Mr(?) BrainDrain,

Firstly, the scramble to figure out the source of my nickname is a constant source of amusement. You're the first to pick it, so congratulations. If you had read my second-post a little more closely, you would have realised that I was already starting to make qualifications- I have argued that the Protocols have been an influence, either consciously, or unconsciously, of much Western conspiracy literature. What Shaw, and many others, share with the Protocols is the tendency to connect events into a grand conspiracy. Understand? (I’ll debate Iraq soon.)

Wobbles,

I was still discussing anti-Semitism in the previous post because debunking Myers argument required it. So, do we have a fear of world government/ UN conspiracy theorist? I would love for you to expand.

Shaw,

Further analysis of the language you use in your article shows just how influential the Protocols have been on conspiracy literature.

{"We shall surround our government with a whole world of economists. That is the reason why economic sciences form the principal subject of the teaching given to the Jews. Around us again will be a whole constellation of bankers, industrialists, capitalists and- the main thing millionaires,} {because in substance everything will be settled by the question of figures.”} (p42)

Compared with:

{financiers' cream filling joins the segments: governments, intelligence, industry, defence} - {because economic and budgetary matters penetrate and subvert every seen and unseen aspect of public and private life}

This is but one example of a proposed strategy from the Protocols appearing as a given in your article, with the logic behind such strategy presented as evidence. This is an example of how very little has changed in 100 years. The people whom you quote- what had been reading?

One concession I will make is to stop baiting you with the anti-Semitism tag. It must be said that you and your supporters focus on this slur has helped to avoid some of my other arguments. I have been deliberately provocative because I have been trying to coax out of you some sort of alternative program. (KAEP’s proposal looks good.)

cont..

Are you a Marxist? Are you in favour of world government, an all powerful UN? You appear to despise nationalism. (I fear neither.) Why should nationalism in itself be considered a bad thing? All I seem to get is the usual Marxist paranoia about bankers, interspersed with little gems about cream, Santa and lifeboats. (Honestly I've never seen so many metaphors in the place of real evidence in my life, except for that book written by James Redfield.)

Regarding the rich, you lost me very early on in the piece:
“The financiers with vast wealth and power have a thirst that can never be quenched - an appetite that can never be sated - because their rapaciousness only serves to make them the most insecure people on Earth.”
This statement is presented as a given, with no evidence to back it up. There seems to be an assumption that the little line about “money is the root of all evil” applies universally, and no other evidence is necessary. But consider what some of the richest men on the planet have done with their hard-earned wealth; The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation dedicates billions to enhancing health care, and reducing extreme poverty, and that’s just for starters. Warren Buffet has donated $30, 000, 000, 000 worth of shares (see BrainDrain, I too can use lots of zeros to make a big number look even bigger,) to the foundation. Consider that while the US government gave a small proportion of aid per capita during the Asian Tsunami Disaster, American’s raised enormous sums through private donations. (Misdirection of this funding is another matter.) I’m sure some will argue that this is just a cynical attempt at tax avoidance, but it actually reflects an ideological position which is wary of big government and has a focus on personal responsibility.
Carl, good to see my constant baiting is finally paying off. More on 9/11 in the next issue. Will the rest disown him because he believes in such a silly conspiracy theory? Or will they storm to his defence?

Dozer,

I won’t waste too much time harping about this if you don’t want me too, because I suspect that no matter what information I present to you, you will write it off as conspiracy rubbish.

I’m not sure how many will rush to my defence, but the scepticism of 9/11 is probably more widespread than you realise, 1 poll in the US suggested that around 30% of Americans believe the administration had foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately allowed it to happen. Many people believe that it was fully orchestrated by the CIA, DoD and usual suspects, I am somewhere in the middle. And we are not fringe loonies either, please look.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Consider this at least, the head of the Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence Agency was reported as wiring $100,000 to Mohammed Atta on September 10. At the time, he was staying in Washington, and had meetings with Colin Powell, Richard Armitage and George Tenet. Also, a former Pakistani General reported to the media that he was informed military action was planned in Afghanistan in October.

Couple this with the fact 9/11 was the biggest failure of the US air force the country has ever seen. Despite the fact flight 77 had been off course for 43 minutes, and was heading towards the capital, an area you would think would have extremely well protected airspace. Oh, and one of the most heavily protected buildings in the world lost all its surveillance tapes, except the one where you can’t see anything.

I will continue in my next post, if you wish to listen

Posted today on NYTimes: http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/science/spaceandthecosmos/index.html?page=recent&anchor=1

The notion that the US as the world's last superpower can play coyboys and indians with the rest of the free world through iniquitous hostile takeover mechanisms schemed by CEOs earning 10-100 times more than even US elected officials is a throwback to a neo-Feudal based FASCISM. This makes those who want to preserve this insane DUPLICITY of democracy with strings attached and disrespect for the notion that 'all men are equal under God' responsible for the impetus that drives terrorism in the world today.
Thankfully they are a minority of rogue businesspeople and simple minded rabble rousing groupies.

These Rabble Rousers wishing to quell the oppostion to this new fascism by simple mindedly labelling them communists must realise that they are also labelling Lincoln and FDR communists. No amount of revisionist history and flat out lies on their part will ever erase the great strides made for mankind that are enshrined by these men and others like them in the US constitution. By allowing free speech in the first amendment the US constitution is, by the standards of these S&C forum idiots, a communist manifesto.

When America was willing to take my advice and realise that their wastewater effluents could be responsible for hurricanes they took action. Of this I have incontrovertible proof. It has worked bigtime and saved the US at least $100billion and a whole world of grief this year alone.

Thus America knows that I have its best interests at heart.

So too, when America realises that my advice to stop terrorism is put an end to hostile takeovers in foriegn nations and to clip CEO salaries to within an inch of elected officials' salaries to stop domestic corruption, you can be assured those in power are listening. And when they finally get the courage to act I can assure everyone reading this that terrorist strikes against US citizens will come to an abrupt end in exactly the same way as hurricanes striking the US came to an abrupt end this season.

continue..

Continued..

People not in the loop must understand that America is running out of options in Iraq and Afghanistan and thus is running out of options in the war on terror. The stakes are far too high not to rein in rogue US business aspirations and their global fiscal pollution.

This war on terror is NOT a WWII simple US V THEM scenario where the US had mobility, stealth, mass production capacity, fuel reserves, manpower and technological targetting advantages over their enemies, not to mention the full moral support of 95% of the world's populations.

Recent analyses suggest that almost all of those advantages are evaporting now in the face of this fast becoming perpetual war on terror, mainly due to mistrust and fear caused by US duplicity in its global financial dealings. It may take another hurricane free season in 2007 to give America the confidence to act on my warning, but THE STAKES ARE HIGH enough to give it a try.

If forum idiots think they can change the way the war on terror is developing, with G-bombs, A=Bombs and C-Bombs, then they must ask themselves why Kissinger has been enlisted to hand the problem off to America's enemies, and what on Earth is the diplomatic incentive that he is offering Syria and Iran that they might consider helping America when it is clearly in a pickle of their liking. What is he offering to ensure they will not move the war on terror from Iraq back to New York?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iraq-military-victory-not-possible-kissinger/2006/11/20/1163871308090.html.

Is it possible that a new fiscal-policy day is dawning where the world will no longer doubt its faith in America's good intentionsand cowboys are put into EWCs(Engineered Wildwest Circuses) where they belong?

'dozer
(Dropping the honorific 'Mr'. (you also made a correct half-assumption, I AM male) I first made it to imply respect as I recognise you at least make serious efforts to be informed on issues and read my link. I now recognise that since you chose the abbreviated nick, using it is respect enough)

You made 'concessions' (I do read your posts) but you miss the entire point i was trying to impress upon you and continue to demonise, by association, Chris with the Protocols.

It is an undisputable fact that the protocols are SIGNIFICANTLY based upon the works of Maurice Joly, Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (1864) thirty years before Protocols were published.(one sixth of it word for word).

That the protocols uniquely try to put the source of Evil (and world domination conspiracy) on Jewry is what you are relying upon to damage Shaw's claim when it is 'more true' to claim Joly influenced Shaw's work as he preceded Protocols by a generation and so Shaw must be claiming that Napoleon is the source of world domination, by your 'logic'.

Even that is false, because Joly also 'borrowed' ideas from earlier Authors to produce 'Dialogues' to demonise Napoleon III.

Please, stop using a discredited work of Fiction (Protocols) to try to discredit Shaw's valid personal comments in his argument, or be seen as the negative Anti-Antisemite you seem to be doing your best to prove.

(Can anyone tell me another nation and it's (reverse) diaspora, besides Israel, who creates agencies OPENLY and EXCLUSIVELY to obliterate any and all criticism of it? Or anyone else who has a unique term for the racism directed against it as in 'Anti-semitism'? Was 'anti-apartheid' the universal term, for example, for those who challenged the validity of South Africa's doctrine of white supremacy?)

Do show any fallacies you see in Shaw's argument but I believe the Protocol's are best left buried. Why choose to help raise the dead? If you have a personal crusade with them and feel it strongly enough, write an article expressing your beliefs - like Chris did.