now are massive in comparison. Economic freedom (rationing in 1948), hugely higher levels of prosperity, legislation that has promoted equality and human rights, freedom of travel and of expression. Surely you cannot be serious? If you are, you must have a very miserable and twisted view of your life. As for a non-existent enemy, am I mistaken or did two planes destroy the World Trade towers? Perhaps that was an illusion? As for Orwell, here is his description of 1984, IN HIS OWN WORDS.
"My recent novel [1984] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions ... which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism." If you think that we live in either a communist or fascist society then you are ignorant.

Young eddie revealed in an earlier post that he was around in the war so I fear growing up is something he has decided to give a miss this time around. I blame Arabs personally.

That reminds me eddie: when you responded with "two rights don't make a wrong" what on earth were you talking about?

You'll note that I listed three similarities. I didn't suggest it was the same in all respects.

"am I mistaken or did two planes destroy the World Trade towers?"

No, you're perfectly correct. I'm still waiting however for the long overdue inquiry into that event. Once that has happened we will hopefully be in a position to determine who was responsible and take the appropriate measures to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Eddie, my friend, it may come as a surprise to you but wikipedia is often incomplete and sometimes even mistaken. I am afraid you may need to go to the sources.
If you decide to do a bit of research, look as well for the meaning of "allegory".

Young eddie may say he is Tutankamon cousin, but the fact is that he talks (writes) like an overexcited 14 year old

MJ
Two wrongs don't make a right, of course. The fact that Egypt sheltered nazis as well as the US doesn't mean either were right to do so. I would like to see your evidence that Zionism collaborated with the Nazis. I know the history of the ghettos and the Jewish administrations, but I don't know what you are referring to. As for 9/11 - well, apart from the fact that Osama has admitted the deed and the vast majority of thinking people know he did it I don't know what purpose your ludicrous scepticism serves, other than to make you look very wise or very stupid. You decide. If not him, who?
I was not alive in the war but I have read enough about it and the post war period to know that we are better off now. Of course, it is all part of your general thesis and weltanschaung that life is terrible and wouldn't the world be a wonderful place if we had communism/socialism/fascism/anarchy (delete as appropriate) in this country but I don't buy into that nonsense. The Orwell quote is by Orwell.

"I would like to see your evidence that Zionism collaborated with the Nazis".

No probs. Read "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators: A Reappraisal" by Lenni Brenner. It is available online at http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index.htm

If not him, who?

The point of a proper enquiry is that among other things it might help identify the perpetrators. By the way, do you think Dick Cheney is a member of al-qaeda? I ask because it was he who gave the stand down order in respect of the non-interception of AA 77, the Pentagon plane, as reported to the 911 Commission hearings.

Orwellian - actually I do find your name offensive, for the reasons listed above. Tell me, for example, that you condemn the Hamas Charter, or the Mugabe regime, or the fact that the Chinese regime executes annually more than the rest of the world put together and I would be more likely to take you seriously as an even handed person who puts principles before polemics. We live in a global world so your claim that you only care about the imperialsim of the West is ludicrous. All of us have the pwer to do something. When terrible crimes are being perpetrated by criminal regimes around the world and yet people like you do or say nothing, it makes me puke, frankly. I don't believe people like you are anti-War or anti-totalitarian, rather the opposite. Instead, your obsessive attacks on the USA and Zionism reveal your true agenda. As for media lens, what would be the point of posting anything on their message board? Do you think it would change any minds? If so,I am happy to try it. To me, it has all the appearance of a mutual masturbation society in a minor public school. You can take that as personal abuse if you like. I'm well used to it.

MJ - thanks for highlighting that author for me. I had not heard of him before, but it seems he is a marxist and another self-hating Jew in the mould of Chomsky, so I will not bother paying him any attention as a serious historian. To suggest that Zionism collaborated in the genocide of 6 million Jews is about as plausible as saying that Dick Cheney was responsible for 9/11 which appears to be your chain of thought.

"I will not bother paying him any attention as a serious historian".

A superbly researched book by an eminent historian, but I don't wish to disturb your cosy infatuation with all things Zionist. "There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see" I think the saying goes.

I suspect Cheney had only a bit part but of course we'll need a proper enquiry to get to the truth.

Eddie

I have always read your posts, even though I mostly disagree with your line of argument.

But now you have trotted out the old "self hating Jew" line to diss Lenni Brenner without even reading him you've lost me. I guess you're just another bigoted troll after all.

I shan't even bother to read what you post any more, and suggest everyone else does the same.

What a pity to see all the time wasted on distracting propagandists.
"Eddie" is a Zionist shill and a notorious liar.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/boring_boring_b.html

Researcher,
I agree with you but I think he might be a government lackey under the guise of a Zionist brought in to disrupt rational argument. And often such people have a sparring partner.

@John D. Monkey - couldn't agree more. The general disturbance from eddie was occasionally worth engaging with, but using the 'self-hating Jew' tagline on Jewish people who are not toeing the neo-conservative/Zionist line is a shameless propaganda technique as old as the hills. I too will also avoid dealing with this gentleman from now on.

== plonk ==

(For those not in the know, the above is the sound of a troublesome board poster being added to an "ignore bin").

Eddie,

you suggest that: "If you think that we live in either a communist or fascist society then you are ignorant."

That's interesting in light of this : "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini.

Sound familiar?

Interesting. Lose the argument and you refuse to engage. Cowards. I don't think you people realise how far off the political spectrum you are. I have been a member of the Labour Party for years yet you attack me as if I am a member of the BNP. But what is the reality of political power? You can either skulk on boards like these and achieve next to nothing or you can engage with the political process. It is very likely that we will have a Tory government next year. So will that be better or worse than our present situation? If the Tories get in what will you do? Carry on slagging off everyone in power from the privacy of your homes until you die? What does that do exactly? You change nothing. You are nothing. Get involved. The bald truth is that we will have either a Labour government in this country or a conversative one and no other options are likely. So get real and grow up.

MJ I'm sorry, but would you read one of David Irving's books? Is there any real difference between him and the author you mention? They both have a world view that is subjective. What they research and what they write all stacks up in favour of their party line. If I want to read history I will stick to people I can trust to be objective. If you want names I am happy to supply them.

"Interesting. Lose the argument and you refuse to engage."

Except it's not interesting.

Not at all.

"Lose the argument and you refuse to engage"

This a good example of Orwellian doublespeak eddie. It is you who have lost the argument. It is you who refuses to engage. Your comment about "self-hating jew" says it all and reveals your blinkered, partisan view of history. Brenner's book is objective. It is based on well-referenced facts. But it doesn't correspond with all the garbage you've been fed. So you run away and don't want to know.

Objective? Says you perhaps. Facts may be well researched but if you only include the ones that match your world view then it remains a pile of garbage. I've been quite happy to engage but most of the points I've made have been either ignored or met with puerile abuse. Do you not think such a thing as a "self hating Jew" exists? It is your side that has been guilty of anti-Semitism in recent months. One of the posters on here claimed that Zionists had collaborated with the Holocaust for christ's sake. It may even have been you.

http://jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/nazisupport.cfm

"Facts may be well researched but if you only include the ones that match your world view then it remains a pile of garbage".

Are you describing yourself? Since you refuse to read him, I'm not sure how you know what Brenner's views are.

"Self-hating Jew" is one of the most pathetic Zionist slurs around. I presume it refers to someone who happens to be Jewish but has the decency and courage to say something that opposes or reveals the Zionist agenda. Whether Brenner is self-hating, or Jewish, I neither know nor care. It is irrelevant. I suspect he's self-respecting, since he's gone to the trouble of researching and writing an important book, but I don't really know.

"One of the posters on here claimed that Zionists had collaborated with the Holocaust for christ's sake. It may even have been you".

Not me. I did point out however that there is good evidence to show that some Zionists collaborated with the Nazis. You asked for the evidence. I took the trouble to provide it. You refused to read it.

Look at this commemorative medallion eddie, from 30s Germany. A swastika on one side and a star of David on the other. What's that all about do you reckon?

http://tinyurl.com/cpwl8c

I am grateful to writerman for the description of Obama as 'a bag of wind, rather like Blair'. Like a hot air balloon, Blair does not appear to have been able to control any of the purpose or direction of his political career.

I am also grateful to researcher for introducing me to the description ' Zionist shill' as a label for that group of people whose efforts result in Islamophobia in this country and persecution of Muslims abroad.

Zionist shill and Islampohobia are no better nor worse as slurs than self hating Jew. If someone is claiming that zionists collaborated with the Holocaust then if that does not amount to "self hating Jews" I dont know what does, so they clearly exist in your eyes. I don't want to read that book for the simple reason that there are probably thousands of other history books that are better written and less subjective and time is short. For the record I despise all religions, especially fundamentalists, whether it is Christians (including the Pope with his despicable views on abortion and condoms), Sikhs, Jews or Muslims. Religion is a human construct that has no basis in truth. The reason that I particularly despise Islamists is that they are the only ones of the above who want to blow me up in the name of religion. People like you use the slur Islamophobic to describe a disgust of murderous, life-hating, death-loving, homophobic misogynists. I prefer to call it common sense. I am not Jewish. I am not a Zionist. I was brought up in the CofE.

"If someone is claiming that zionists collaborated with the Holocaust then if that does not amount to "self hating Jews" I dont know what does"

So it doesn't matter if the claim happens to be true or not? If a Jew discovers that it is true, but is perfectly self-respecting, where does that leave you eddie? Also please get it into your confused little mind that that the collaboration was with Nazism rather than the holocaust as such.

When you think about it, the claim is hardly ludicrous. Ask yourself two questions: in the decades prior to WWII, who were lobbying intensely for a Jewish homeland in Palestine? What was one of the most signifcant outcomes of the Nazi regime and WWII? See the connection? Brenner's book simply sifts through the evidence and joins the dots.

That last post was from me by the way, I don't know why my name didn't show.

The problem with Eddie is unfortunately simple... If you were to suggest that the sun might rise tomorrow, Eddie would give you ten thousand reasons why it wouldn't, probably starting with "evil islamists wont allow it because they despise our western sunshine..."
Maybe we should desist from feeding the trolls.

What did I just say about abuse? Have I levelled persoanl abuse at you?
OK, you attack me for raising the notion of "self-hating Jews", right? Then you refer to a book that outlines Zionist (Jewish) collaboration with the Nazis and ergo the Holocaust. Right? So your world view accepts that there were Jews who participated in, or implicitly assisted, the annihilation of other Jews. Right? So if they are not self-hating Jews what are? Ergo you accept the notion of self-hating Jews. Whether I believe your claim or not, you clearly do, so you accept the notion.So what is your problem exactly? Collaborating with the Nazis implicitly means collaborating with the Holocaust, unless you are a Holocaust denier, or one of those people who believe that the German people did not know about it or that they were just following orders, and therefore not culpable. That was part of the Eichmann defence and he hanged for it, as did others post war. Your last paragraph is despicable.

Yawn

Yes you must be sending yourself to sleep with your prevarication and evasion. As I said before, I get either abuse or a refusal to answer points. So I shall take it that you can't defend yourself. Returning to the topic of this post, today I saw "The Damned United" which is about the sacking of Brian Clough after only 44 days at Leeds United. It's a great film. So Clough was judged and sacked after only 44 days yet went on to become one of the greatest, if not the greatest, managers in English football. So the moral is, don't judge people prematurely, as you are so keen to do. It is not wise.

"eddie" is aggressively shilling for Zionist Israeli atrocities since January here.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/in_distinguishe.html
He uses classic propaganda devices like personal attacks,
distraction, false dichotomy and ever repeated lies,
like the one that exposing the violent,
racist and suicidal Jewish supremacism
of Zionism and Israel is antisemitism or hate against Jews.

Yeah eddie, retract the "self-hating Jew" thing or die an ignominious board death. I've been reading this and other debates with some interest, and it is really a give-away line. That historian may well be a rotten historian whipping up anti-Jewish sentiment by lying about Zionist involvement with the Nazis. Who knows, without reading? Personally, I really don't want to know if a few corrupt conscienceless people who called themselves Zionists collaborated with the Nazis to save their own skins. Quite possibly, they did, since I assume that not all people who are born to Jewish parents are models of a beautiful character (though strangely, all my Jewish friends are). But to use that viciously meaningless ad hominem phrase, and to link it to Chomsky, are failures of logic and humanity. Have you read/watched Chomsky? The man does not appear to "hate" at all, unless he hates ignorance and deception. The "self-hating Jew" tag is both racist, and a slur used, as another poster pointed out, to try and demean people who criticise any of the Israeli government's policies. Really, take it back.

"I really don't want to know if a few corrupt conscienceless people who called themselves Zionists collaborated with the Nazis to save their own skins".

I fear it went a little deeper than that.

I take everything back to nothing. It's all bollocks. Chomsky is certainly a hater though.

March 28, 2009

"Obama to Bring More Mercenaries to Afghanistan -- Sound Familiar?"...

http://tinyurl.com/cwua2o

Bush/Obama...A rose by any other name.

Craig

I have told you before..."You don`t get to be President of the United States if you are not what has gone before" (well you could but you won`t be President for long,Dallas ring any bells).

"I take everything back to nothing. It's all bollocks".

Thank you eddie. That clarify things nicely.

>I am not a socialist.

Well, that's good to know, because the communist threat is very real - not at all, as some say, manufactured by the U.S. as a pretext to slaughter millions of innocent people, and expand its economic empire.

Socialism is a menace ravaging Britain. Thank God you're not a socialist!

It's when you say things like this that I suspect you're still part of the British establishment trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes.

Socialism to any sensible person simply means a mixed economy, a fair economy, universal health care, worker rights, and a safety net - all of which are currently being taken away from us.

Along with Blair and others, you are assisting in removing this definition. So, we either say we're for capitalism (as if it, too, has just one extreme form), or we get called "commies".

The world is in the grip of ORGANIZED CAPITALISM, so it would better if you told us what you are against than to ascribe to yourself qualities that mean nothing to the rest of us.

What is a liberal? Do you agree with Bush and Obama when they say corporate globalization is INEVITABLE? Do you think consumers should have little to no protection against corporations? Do you believe that workers should have no rights, only property? Tell me how something that isn't human has rights?

>"Give the man time", I said.
>
>I corresponded with Democrat friends
>in the US, who explained that, in
>trying to turn round the
>neoconservative juggernaut, Obama
>needed a critical mass of support.

WE WERE HERE IN 1997!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE? "Things can only get better!" It was a pack of lies. I knew it was a pack of lies. Anyone with a barely functioning brain knew. Obama's campaign was straight out of Britain's 1997 election playbook.

While Palestinian children were being MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD, Obama remained silent, saying there is only one president at a time. That didn't stop him, however, from working hard to push through Bush's bank HANDOUT. Nor did it stop him from telling AIPAC that he will do all he can as president to protect Israel.

In a recent interview Obama was laughing when discussing the dire state of the U.S. economy (google "Kroft to Obama: Are you punch-drunk?"). Steve Kroft responded:

"You're sitting here. And you're - you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, 'I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money -'...Are you punch-drunk?"

Obama was found in equally good mood when Palestinian children were being killed in cold blood. He's a rich lawyer who doesn't care.

It was evident what Obama was before he was elected.

I criticise Noam Chomsky for being a capitalist selling his opinions, but I've read his articles, as some ARE worth reading. Chomsky covers all this - the myth that political leaders care. They do not! Visit his site and read what he has to say about Obama. He makes some of the points I make.

"Democracy Now" has a good article on how it is JUST NOT TRUE that anyone can become president, and explains what you must do - and who you must get to support you - if you want a shot at the White House.

Declassified government documents reveal the truth about our governments. Nowhere do our political "masters" express any concern for human rights.

Let me quote Leo Szilard, a Hungarian-born physicist:

"By and large, governments are guided by considerations of expediency rather than by moral considerations. And this, I think, is a universal law of how governments act. Prior to the war I had the illusion that up to a point the American Government was different. This illusion was gone after Hiroshima."

(For those that don't know, the U.S. dropped two atom bombs on innocent civilians in order to prevent a struggle for power with the Soviet Union - all the evidence points to this! Germany was carved up, with the East going to Russia. The U.S. didn't want to have to do the same with Japan. It was no coincidence that the bombs were hurriedly dropped just before Russia was due to invade. It was merely EXPEDIENT to claim it was to save U.S. lives)

It's time to knock some bitter truths into the public's head - NOT continue lying to them.

"I fear it went a little deeper than that"; I guess, in some few, terrible cases, it possibly did, MJ. There may have been people who were so obsessed with establishing a "Jewish homeland" that they were prepared to watch innocent people being tortured and gassed for it. I would not call them Zionists: it would be like calling Bush a Christian. I would call them murderers. Or did they, as you suggest, stop once they realised what Hitler was really up to? In which case, what's the fuss?

Eddie; what do you mean, Chmosky is a "hater"? Against whom has he roused hate?

The basic thesis of Brenner's book is this. At first there was quite an open and convivial relationship between Zionists and Hitler. This is because they shared a common aim: they both wanted to resettle Jews out of Germany. Hitler, like the earliest Zionists, didn't particularly care where the new homeland might be. Herzl was keen on Kenya, Hitler I believe mooted Madagascar. It was only when the Rothschild's took over the Zionist movement that Palestine became the main target because it suited their business interests. The medallion to which I linked earlier commemorates a joint Zionist/Nazi Party fact-finding mission to Palestine.

Once we get to the holocaust, things get a bit murkier. Very few, if any, Zionist Jews ended up in the concentration camps. There were secret deals with Zionist leaders which ensured that Zionists Jews were quietly shipped off to Palestine leaving the rest to their terrible fate. The Polish Jews had the worst of it and it was Polish Jews who had collectively renounced Zionism just before the war.

It's not a particularly eddie-fying story but there it is. All scrupulously researched and referenced.

Zionism and hate against Jews go hand in hand.
The founder of Zionism Theodor Herzl promoted antisemitism.
http://jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/herzl/index.cfm

A detailed but incomplete history of Zionist terrorism:
http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/2009/03/west-forgets-that-israel-is-founded-on.html

Marvin,

re "I am not a socialist" - it doesn't mean I have anything against socialists. I don't, at all. I happen to have a different political opinion, or rather theory. I quite agree that being a socialist doesn't make you Stalin. Just as my not being a socialist doesn't make me George Bush.

Eddie is welcome on this board and argues well. He has different political views to most posters, but that makes for debate, which is good. Nobody's perfect and his "self-hating Jew" jibe was a silly bit of non-argument. I am not perfect either.

I would be grateful if people didn't feel the need to discuss Zionism whatever I am posting, and I thought my original post was pretty interesting. Nor have I read the book in question. But I would make this observation.

President Karimov of Uzbekistan has been much honoured by Israel and by US Zionist groups. The reason for this is that he allowed the large Jewish community in Uzbekistan, especially Bokhara, to emigrate, which even today Uzbeks citizens are not allowed to do.

The Jews were happy because they could leave. Karimov was happy to get rid of them - reducing diversity in his multi-ethnic state is a major goal. He also got rid of 1.5 million Russians through emigration and the largest minority, the Tajiks, are undergoing forced "Uzbekisation" as detailed in "Murder in Samarkand" (and the cause of the particular murder of the title}.

So the Zionists and Karimov have made common cause from entirely different motives. I can see that precisely the same dynamics could have applied to some early pre-holocaust contacts between Nazis and Zionists, both of whom wanted Jews to leave from entirely different motives.

That is reprehensible if true - and I can see how it could be on the Karimov example. The Karimov example is almost equally reprehensible. But, as someone noted above, it is not at all the same as complicity in the Holocaust, which I would find very hard to believe, although you can always find an isolated nutter.

MJ - I don't know if that is your comment above because your name does not appear. I was starting to think there was someone called March! But it was you or your colleague who raised the self hating Jew tag with your continuing reference to a crappy book that reports Zionist collaboration with the Nazis. Self-hating Jews right? So I'm not inclined to retract the point.

What does Chomsky hate? Himself, the USA, impartiality, the truth to begin with. Look at Bosnia, Cambodia and Faurisson to review his lies and evasions (passim) - he is well known as a dissembler who shot his bolt in the linguistics world decades ago.

I've just been reading comments on another post about kabalistic (?) twaddle from researcher and all the conspiracy theories about 9/aa, and bilge about 15 year old girls being tortured by the Police. Wow, Loony tunes or what? It's like Alesteir Crowley. I've come to the inevitable conclusion that this site is a kind of on-line lunatic asylum. I don't think most of you live in the real world of jobs and homes and raising children. You live in a fantasy world where "dark forces" are runnng things, like some bad Hollowywood film. In the eighteenth century they would have the public in to laugh at you. I don't like to resort to personal abuse, but I would guess that many of you have a history of mental health problems, feelings of inferiority, dejection, paranoia, rejection? I suppose the site must therefore perform some kind of public service as it keeps you off the streets and stops you molesting people and this stuff makes you feel credible and "important". It doesn't really, does it? It's just sad. And I think you know it. Getting and spending we lay waste our powers. Anyway, that's it from me. Let the abuse flow.

Just imagine what this world would look like
without people with feelings and doubts,
or if these precious people would feel unimportant.
Often ignored and derided, yes,
railroaded by opportunists hooked on power and money,
but what a difference they make, people with empathy.
Thank you :-)

Eddie, I suspect the anonymous post to which you refer was from Craig, rebuking us for discussing Zionism when that is not the topic of his original thread.

"But it was you or your colleague who raised the self hating Jew tag with your continuing reference to a crappy book that reports Zionist collaboration with the Nazis".

Oh dear eddie, you remind me of those footballers who brazenly plead innocence even though we've all seen their blatant offences in crisp slow-motion. All the posts are still there for everyone to see. It was you who raised the "self-hating Jew" nonsense. It wasn't due to any "continuing" reference to Brenner's book, it was because I cited it once (and even then only because you requested it).

"Self-hating Jew" was your first and indeed only response to the book. Presumably you were wanting to call it "anti-semitic" then saw that the author was Jewish so called him a "self-hating Jew" instead. Sorted! All angles covered. A racial slur for all occasions.

The comma wrote (well, I only see a comma - not a name!)

"Marvin,

re 'I am not a socialist' - it doesn't mean I have anything against socialists."

Well, I didn't know if you did or not. But it seems people are almost as frightened of being considered socialist as they are of being labeled gay - "I have nothing against gays" is a common retort. Whereas no one worries too much if others think of them as hard-nosed capitalists.

So as to kill two birds with one stone: my comment about why Japan was atom bombed: President Truman from his published memoirs:

"Anxious as we were to have Russia in the war again Japan, the experience at Potsdam now made me determined that I would not allow the Russians any part in the control of Japan. I made up my mind that General MacArthur would be given complete command and control after victory in Japan."

I got that from another book, "MacArthur: His Rendezvous with History", by Courtney Whitney.

The review says: "Makes some important contributions and will be indispensable to future researchers. Numerous documents are published in these pages for the first time. –New York Times"

@The Comma:

But I still don't know what you mean by not being a socialist. It's better if you say what you are for, and what you are against, rather than to use these labels.

As for me, I don't call myself anything. I just express my opinion on matters, and you can pin a label on me, if you so wish.

Not "The Comma", "The Colon". I shouldn't make posts at this time of night.