Julian Assange: Proven Zionist, Israeli, Mossad Agent? Prove It.


WIKILEAKS SERIES Information


UPDATE: Thursday, December 16, 2010


Until proof has been supplied that Julian Assange is a Zionist agent, the term "alleged" remains in order. Otherwise, we may as well start believing the Zionists that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program and will definitely do a first strike on Israel and without provocation. Let's be consistent in the level of evidence we expect before anyone destroys anyone else.

Gordon Duff published a post: "GORDON DUFF: BUSTED - WIKILEAKS WORKING FOR ISRAEL : Veterans Today"

He said "BUSTED" based upon this article: "WikiLeaks 'struck a deal with Israel' over diplomatic cables leaks : Indybay"

Now, I had seen the IndyBay article before seeing Gordon's, but I raised Gordon first because he appears to be in the vanguard of those pushing the idea that Julian Assange is a witting Mossad operative on some level. Gordon though says, "BUSTED" here but had already written article saying that it is a foregone conclusion that Julian is Mossad. He had already said BUSTED so to speak. I don't want to come across as overly quibbling here; but he didn't have the evidence then, and he still doesn't really have it yet. He says so himself. Read on.

I'm going to deal with things as they appear right out in the open.

The IndyBay article is authored by someone who did not attach his or her name to the posting. LikiWeaks is not the author's legal name or anything remotely close to it. Writing on such an important topic under a handle is dis-impressive. The author would suffer persecution, or would it be that the author would suffer probing questions and have his or her identity and reputation on the line and attached? There are people who might be persecuted, but I don't sense that that's what's going on here.

The article starts out with the following:

A number of commentators, particularly in Turkey and Russia, have been wondering why the hundreds of thousands of American classified documents leaked by the website last month did not contain anything that may embarrass the Israeli government, like just about every other state referred to in the documents. The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between the WikiLeaks "heart and soul", as Assange humbly described himself once [1], with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were 'removed' before the rest were made public.

This idea is not correct. A Facebook friend of mine, Rolf Lindgren, quickly supplied the following links on a post by Deborah Langdon:

WikiLeaks cable warns of 'widening crime war' in Israel

WikiLeaks: 'Israel overestimating Iranian nuke program'

WikiLeaks: Israel's Netanyahu Supports Land Swaps

WikiLeaks: Israel has 'significant trade ties' with Iraq

WikiLeaks exposé: Israel tried to coordinate Gaza war with Abbas

Not exactly avoiding embarrassing/exposing Israel is Rolf's point. [See below: UPDATE: Thursday, December 16, 2010]

I chimed in there with this:

I'm with Rolf on this one. The government has attacked WikiLeaks and has shut down WikiLeaks' sites. WikiLeaks is very techno-savvy though. It's not completely defenseless, so it pops up again elsewhere. People/hackers supporting WikiLeaks, some 9,000 of them, have been able to clog some sites but aren't yet actually taking them down permanently. Now there are 500+ WikiLeaks mirrors and growing. What is the U.S. supposed to do? It can't surgically take them all down without the full cooperation of the providers. They'll never get that. This is a real war. It will evolve. Then you'll be able to see better what's really going on regarding WikiLeaks even while the whole war will become that much more complicated.

While it's true that those "revelations" don't sink the Israeli ship on their own, they do make Rolf's point that the statement that the cable releases did "not contain anything that may embarrass the Israeli government" is patently false. It is deliberately overstated and therefore misleading.

A less incorrect way to have referred to or questioned the cables in context would have been to say much less was leaked that embarrassed the Israelis relative to leaks concerning the U.S. and/or others and especially the Iranians and Arabs. The reason I phrased it that way, saying "a less incorrect way," is because we are all to understand that the cables that have been released to date are all cables that were available to a Private First Class. They reveal what imperial, boss-pleasing sycophants were writing back and forth in the State Department. Do you remember Richard Clarke explaining how George W. Bush had his people attach a note to a report written by Clarke, which note said, "Wrong answer. Do it again."?

People working for the State Department don't write and submit reports that don't go along with the party line and last long at the State Department.

So, what has been the State Department's position vis-a-vis the Zionists? It has been to appear to the American public once in awhile as trying to take a principled stand, but the actions of the State Department and the Obama administration and administrations before it have shown that caving in is the rule. George H. W. Bush tried not caving in and did so somewhat successfully once. He was a one-term President, even though he was as deep into the deep government as any President has ever been. The Zionists made sure he wasn't re-elected. The Clintons were and are real Zionists, especially Hillary. Bill focused more though on the calculations for how to get into office. George H. W. Bush was never a Zionist. He was not a neocon. His team was not neocon. He lost the Christian-Zionists (there's really no such thing; Christianity is anti-Zionist). His son, George W. Bush, scooped up the Christian-Zionists and rode in on the votes of "conservative Evangelicals" and of course, election fraud and a colluding Supreme Court.

Anyway, I digress. Let me return to the IndyBay article more directly.

There are 8 links provided in that article as footnotes. I visited and read all eight. They do not fully lend themselves to the thesis of the IndyBay article.

The article states: "According to an Arabic investigative journalism website [2], Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a "secret, written and audio/video-recorded agreement," not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests."

The Arabic investigative journalism website page is on Syria Truth (National Council for truth, justice and reconciliation in Syria SYNATIC).

If I'm understanding it correctly, that site says that one of its correspondence in Berlin, Leah Abramowitz, did an email interview with Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who had reportedly been the number two at WikiLeaks. The Syria Truth articles states that Daniel Domscheit-Berg claims that in exchange for money, Julian Assange made a secret agreement with Israelis (Zionists is what you are supposed to conclude or at least suspect) not to disclose any material that would damage Israeli diplomacy or security, specifically that Julian would not release cablegate cables pertaining to the Israeli 2006 War against Lebanon and then Operation Cast Lead against Gaza.

It would be interesting to hear from Julian Assange directly on these allegations. It would also be interesting for some investigative reporter to explain how Domscheit-Berg knew about the contents of this secret agreement with the Zionists, and that if he did, why wasn't that the reason he blasted away at Assange in the online chat. Who else knew of this "secret agreement with the Zionists"? How much money changed hands? Where is the "agreement" now? There is a laundry list of who, what, where, when, why, and how much concerning these allegations.

If they are true, they will be the death knell of Julian Assange's credibility. If they are false, if they cannot be substantiated as characterized, as couched by Syria Truth, if they are simply Daniel Domscheit-Berg's word against Julian Assange's, they constitute, among other things, character assassination, defamation of character, slander, and libel, a conspiracy to deprive Julian of a living, and a conspiracy to destroy the WikiLeaks organization.

There does seem to be circumstantial evidence that might suggest that cables related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanese War have been withheld, but there are other possible explanations. Daniel, according to Syria Truth, says that the War is covered in the cables. However, only the tip of the iceberg of those cables has been released. Can Daniel know that Julian has intentions never to release them? Remember, from a reading of Daniel's complaint, one of Daniel's chief complaints was WikiLeaks not being allowed to spend enough time redacting names to protect informants, etc.

Now here's Daniel suggesting, at least as characterized by IndyBay and Syria Truth (whoever they are), that Julian did a bad thing accepting money from Israelis (we don't know who they are) with the promise not to harm diplomacy or security. How were diplomacy and security defined? Redacting informant names so that those working as collaborators with the Empire against the indigenous fighters against the illegal occupation of their homelands are not killed is certainly also about not overly harming U.S. and/or Israeli diplomacy and/or security on some level.

At this point, one cannot be sure who gave money and exactly what assurances they wanted and obtained. How many people have given WikiLeaks some funds but only after obtaining written assurances that WikiLeaks will not throw all caution to the wind?

Consider this. There are Israelis who are against the IDF being in the occupied territories and were opposed to the war on Lebanon and were opposed to Operation Cast Lead but do not want to jeopardize whatever potential there may be for peace negotiations and diplomacy and don't want security vulnerabilities leaked such that it would then become an easy matter for exploitation and major death and destruction of Israelis.

Frankly, these are the same considerations used by WikiLeaks when Daniel was there when redacting names and some other things from the cables and no doubt that went through Julian's mind as he decided what to release and in what order and when and to whom and with what pre-assurances from those publishers, such as The New York Times.

The agreement with the Israelis, if there was/is one, could be very borderline. It could cross the line more than I would care to, or it could be very acceptable to the vast majority of most of those who had been unwavering WikiLeaks supporters until these articles started appearing, clearly which are designed to, among other things, cast doubt in the minds of supporters.

The IndyBay article then turns to the issue of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange focusing on the Empire (the U.S.). The criticism of Daniel and others is that WikiLeaks stopped dividing its efforts across the spectrum and started going after the big stories. Well, I must say that this could be a result of poor organizational skills on Julian's part but could also be a function of insufficient trustworthy volunteers or a combination of both.

On the other hand, going for the jugular of the Empire is not exactly stupid considering that time was of the essence since the Empire was planning all along on getting at WikiLeaks and Assange. Getting the notoriety associated with the spectacular would gain the free publicity needed to attract more volunteers as well. Look at the numbers of people who have jumped on the bandwagon in one form or another since the Empire has been striking back. People are coming out of the woodwork to conduct counter strikes, people with no direct association with WikiLeaks. Surely, that's not been in the interest of Zionist-Israel.

Prioritizing and delegating are art forms. Just because Assange and Domscheit-Berg disagree, are we to conclude that Julian is Mossad? That sort of jumping to conclusions is highly misleading. I don't want the Zionists bombing Iran based upon a pack of wild speculations drummed up for ulterior motives. I insist upon hard evidence before saying that any exists. Even then, I'm interested in peace making.

I insist upon huge preponderance of evidence where totally hard evidence is not forthcoming. Some of the arguments I've seen for concluding that Julian is Mossad are incredible stretches that verge upon the psychotic. Although, I understand how that snowball gathers as it rolls down the hill.

Here's Jeff Prager posting on Monday, December 6, 2010 at 9:35pm on Facebook: (I'm not saying Jeff is psychotic, but I don't know that he isn't sometimes.)

8. Puhleeze, these guys either aren't too smart or they're playing games because: The contact number on Wikileaks.org has a D.C. area code and is a Verizon cell phone number registered in Adelphi, Maryland. Intellus.com, a Web tracking service, connected the number to a 'V.A. Reston.' (give me a f___ing [my redaction] break!) Twenty miles from Adelphi is Reston, VA., home to iDefense Labs, whose web site says it is a "comprehensive provider of security intelligence to governments." The Washington, DC telephone number is also on the same exchange as the newly created "Iraq Study Group" (2005) and the Afghanistan Embassy Of Washington. The Iraq Study Group was designed by the Public Relations Firm hired by the US government to promote the Iraq War to us in the media.

That's number 8 of 14. I don't say that Jeff provides no food for thought in any of the 14 points he raised, but this is not evidence. The D.C. area code apply to how many entities? How many entities are in Reston, VA? How many entities share the same telephone exchange? Besides, why wouldn't WikiLeaks want to be making a statement that it has infiltrated the Empire?

Everything I've seen thus far that is anti-WikiLeaks and anti-Julian Assange can be taken other ways just as easily. Raising questions is one thing. Chiseling conclusions in granite when there are outstanding questions is not a good idea. Reserving judgment is by far the wiser approach. Note that Jeff qualified at the beginning of the paragraph but that the whole tenor of the paragraph is that WikiLeaks is CIA or Mossad or both or something like it on the side of the Empire or at least Greater Israel in the making.

Look, everyone who doesn't agree that 9/11 was an inside job on some level is not CIA. Many are simply not sufficiently informed of the details. The same applies to anti-Zionism. Many people haven't been informed of the vast ethnic-cleansing.

How many people have never read or heard someone such as Ilan Pappe, the revisionist Israeli historian who is widely renowned in anti-Zionist circles? He's censored. Can you blame people who have never been exposed? I think they can be faulted for a lack of interest in deep politics, but there's also something to be said for youth. There was a time when I was not exposed. There are tons of children coming up who are not being exposed even while millions are. We are working on it. I think WikiLeaks helps in that regard. I think Julian Assange would agree, even if he's ignorant or duped or hypnotized about, 9/11 and building 7 and such.

It has taken a long time for the 9/11 Truth Movement to arrive at the subtle and refined position of simply asking people to consider what the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have to say about Building 7 while the Movement's members don't offer up conspiracy theories that go deep.

It's why Geraldo Rivera finally got off his high horse, at least somewhat off it.

No doubt, Julian is like many leftists (not that he's a leftists, per se; I say he isn't) who hate Iran not because it's a threat to Israel but because Iran's leadership is Muslim and that Islam under them, is against so-called "free love."

That position has had a great deal to do with why so many leftists have sided with the CIA against Iran.

I don't agree with that approach at all. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend or ally. The truth is my friend and ally. The CIA stinks every bit as much as do the Iran leaders, more so in my book.

I'm completely opposed to sharia, but I'm completely opposed to the CIA: a rock and a hard place, as they say; but I'm rising above it because the flesh is not the beginning or the end. The spirit is.

Jeff Prager adds: "Bonus: If it's too good to be true it's a lie." No. There's no such thing as too good. Truth is the good, period.

I'm not faulting Daniel's stated attitude that the sharing should be broader and the "smaller" stories should not collect dust. The balancing act between rushing shoddy stories to publication and getting people killed versus getting everything perfect and avoiding all potential harm in the eyes of even the greatest enemy is a judgment call and situational, a moving target, because no two stories are the same.

I would not have confined release to the major publications Julian chose. However, I don't know that Julian approached only those publications either. He may have asked others, but they might have refused any strings concerning redactions or when to publish (all on the same day).

Choosing to go with those big names though did guarantee huge exposure. It did though sacrifice the smaller, alternative presses out there that do so much of the initial heavy lifting only to see the big fish glide in to take up all the ideas and treat them in their own articles as if they are original with those big fish (well-connected; more so "yes men"; very cliquish).

Continuing with the IndyBay articles:

Following the leak (and even before), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a press conference that Israel had "worked in advance" to limit any damage from leaks, adding that "no classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks." [6] In an interview with the Time magazine around the same time, Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness! [7]

Of course Israel did that. They've been doing that more so than any other regime for decades. Israel has hated to memorialize anything, even internally if it can be avoided. Tony Blair also practiced this style by often holding lengthy meetings where he didn't allow any transcriptions or even vague minute-keeping.

The Israelis have attempted to excel in double meanings or coded language. That's one of the reasons they claim to be able to see coded language everywhere. It verges on the Kabalistic. Look at the Bible Code semi-nonsense. There are some interesting poetic devices in the Bible, but some Bible-Code types start hallucinating; Oh yes, evil spirits.

Look at what Netanyahu bragged about.

"Every Israeli leader has known for years that dispatches are likely to leak out, so we adapted ourselves to the reality of leaks," he said. "That has a bearing on who I invite to meetings. No classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks."

Why try to jump to the conclusion that Julian had anything to do with that? Who's hoping you won't read all the linked articles and why?

Of course the Zionists have known this. There are people who look at them through a microscope to bring them down. I do it. I don't like Zionism. In fact, I hate it with a passion. I don't hate the descendants of Jacob though, as if they are all some sort of evil seed more so than am I. There are lots of people who call themselves Jews in one form or another who earnestly desire the truth.

I've written about scores and scores of them on this blog. I'll be damned, literally, before I become an ethnic bigot against Jews. It's a sin to be an ethnic bigot. No human being knows who is and who is not beyond redemption in this age or the next. That's God's territory. Do you have God's perspective? I'm working on obtaining it, but I know I'm in no position to slaughter people. All I have to do to know that is to look in the mirror and remember why I've repented.

As for the TIME interview, Julian definitely did not praise "Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness!" That's a wild mischaracterization. It's a sweeping jumping to conclusions for effect. Doing that calls into question the thrust of the whole IndyBay article. Read the interview word-for-word, as I did, and see if you find where Julian "praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness!" You won't find it because it's not there.

What he did was speak matter-of-factly about Netanyahu. He agreed with Netanyahu where Netanyahu was/is correct. That is not a blanket endorsement of Netanyahu's policies or practices. Netanyahu was saying to the Arab leaders that they should have been openly saying Iran scares them rather than remaining publicly silent on it. Julian makes the point that by leaking what those Arabs have said, it might help the Iranians to become even more open themselves, thereby defusing the situation.

Iran is a prideful place. It's written all over them. They don't want to bend their knees to the U.S. They say they aren't pursuing nuclear weapons, but they don't want to strip naked and all go through the porno-scanners of nuclear-inspection invasiveness and limitations placed upon them unilaterally.

Work from that place rather than calling for the U.S., along with Israel, to bomb Iran into the Stone Age.

The TIME interview, far from condemning Julian Assange, shows him thinking out loud and revealing him to be someone working at deep thinking.

The fact that the world doesn't know him isn't entirely his fault. He answers the questions posed. Ask better, more revealing questions.

The IndyBay article ends with a bone thrown to Assange:

Finally, it might be worth pointing out that Assange might have done what he is alleged to have done in order protect himself and ensure that the leaked documents are published so as to expose the American hypocrisy, which he is said to be obsessed with "at the expense of more fundamental aims."

Combine Assange's likely anti-sharia leanings with his desire to retain his "insurance.aes256" file and private decryption key. Why would he give away the shop prematurely?

He has an agenda. What's the full extent of it? I know I don't agree with him 100%. Who does? Who agrees with anyone 100%? Who knows and understands anyone else 100%? Who knows and understands himself or herself 100%? The question is one of direction and becoming.

What do we want for the world?

The truth is best, and that's not too good to be true.

I can't judge any agreement Julian Assange may have made with any Israelis without seeing more than what's been supplied to date via Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Can you in good conscience consign Julian to the trash heap based upon such scant info? Even the articles upon which others have condemned Julian have hedged.

If it turns out that Julian doesn't give a damn about the ethnic-cleansing of Palestinians, then I'll lump him in with Avigdor Lieberman and the rest of the fascists. The IndyBay article and the ones to which it links don't get me there. I need solid evidence before that, just as I demand solid evidence from Netanyahu about Iran rather than just a bunch of "we think they might be...."

George W. Bush sold most Americans on war with lies. He knew that U.S. intelligence didn't know where the WMD were because the U.N. Weapons Inspectors couldn't find anything. If the CIA or Mossad had known where any WMD was, the U.N. would have gone there in a rush and the U.S. Pentagon and the NSA would have been recording it all from air and space. No big trucks or trains or whatever would have been able to move a thing from the "known" locations without the U.N. hearing about it and being shown the evidence. It never happened because there were no WMD.

So, do we just accept the word of the perjurers? I don't.

Too bad the wolf actually shows up in the story, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Learn the moral of the story. That's what parables are for.

Anyway, they are crying wolf when there isn't one, again.

Who put out your forest fire, Bebe? Did the Turks help? Maybe you should let them go help in Palestine and Gaza too. Maybe you'd be loved rather than hated.

"Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Just make sure there's a President waiting who won't send in the vultures rather than a helping hand, such as the Turks showed in helping to put out the fire.

If George H. W. Bush hadn't been suffering from a lack of what he termed "the vision thing," Russia could have transitioned without years of severe deprivation. The West sent in banksters — not a friendly or neighborly thing to have done to one opening up.

Now, here's the opening of Gordon Duff's anti-Assange piece:

Reports have come in today, tying Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, directly to Israeli intelligence and "Israel friendly" media outlets. We are told Assange, while at a Geneva meeting, agreed to allow Israel to select or censor all Wikileak output.

Despite the dramatic arrest of Julian Assange for rape, a story long hyped by the media, Assange "the martyr" now appears to be Assange "the Israeli spy." Reports from inside Wikileaks differ greatly from the image presented by the press, an Assange tied to ultra-nationalist Israeli groups, an Assange with an extremist agenda, an Assange who sees himself as a geopolitical player, willing to censor, willing to fabricate and willing to betray.

"...directly to Israeli intelligence" where? The articles linked to by IndyBay, which Gordon Duff uses as his sources, don't say "Israeli intelligence." They don't identify the other parties. Maybe something is lost in the translation. Does Gordon read Arabic? It says, "met with Israeli officials, believed to be intelligence personnel and / or diplomats." That leaves it open where Gordon closes it. Why do that, Gordon? That doesn't help the anti-Zionist cause.

If it comes out that they were definitely Israel intelligence, say it then but not before.

"...believed to be intelligence personnel and / or diplomats" by whom? It could be anyone. If they are only "believed to be," then the parties making the allegations don't really know, now do they.

"Israeli bodies semi-formal funded Osanj [Assange], and that diplomats Israelis gathered in Geneva and concluded deal with him not to publish any documents that would harm the interests of the Jewish state." [Google translation] How does Daniel know that? Did Julian tell him?

Gordon also states, "We are told Assange, while at a Geneva meeting, agreed to allow Israel to select or censor all Wikileak output." Where did he get that? It's not in the linked articles.

He goes on to say:

Reports from inside Wikileaks differ greatly from the image presented by the press, an Assange tied to ultra-nationalist Israeli groups, an Assange with an extremist agenda, an Assange who sees himself as a geopolitical player, willing to censor, willing to fabricate and willing to betray.

"...an Assange tied to ultra-nationalist Israeli groups"? There just is nothing in those linked articles that supports this. It could be posed as a question, but to make such an emphatic declaration is wildly dangerous/reckless.

Man oh man, the cablegate cables released so far don't show a smoking gun for 9/11. It they were to, I should think the people who perpetrated it are the dumbest clucks to come down the pike. They aren't brilliant on all levels, I'll grant that; but that stupid? Hey, let's let every Private First Class (being groomed for intelligence work) see who did 9/11 (Top Secret). Oh, Gordon, the cablegate cables are not really "Top Secret."

How can you know that any cables have magically disappeared, Gordon, just because they haven't been released? How do you know that Bradley Manning or whomever had documentation of every negotiation?

Gordon goes on to say about Julian, "His article cites Murdoch as his inspiration. A day later, we learn that Assange was working, not just for Israeli ultranationalist Murdoch but for the Israel government as well."

What Julian really said is this:

IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."

His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.

Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.

Hello, Gordon. Julian is calling Rupert back to better roots. It doesn't show that Julian is "working...for Israeli ultranationalist Murdoch." You make it sound as if he's on the payroll. You don't have evidence of that. He's working indirectly for Murdoch only provided Rupert sees some light and changes his style quite a bit.

What Julian wants is Murdoch to stand up against the leadership of Australia that is decidedly Zionist. Haven't you heard Julia Gillard railing against all things anti-Zionist? She's hyper. She's not supporting Julian even slightly.

Check out the following video. If you can't watch the beginning (I recommend you watch the whole thing), go to 2:32 of the video to see and hear Julia Gillard, Julian Assange's enemy, in action:

I'm not going to say that there are not other ways of taking some of the events that day, but I will say that I am a 9/11 Truther. The official-government version is hogwash.

So, what was Rupert going to do with a request for an op-ed by Assange, say no? Julian's huge news, and doing that would have left Murdoch with Assange having huge ammunition that FOX and the rest of the Murdochian Empire is exactly what it has been being: Reactionary and Zionist, etc.

It is interesting Julian says he's not anti-war. Okay, Julian. You're anti "illegal" wars. You're anti-so-called "unjust" wars. There. Is that better?

I am anti-war through-and-through — no qualifiers. Any collateral damage is unacceptable to me, and no one, including Julian Assange can guarantee me a perfect record on condemnation and the ultimate, final worldly punishment that is death of the flesh. It's better left to the high power who is God because taking one innocent flesh life to save anyone else is premeditated murder even if you've never heard of the one sacrificed. It's the lesson of the crucifixion. They murdered Jesus even though he sacrificed his fleshly life to save you (who hears him) from the liars.

Gordon then writes:

AN ISRAELI PSY-OP?

All three, Gingrich, Assange and Murdoch have several things in common. All are avid Zionists, supporters of Israel's expansion. Murdoch, Australian born of a Jewish mother, is an Israeli citizen and the powerful guiding force behind the ultranationalist Likudist Party, the hardliners pushing to dispossess Palestine's non-Jewish population, Israel's anti-American political wing.

Assange, we know nothing of him other than the rumors and myths, now all brought into serious question.

Gingrich's move to "the darkside" traces back to the beginnings of his political career.

What planet is this? "All three, Gingrich, Assange and Murdoch have several things in common. All are avid Zionists, supporters of Israel's expansion." Then suddenly, "Assange, we know nothing of him other than the rumors and myths, now all brought into serious question." I thought you just said "Assange ... [is one of the ] avid Zionists, supporters of Israel's expansion."

As Julian would say to you, which one am I? I can't be both. Where are your facts, man?

By the way, how does Veterans Today Network rate being a Google News site? That strikes me as odd. Becoming a Google News site requires a great deal of something. When I look at the various blogs out there that are not Google News sites and then I compare those against Veterans Today Network, I wonder. I wonder out loud right here. I'm not saying that Gordon Duff never writes anything of value. I've liked plenty of things I've read on his site and that he's written, but a Google News site? Well, I'd like to see Google open up to everybody. Google's tiered approach stinks of greed. Some sites rate being "News" others first-tier Blogs and then all the rest are found only in "Blog Search." Some of the best are in "Blog Search," but you have to bookmark it or go through two levels above to get to them via Google News. Hey Gordon, Jews run Google. You must be a favorite of theirs.

So, WikiLeaks has 251,287 cablegate cables. It has released some 20,000 (I keep hearing 2,000) to date. Of the 2 thousand, 77 mention Israel. Okay, what does that prove concerning Julian Assange being Mossad? It proves absolutely nothing.

How many cables of the 251,287 deal with Israel? Did Julian search on the term? Has he actually read all 251,287?

Look, if there are cables dealing with Israel, Julian needs to release those even though most will be pro-Israel. Some will have some semi-hard (albeit party-line) assessments if the other cables are any indication. Still, the State Department is an "ally" of Israel over the Arab states by reason of rich (some superrich) Zionists in the U.S. That's how all the cables must be read.

Update Thursday, December 16, 2010:

I'm addressing a friend here and making it public since some of the questions will likely be shared by others

As to whether the few cables to which I linked are damaging, they are, albeit not in the way or degree you'd like (same here). You and I both want to see leaks that will hit the masses right between the eyes.

You specifically asked, "How is it damaging to Netanyahu that he is willing to exchange (return, is what folks should be saying) land for peace?" Well, when he balks in public in Israel, you point it out to him and see the reaction you get. He'll fumble about at best. His constituents include many "settlers" who don't want such a deal. They want it all.

I grant you that this sort of thing is subtle, too subtle so far for the masses (typical pro-FOX viewers). I believe that's your point — that there just isn't anything to cause a great uproar. However, the things in the cables affect things in ways unintended by Netanyahu.

Also bear in mind that as a psychological ploy, Benjamin Netanyahu claims there has been no damage. He is a liar. Don't fall for it. If he had sent anyone to bribe Julian, he wouldn't be feeding into the anti-Assange conspiracy theories that Assange is Mossad.

It has not done Israel any good at all in my view that the Arab puppets "secretly" (known well to many in the alternative media but not pro-FOX viewers) have been clamoring to attack Iran. It has muddied the waters for those who want to attack Iran. Try looking at it from the perspective of other than those already in favor of attacking. Look at it as one who doesn't think that the only game is wooing the clucks who buy all the neocon's sound bites.

Do you really believe we are now closer to attacking Iran with the support of general American public opinion? I don't. I believe what has happened is that more and more people are seeing reasons they should not trust what they are hearing from the neocons and the Arabs calling for attacking Iran. Many more people are learning why certain nominal Sunnis want to attack the Shia of Iran.

"How is it damaging that he asked Abbas or Egypt to take control of Gaza?" It plays right into the hands of anti-Zionist statements that Fatah has been highly selfish and duplicitous. It also points out that Mubarak is a dictator.

Pure anti-Zionism isn't the only issue. The whole world of politics is interconnected. Again though, I know you want a really glaring cable. I understand that. The absence of such though does not prove that Julian Assange took a bribe from fascist Zionists.

Remember, my goal is not to spin this. My clearly stated goal is to get answers to the written questions: Open Interrogatories and Requests for Documentation to Daniel Domscheit-Berg of OpenLeaks Concerning Accusations of Zionist-Bribery Against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. If Julian Assange is guilty, so be it.

As for "It ... [coming] across as if Israel doesn't want Gaza," that's not how I view it. Palestinians have been a headache for the U.S. puppets. Jordan could have had the West Bank. They didn't want it. Of course, Israel wants Fatah back on top in Gaza over Hamas. That doesn't say that ultimately the Zionists don't want it all. The Zionists have a very long-term plan.

Abbas too is a calculator. He miscalculated in the short run when he took U.S. and Israeli money and equipment to fight Hamas. He doesn't though want Hamas in charge of Palestine. In the long run then, from his view, was it a mistake?

"...the world will find sympathy for Israel." It isn't happening. The Neocon media tries spinning it that way, but there is only a bigger backlash.

I don't agree with Netanyahu's statement that Israel hasn't been harmed. It just hasn't been clobbered in State Department cables the way Israel was over the Mavi Marmara. It just hasn't been the focus as much.

Let me wrap up by repeating what I've been writing about this all along. People writing State Department cables hold to the party line. The idea that the Zionists sat around saying, "Hey, people writing State Department cables hold to the party line, so let's leak those because it will just be another round of our getting out our message," is just giving them way too much credit on one hand while on the other hand showing them unable to see what all the pro-WikiLeaks-anti-Zionists will say to counter.

The "Collateral Murder" video didn't help the cause of attacking Iran. It harmed it and hugely so. The "War Logs" and other leaks about the torture and the lying about even the deflated number of non-combatant deaths didn't help the cause of attacking Iran.

You have to look at the whole body of work by Julian Assange, not just the Cablegate cables released to date.

If Julian plans to go after a major U.S. bank or two, possibly in his words, bring it or them down, that would be a huge black eye for the banksters. At the risk of offending Abe Foxman (ha), there are many neocons/Zionists in American banking, and the largest American banks are global. Consider it.

Is the Zionist plan to gut the U.S. thereby leaving the Zionists standing alone? What kind of Zionist planning would that be? Without the U.S. as a superpower before Israel is huge and domineering in the world, the Zionists would be crushed, with or without nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu and those who surround him are stupid but not that kind of stupid. It is in the Zionists' selfish interest that the U.S. be, and remain for a long time to come, the top and frankly only superpower. WikiLeaks has not helped them in that at all.

What Julian has done though is to give the American people an opportunity to be better informed voters. In so many words, that's been his stated plan.

Thank you to everyone who has linked to this post:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/151783

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=194377

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=152766&sid=8be9d5881aeb205c3146053a2c6840da

http://ns1.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4811146

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Julian+Assange:+Proven+Zionist,+Israeli,+Mossad+Agent?+Prove+It

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in WikiLeaks. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Charles Krafft

      Thanks for your diligence in attempting to find out the sources and truth behind what appears to be disinformation about Julian Assange. However, I'm still suspicious of the Soros connections. One of Assange's lawyers and his aristocratic host in Britain are Soros Foundation activists/allies.

      No one is looking into Assange's history (non-history?) with the Anne Hamilton-Byrne cult and her stolen brood of plantinum blone haired children. Likewise, no one seems to find it curious that Daniel Domscheit-Berg also goes by the name "Daniel Schmitt," that he's Jewish and as such may be a duel passport

      holder.

      Assange's dismissal of the 911 truth movement is odd, especially since he appears to be holding the world media in the palms of his hand.

      John Young of Cryptome.com (a pioneer leak site) registered the Wikileaks domain name for them and has publically stated the business model leads him to suspect Wikileaks is a psyops.

      • Thank you, Charles, for seeing that I'm interested in the truth no matter what.

        Yes, I have seen all of those concerns you've raised.

        Soros is a complex and confused person. If you watched him in the earliest Congressional hearings on the economic collapse, you heard him being very honest, relative to nearly all other billionaires, concerning the widespread cheating that went on. However, he's written a handbook for market manipulators -- all part of the "game."

        I don't like finance capitalism at all. It brings out the worst in people.

        Glenn Beck's coverage of Soros though has been way too shallow to suit me. Beck's always way too shallow to suit me. I consider him a tool for those who are dumbed down, those who are way too ready to buy one side of the story without ever even having heard the other.

        I can't speak to the Anne Hamilton-Byrne issue because I don't know enough about the connections to shed any new light on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hamilton-Byrne It is worth asking Julian about. Of course, for those who are quick to jump, just because someone has some connection doesn't render that one a Mossad agent.

        This article raised a number of questions that might interest you: http://blogs.alternet.org/penucquem/2010/10/11/ju... It appears the author there, Ronald West, confused another "The Family" (real and dangerous) with the Santiniketan Park Association.

        The whole area of mind control is very real and very serious. I've looked into it in some detail. People really have a difficult time realizing the depth of evil that governments have in their bowels. The evil that the Plutocrats use via subservient people is something that must and will be rubbed out.

        Daniel Domscheit-Berg needs to be interviewed in-depth about all of this. So far, he's been tossed nothing but hugs and kisses -- not even a slow pitched softball.

        Journalism is such a profit center. That's the problem with it. It's a societal issue. Evil works very hard to suppress the truth because there's so much money in evil (albeit it fleeting and corrupting, even damning).

        As for the 9/11 aspect, I'm going to deal with that a bit more in detail and in just a few minutes in a new post.

        On John Young, I wasn't impressed. It just seems like more piling on. I don't know his heart though. His intentions could be honorable. I'd have to hear much more from him, much deeper thinking, before passing judgment. Even then, I wouldn't condemn or seek to punish. That's not my territory. My kingdom is not there.

        There's a great deal on the line here. If Julian is innocent and the powers that be manage to shut him down "legally," no one will be safe handling leaked materials.

        The Obama administration and others are trying to draw a line between WikiLeaks and the "press" as referred to in the First Amendment. Joe Lieberman and others want to draw the line at who did or didn't (retroactive law; unconstitutional) redact the names of illegal-war collaborators.

        Let's all keep our eye on the ball.

        Julian Assange released "Collateral Murder." Gordon Duff and the rest of them siding with Gordon's position haven't come close to that. "Collateral Murder" screams out that the U.S. and Israel better not attack Iran based upon a pack of deliberate lies the way they did concerning Iraq -- a bunch of spinning and twisting of the truth.

        If they do, they can go to Hell. Jesus rhetorically asks, "How can they escape damnation?"

    • Charles Krafft

      John Young's website Cryptome.com is at least a decade old. Very few in the blogosphere, let alone the MSM, knew of it or visited it before the Wikileaks stories broke. I doubt that you did.

      Young persevered in relative obscurity and has only recently found himself in the limelight. He's an architect not a crusader. He has been interviewed most recently by Alex Jones, but he was writing about his misapprehensions about Wikileaks at Cruptome.com almost immediately after he helped them register the domain some years ago.

      I assume you've looked those posts over. They are anything

      but "more piling on" because

      the were made before the world had ever heard of Wikileaks.

      Cass Sundstein, the Cyber Security Czar, was one of the first in govt to weigh in on Wikileaks in a Washington Post article in which he suggested a plan to infiltrate the dissident and "hacktivist" communities with agents provocateurs. Some bloggers are suggesting now that Sundstein was laying the groundwork for what has followed.

      The fact that Sibil Edmonds never got any traction with her whistleblowing and the manner in which Ron Paul's candidacy was ridiculed and ignored are indicative of the media's power of selectivity. Their love affair with Assange is reminiscent of Obama hysteria. It just seems like too much of a good thing to me.

      This is just a gut feeling. I have no proof of anything untoward about Assange. He talks a good line, but then so did Obama. Like George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton golfing together now I can visualize Obama and Julian someday doing a duet of" Ebony and Ivory" together on a cruise ship in Sea of Galilee.

    • Actually, I knew about Cryptome long before WikiLeaks and had been there and read documents.

      I've seen Young changing (at least as the media is projecting) his position about WikiLeaks just over the last few weeks. It might be that he's been startled by the level and type of attacks. It remains to be seen.

      There's just so much out there. It's easy not to be able to be informed in detail in a number of areas. I don't know anyone who can cover it all. Information overload is a serious issue.

      When I said "more piling on," I was referring to his position not too long ago. I was not referring to his earliest criticisms, some of which I was aware of at the time.

      There's no doubt that the mainstream media is controlled. I think the best candidates in both major parties have been highly marginalized. Ron Paul seems to be doing much better now than his counter-parts in the Democratic Party though.

      As for the media's love affair, as you call it, with Assange, I don't see it that way.

      Assange is much more interesting than Obama ever was.

      What is it about him that you don't like?

      I don't like his sexual promiscuity at all, but many people would simply think I'm antiquated at best.

      I'm opposed to his views about just wars.

      His economic views don't jibe with mine.

      However, I'm focused upon the idea of getting information out to the people so they can see how manipulated they are and have been for decades and decades, in fact, all their lives no matter how old.

      Just because I don't agree with Assange about 9/11 is no reason to shut him down before others. I hope someone leaks 9/11 to him. I think he'd publish it. I don't have any reason to think otherwise. He believes in global warming but published "Climategate" stuff.

      Obama fits with George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, but I think Assange would very quickly find them quite dull and boring.

      My feeling is that because he's not said he's a libertarian, he's assumed by many of them to be with "them" (the globalist fascists if that's the right grouping the libertarians hate most).

      I see him as a loner even when he's in a crowd.

      I wonder if he's even ever had a close friend, but that's not the level on which I wish to focus. I want leaks because I want the greedy, violent worldly Empire gone, every head of it.

    • Charles Krafft

      What is it about him that you don't like?

      The metrosexual hair. What color is hair naturally? If he's was trying not to draw attention to himself the platinum page boy seems really counter productive.

      I fear even if he turns out to be the lone crusader for

      transparency that you admire the blowback will be severe and the free flow of information on the Internet will be even more compromised than it is by Zionist bias at You Tube and Wikipedia, for example.

      A "Talmudic ace" heading up the FCC doesn't bode well for continued freedom and low cost access to cyberspace.

      Do you really think Assange is going to get the MSM media to speak truth to power? I don't see it.

      If they get their way, which they have been for as long as I've been alive, the Internet will go the way of am/fm radio and cable TV. I used to be an engineer at a listener supported free forum fm radio station in Seattle. The fm dial was

      like the Internet in those days, anybody could have a show. Now we've got a nation of college educated people who have made "Car Talk" the most popular program in NPR.

      Assange is, indeed, more articulate than Obama. He's like a 24/7 TED lecture. But when has govt ever listened to the logic of a visionary and lengthened our leash?

      Do you foresee a permanent state of mirrored leakage available to the citizenry to put checks and balances on the administrative security state America has become? I can't see this happening with all of us ferociously competing to out perform each other in self-enslavement.

      • "The metrosexual hair." Ha, I have to admit, that made me laugh out loud. I should add that to my list too. I don't know. His mother says he turn prematurely grey/white over a custody battle. Some people turn grey early regardless of trauma. I don't go in for tattoos or body piercings or hair coloring or body shaving, etc. I never have. I shaved once based upon the line that I'll feel much cooler and cleaner in the Arizona summer. Note the once. That ought to tell you what I thought of the result. It was a major waste all the way around. All that stuff is way too contrived for me. What's a person to do though? If I were to reject everyone who does any of those things, if I were to throw them all into the Lake of Fire, it would be directly against the Golden Rule. I have faith in Jesus's truth-telling that calling down the wrath is not the path.

        I fear even if he turns out to be the lone crusader for transparency that you admire the blowback will be severe and the free flow of information on the Internet will be even more compromised than it is by Zionist bias at You Tube and Wikipedia

        Well, if that's true, he'd be damned either way and so would I. Do we shut up so they don't shut us up? I go with Jesus who said not to hide the light. If I speak out, and they come and take me and do to me what they did to him all the while trying to get me to renounce him, I die in the flesh and go where, into the waiting arms of Satan? I believe in God.

        Look, I don't count Julian Assange as the Messiah. He's a man about to enter into middle age who is not omniscient or infallible but who is doing more than his detractors. Can his efforts have a huge impact on the MSM? It already has and will continue to do so. I'm not going to take that away from him. I believe in giving credit where it's due. He run circles around the talking heads on FOX for instance. What have they exposed even remotely as objectively while still being a muckraker?

        Okay, so there's Julian Assange able to go on and on about the Founding Fathers, the Revolution, the First Amendment, due process, etc., etc. If doing that can have no impact, why do anything? Why the overwhelming pessimism? So he's not exactly the style you'd pick for the vanguard of the war on free speech and freedom of the press. Maybe you would have found fault with aspects of Christ. His closest disciples dissed him from time to time.

        I see the Plutocrats infighting over what is going to work. Some of them are concerned with killing the goose. They always have had an element that knows that doing that is a form of suicide. They aren't all wittingly suicidal.

        No government in history has ever been able to avoid fracturing up. This one is no different. Failure is inherent because selfishness is fractured from the start. Enlightenment is coming together. It's conflating in the Holy Spirit of truth.

        People don't know what that means. They don't understand what it means that the kingdom is within. They don't understand what it means that Jesus brought the keys and left them here such that what we do here binds and loosens and we receive the results here and now and hereafter.

        I'm no materialist. I'm no Marxist. The Spirit is real. It exists. I've experienced it directly and profoundly. I don't worry what people say about that. I listen to them speak from a position of complete ignorance about it. To them, things cannot exist that they have not experienced. That's stupid. I didn't believe in that even before I experienced things. I did ask how can one know what is not apparent with the physical senses as experienced as a little child being told there are not spirits. I found out.

        Julian Assange is still an enigma. People don't ask him the right questions, and he answers only from what he can -- what he's been given.

        Anyway, I'm no spring chicken anymore. I remember the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated. I remember right where I was when I found out. I know the Plutocrats assassinated him. Their flunkies were everywhere then as they are now.

        We're rushing toward the singularity, but it isn't going to be what they think. Their tech is not the spirit.

    • Charles Krafft

      Look, I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I'm really rather confused. All I know is that this is a good one-stop-shopping site for Julian Assange scuttlebutt and you're to be commended for pursuing the truth.

      Today this blogger is pointing out some some interesting coincidences.

      http://maidhcocathail.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/wi...

      Your faith is your own business.

      I don't share it, but I do find that committed Christians, especially the Orthodox, can sometimes provide me with information relevant to the history and context of the ongoing culture war in the West I'm following.

      I think this country has entered a communitarian phase in which Halachic law (Talmudism) is superceeding the essentially Christian system of British case law the country was founded on. I think globalism. like Marxism, is Judaism in a hurry.

      And I don't think Judaism is altruistic.

      I think we are undergoing a replay of the Russian revolution only ours has been bloodless so far. It's been a struggle for control of the mind and I'm pessimistic because I don't see any recent victories for my side, the white cultural Christians who built and were managing the country when I was growing up in it.

    • Charles,

      I realize you didn't stop in because you're a Christian. My faith is my business. You are right, but this blog is all about that. Engaging in this whole debate (the Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, Mossad debate) is part and parcel of my faith. So, it is fine that you visit and leave comments and questions, etc. Do though understand that there is no way that I can or will divorce my faith from my posts or comments.

      I'm not offended. I just want to be clear.

      I write on the "Culture Wars" too. I've been banned and heavily censored for my religious views on account of it. I decided to remove the "most frequent commentator" info from what visitors and readers see here because they were dominated by that issue. I recently changed the commenting rules here too on account of it. I had at one point a stern rebuke for those who came here trolling over the Culture Wars.

      "I think this country has entered a communitarian phase in which Halachic law (Talmudism) is superceeding the essentially Christian system of British case law the country was founded on. I think globalism. like Marxism, is Judaism in a hurry.

      And I don't think Judaism is altruistic."

      There's a great deal to what you've said there. Have you read or heard the thoroughly reviled Michael A. Hoffman II on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+hoffman+ii&aq=2" rel="nofollow"&gt http://;http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=micha..." target="_blank">;http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=micha... He is roundly despised by the Talmudists. They call him anti-Semitic and a holocaust denier. I don't see him as anti-Jew where Jew there is ethnic descendants of Judah. He does question the statistics of the holocaust as such stats are provided by the likes of Simon Wiesenthal, who is a very questionable figure to say the least.

      However, the communitarian is not what I see in Talmudism except in a very distorted, circuitous, disingenuous way. They are elitists. I am not. I am for all ships rising with the tide. They are for drowning others.

      Your side: "the white cultural Christians"

      You do realize I'm sure that that's loaded. Just mentioning "white" in that context is still like saying "Jew" was just a few years ago. If you speak of it, it is nearly incumbent upon you to further qualify (that is if you don't mean anything along the lines of the KKK).

      I am not a White Supremacist. I do not though say that all things white are evil, which is the flipside, as you no doubt are aware.

      Let me also explain that I'm dead set against coercive socialism, especially of the kind that lends itself to cults of personality (i.e. sole dictatorships).

      At the same time, laissez-faire capitalism is a non-starter. The "markets" do not self-regulate. Left to the philosophy of "let do," the rich always allow their greed to turn to violence to turn to imperial monarchy (monopoly). It's no less ripe for abuse than coercive socialism.

      Giving and sharing is better than the selfishness inherent in capitalism, but the giving and sharing really needs to be a free choice. The light is when people freely choose it over selfishness.

      As for what is in store, we have a long way to go yet: Pockets of light, pockets of darkness, pockets of light again....

      Who finally wins? I do, and that's not arrogant. I join God. I don't usurp.

      Peace,

      Tom Usher

    • Charles Krafft

      The Emergence of Jewish Law in Postmodern Legal Theory

      http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/Gruss/stone.h...

      This is just one paper. IRCC Harvard has two heavily endowed Jewish Studies chairs in their law school. Imagine the number of papers like this one churned out annually in the Ivy League. That's where our laws and lawyers are manufactured.

      A samizdat translation of Solzenitzyn's history of the Jews in the Soviet Union, Two Hundred Years Together, is being presented a chapter at a time at The Occidental Observer. It was his last book and never translated into English thanks to the

      influence of Jewish academics who want to keep the lid on the role of Jews in history of the Russian revolution.

      I'm familiar with Michael Hoffman. Are you familiar with

      Niki Raapana? She has done years of research and had a fully documented site to support it that's disappeared. The Anti Communitarian League was a grassroots research organization which first sprouted in 2001 in Seattle. It remains a research organization devoted to studying International and Regional Trade law which is the law used by the WTO, CAFTA, the European Union, the African Union, the emerging Middle Eastern Union, and the U.N. It is the system of law(s) over all local and national laws that requires modification of the U.S. Constitution and all state constitutions. Like Solzenhitzyn's revisionist history of Bolshevism, this Zionist inspired integration process (Communitarianism) has been virtually hidden from Americans.
      http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com/

      White racial awareness isn't "Supremacist." That's a semantic

      booby trap. Greg Bodecker's excellent "A Conversation About Race" explains why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC0AuhogixQ

      None of this has much to do with Julian Assange unless he's knowingly, or unknowingly, furthering the Jewish

      Supremacist (Zionist) agenda.

      • Charles,

        Of course, I've heard "Jewish" mentioned more and more in terms of US law. The same can be said of sharia, both here and in the UK. There is also Christian Canon Law, which is recognized by secular law. I mean to say that the secular law defers (albeit it less and less) to Canon Law in matters "internal" to the applicable churches.

        What with the pedophile-priest debacle and how horribly inadequately the Roman Catholic Pope and his underlings handled and are still handling the whole affair, those RC's have been their own worst enemy on the subject. Couple that with the secular law changing to such a degree that it is now causing religious adoption agencies and such to have to shut down in the US and in the UK, and you have a really strange ebbing and flowing situation. You have religious law "invading" while you have religious law being marginalized. So, what's going on?

        Well, if you run in certain circles, you will read many examples where the secular is out to redefine the religions by fooling half-hearted adherents and others into believing other than the actual tenets of the religions' founders.

        Moses isn't what the scriptures say about him. Jesus isn't what the scriptures say about him -- that he said about himself and what he believed and stood for/stands for. Mohammed isn't the Qur'an. These men were and are what the secularists twist them into being via lies and deceptions.

        An interesting video to briefly make my point was done by a young man (Baptist?) regarding Islam and how the ABC Network just completely lied to its audience, I say for the effect I've touched upon above. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rAxgfwiL3M

        I'm not a Biblical Literalist, as I more than suspect the author of the video is; but I agree completely with his assertions concerning the Qur'an and ABC's flat out lies about Islam -- designed to weaken Christianity in America and actually designed to weaken Islam globally and in America too (not that I'm for leaving Islam alone; I'm not).

        Moving on, I don't put much stock in elevating Talmudic over the Hellenistic or vise versa. The "debates" in the Mishnah and Gemara are not completely dissimilar to the debates in Hellenistic philosophies. There is no clear line of separation. To cite a debate in any for legal purposes ought simply to be to engender greater consideration of that which might otherwise be overlooked. If it might have a bearing, let it in. Once in, if it doesn't stand up, let it fall away from the conclusion.

        However, in doing that, it is incumbent for the sake of justice to keep in mind the underlying agendas of the various philosophies and theologies, etc.

        Exactly what is Talmudism versus Christianity? There are "Torah Christians," but they are not "free" of the ritualistic strictures, which freedom came upon the fulfillment by Jesus on the Cross. I don't subscribed to that brand of Christianity, obviously. However, I do find great merit in Hoffman's observations concerning the Pharisees, who were far from Torah Jews.

        The Pharisees are as Jesus described them. They are elitists. The communitarianism of which you write is not really foundational to their system. They are about as communitarian for the laypeople as was the Roman Catholic Church, which prevented the common people from freely choosing to live as Jesus and his closest disciples, sharing all things -- one purse, etc.

        The Temple priests under both the Torah and the Pharisees are the elites by reason of bloodline. That is not Christian.

        This though is not the focus of the "Harvard" link.

        The most important thing to understand about Talmudism is that it is whatever they happen to want at the moment. They "voted" in homosexuality regardless of Moses. Meanwhile, they claim secret, oral, traditional knowledge handed down from that same Moses they utterly reject. In other words, they are stupid or they count on the stupidity of others. I believe it's both.

        I trust my "cutting to the chase" doesn't offend you, Charles.

        I'm not going to critique the author, Suzanne Last Stone, here. Let me say though that the statement "platonic metaphysical tradition, incorporated into Christianity, and then into the Enlightenment" is nonsense. The only "Christianity" that incorporates the Platonic is Gnostic. In addition, the Old Testament is loaded with the "metaphysical." Finally though, The Enlightenment is hostile to metaphysics. I won't go on about it here. Of course I realize you did not link to the piece by way of supporting it but rather as an example of why we ought to be more alarmed by the development.

        I am not alarmed for the reason that it simply gives me the opportunity to rebuke the nonsense in the plain sight of the people (if they care to search for opposing views). The problem though arises with the secretive Talmudists.

        There are many of them who insist that the "debate" not be held in public. Hence, they can make the "law" in the dark (which is where they are) and present something else to the general public. However, there is no difference there with Plato, who yearned to be his own "Philosopher King" with sole sovereignty and whose word is the one and only law, all designed to dupe the masses who aren't intelligent enough, or rather allowed to, even read that that is what Plato had in mind for them.

        The elites have always laughed at the people.

        The French Revolution is a mixed-bag example where it's difficult to takes sides. The people got carried away, or they didn't cut off enough heads? The "nobility" certainly cut off plenty of heads before it. So, who was right or wrong? That question resides on a lower level than I care to exist. I say off with no one's head. It's a hard sell, as they say; but Jesus said, "Few there be that find it" (the path to ultimate truth).

        As for Solzhenitsyn, yes, I was aware of that. You are right. He was censored by the Pharisees who really have control of Zionism now. Herzl (a "self-hating Jew") was dreaming.

        You might be interested in Morris here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcHmz9eBIw4

        I don't agree 100% with Morris, but he does raise many, as he calls them, taboo subjects that do need openly to be discussed.

        Look, I "like" Morris in the mundane sense of the term. I like him as much as I can, given my Christian beliefs he obviously does not share. He's a Jew. I like other people in the same way who are Black, Brown, Red, Yellow or whatever "color." I don't care about "White" in the way, say, David Duke does.

        He wants to take pride in his White European ancestry. That's his choice. I find a great deal lacking in that White Europeanism, just as I find a great deal lacking in Black, Brown, Red, Yellow actual history and prehistory. There's nothing in a supposed inherent amalgamation of any large "racial" group that gives rise for me to point to one to say there's the "right" way of being.

        I'm White, and I don't mind it. I know I'm a product of my ancestors, but there's more too it than traditionally meets the eye. Humanity is a family, and there is zero reason not to act like it. However, when I say act like a family, I have a particular concept in mind that is what Jesus had in mind. He did not have the "modern" immediate bloodline family in mind. He rather had the spiritline over the bloodline in mind. I agree with him 100%.

        What I want you to understand is that my view is anathema to the Pharisees. They didn't invent my view. Jesus didn't invent my view in the common understanding of invent either. My view existed from the beginning. Jesus came and re-revealed it. Jesus was from the beginning. I won't belabor it. Remember though that you raised the subject of religious law, and it cannot be discussed properly or thoroughly in the absence of "revelatory" word meanings.

        "Niki Raapana" didn't ring a bell, so likely I'd not been exposed to her before (although I've been known to remember later after mulling things over).

        The idea that "International and Regional Trade law" equates to "Communitarianism" doesn't jibe with my understanding of either. Communitarianism is anti-elitist. International and regional trade law is for the benefit of the elites. Communitarianism is collectivist and cooperative. Trade laws are being geared toward monopoly by the Plutocrats.

        I've seen this sort of redefining terms before. It's call pejoration. My first reaction is that this theory as you've posed it is an attempt at stealth to under cut exactly what Jesus preached and lived.

        Describe for me how it can rightly be viewed elsewise.

        Moving on again, I don't know anyone who is White who isn't aware of it. I'm not concerned that being right will give rise to the perception that Whites will see their own demise because I know that the spiritline will prevail.

        The White Christian culture you miss or see disappearing is not the Christianity of Jesus that I know.

        As for equating people's interests in European history and those better traditions that survived it, I have no problem with that whatsoever.

        What I won't do is allow my view to be abused to become a slippery slope for the Pharisees. I will dispose of their garbage while I do not slip into White "exceptionalism" thinking.

        You wrapped up with, "None of this has much to do with Julian Assange unless he's knowingly, or unknowingly, furthering the Jewish Supremacist (Zionist) agenda."

        The "Assange" issue is not able to be divorced from whatever is going on.

        I would suspect that Julian would find the intellectual challenge stimulating and would seek to leak concerning it.

        Of course, we have a great deal of well-documented history showing the racism of Zionism. Leaks would simply further substantiate the obvious.

        Herzl was definitely a racist. His diary reeks. The secular European Jews who colonized Palestine turned out to be extremely racist and ethnically bigoted and also extreme cultural supremacists vis-a-vis their fellow Jews who were and are religious. The religious though have been gaining power steadily.

        As I said though, the secularists work hard to contort the religious tenets to make them palatable and to twist the religious into thinking other than the real tenets.

    • Charles Krafft

      Equivalency of influence between Sharia and Talmudic law doesn't wash yet because Muslims are the parvenues and haven't been "dialoguing" as long as Jews who are now over represented in the managerial professions and the judiciary in America, Britain and elsewhere in Europe.

      Communitarianism is the brainchild of Amatai Etzioni (aka Warner Falk) , a Zionist "socio-economist" at George Washington University as well as some sort of an international diplomat without portfolio.

      The ACL (Anti-Communitarian League ) website is gone. It was

      a great repository of research launched by an ex-Seattleite whose initially ignored alarm was dismissed as a conspiracy theory until she started posting policy papers to prove it and

      attracted a growing audience.

      Here's her latest definition of Communitarianism

      along with an entry from her blog (Living Outside the Dialevtic) that serves as a FAQ.

      I wish I could direct you to the story of how a new language she couldn't get a grip on used by facilitators at her Roosevelt Neighborhood Council planning sessions led her down a rabbit hole right here in the Northwest. If you're not cognizant of Communitarianism as something more than an general idea it would behoove you to familiarize yourself with it's very real and very slippery global agenda.

      Communitarianism is the global "community" legal system. It strikes a balance between fascism, eugenics, communism, socialism, capitalism, environmentalism, warmongering, democracy, and totalitarian dictatorships with mysticism, Biblical, Talmudic and Sharia moral platforms.

      MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2010

      Niki Raapana talks to herself about communitarianism

      George's show had technical difficulties and they never called back after they lost me twice. I hope they're able to fix things by the time Michael Shaw speaks. I'm sure we'll reschedule.

      Last night I started thinking about all the questions people ask me about communitarianism. I then decided to stimulate my archived brain storage with a mock interview with myself. We're gong to post this at the newly revised and empty ACL too, but here it is for now:

      notes for interview with george 10/24/10

      Q. What is communitarianism?

      A. Communitarianism is a Dictatorship of the Community. Unlike communism, which established a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, communitarianism is the more advanced stage of human social evolution.

      Q. Is this just a harder to pronounce version of communism?

      A. No. The emerging communitarian global system has many similarities to both capitalism and communism. Most of its homeland judicial structure, land and resource use policies and social welfare programs were tested and perfected by totalitarian communists in Russia, South America, Europe and Israel. The communitarian's financial and economic system was tested in the western imperialist and capitalist nations as well as in many of the former colonial states and developing nations classified as Third World.

      Communism branched far out from its 19th century roots. Committed members evolved into Fabian Socialists, National Socialists, National Communists, Democrats, Christians, Republicans, Catholics, Fusionists, Evangelicals, Zionists, Pagans, Masons, LaRouchies and Libertarians, who all eventually adopted the common ideology of free market socialism. Imperial British American capitalists and Global Free Traders merged with mercenaries, academics, mobsters, environmental scientists and natural resource experts who all just happen to also promote free market socialism, known in academia and the higher courts as communitarianism.

      The basic 1848 communist theory was that capitalism and communism were two necessary, conflicting, temporary stages in human social development. The final happy stage would arrive when the whole world descended into chaos and all sides to every conflict finally synthesized under one perfect ideology. Although Marx called the communism stage a dictatorship of the proletariat, he never said what the final stage would be called. It's our thesis that the final stage in the Hegelian-Marxist dialectic is called communitarianism.

      Q. Can you break this down into more bite size pieces?

      A. We can try. Communitarianism can be broken down into four main sub sections.

      1. philosophy

      2. religion

      3. political ideology

      4. law

      1. Philosophically, communitarianism is the final synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. Communitarians insist that humanity cannot advance to its final evolutionary stage of perfection without the help of their expert planning, guidance and administrators, who are obviously much more enlightened than the rest of us common born sinners.

      2. The religious basis for communitarianism rests in the oldest dialectic still in existence, the Talmud. Dr. Amitai Etzioni of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University in DC is the American guru. He's a former Israeli commando who studied the Talmud and the Kaballa, and according to him, this makes him the international "expert" on how to build more livable communities.

      In his 30 plus published books and hundreds of articles, Etzioni laid out standard Hegelian justifications for military and community development interventions. His solution to staged Hegelian clashes between nations is to end all nations. Etzioni assures us that individual rights and liberties can only continue to exist if they are balanced against the common good. The least discussed fact about the new legal system is that all former laws must be made agreeable to the superior unwritten Talmud. Zionist led Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of Islamic law in formerly Christian nations are part of a perfectly crafted Hegelian ploy to ensure a brutal, endless conflict continues to grow between the two primary religious barriers to communitarian global governance.

      3.. Politically, it's the Third Way, Radical Middle theory that allows its followers to justify fascist warmongering on the corporate right and encourage peace actions of the antiwar left, at the same time. Hegel taught his followers to play both sides if necessary, to flip-flop back and forth, because long drawn out staged wars and senseless bloody conflicts are essential to human advancement.

      Both Bushes and both Clintons were described many times in the American press as communitarians; Senator Barack Obama was hailed by the Democrats as the Third Way Wonder Boy in 2004.

      4. Communitarian Law is the legal foundation for the emerging world justice system. It's the global standard of norms for rebuilding the world under a new model of governance with jurisdiction over all national state citizens. Internal structural changes necessary to adopting a global bureaucracy were outlined by the United Nations in Local Agenda 21. LA21 supports every UN Resolution of Rights adopted since its inception. This document expands the authority of global institutions and their global decrees into every private home and private business on the planet.

      The foundation for America's conditioning to submit to communitarian law was slipped into the U.S. under the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, at about the same time the United Nations was formed. Many of the 21st century UN LA21 land and resource use regulations are enforced by local American agencies operating under the authority of this sixty four year old act.

      Q. What would you define as a communitarian crime?

      A. Communitarian crimes are violations of community regulations. When Americans are charged with communitarian crimes, the procedure for due process is not the same as what happens when Americans are charged with actually hurting someone or damaging someone's property. Communitarian crimes do not require measurable property damages.

      Communitarian criminals are people who took a risk, traded home farm products, sold or donated used children's clothing, harvested natural herbal remedies, made too much noise, had an argument, smoked or farted in public, got fat, made somebody feel bad, had a dirty kitchen or dirty kids, looked scary, talked to themselves, sat down on the sidewalk, didn't care enough about keeping the neighborhood clean, nice or safe, or refused to donate their private land to help save the trees, birds, fishes or animals.

      The system is designed so that the agency that writes and adopts the communitarian law is also the agency that sits in judgment of the accused. The burden of proof is not on the state. There is no appeals process for communitarian crimes; only guilty people are charged with committing communitarian infractions of revised and updated ordinances.

      Q. What is Local Agenda 21?

      A. LA21 itself is a lengthy, boring document (that few will ever take the time to read). It describes the goals and ultimate purpose of equitably micromanaging all global land, people and natural resources. LA21 suggests structural changes and specific legislation to be introduced in every nation. LA21 defined a vaguely benevolent system of Community Law that overrules all contrary national and state constitutional law. The UN's official 1987 definition of Sustainable Development is the communitarianized, spiritual version of Marx's atheistic "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

      It's a real disadvantage to our nation that very few Americans know (or care) that every federal agency in the United States changed their mission statements to promote sustainability immediately after LA21 was adopted. Our leaders never once bothered to tell us that LA21 is based in communitarian law or that UN Sustainable Development principles violates our precise legal contracts that say our government has to defend our private property, private business, private farms, private medicine, private worship, and private lives from all invaders, foreign or domestic.

      Q. Communitarian experts say a global government would be impossible to build. Do the communitarians really have the capacity to do what they swear they can never do?

      A. Almost. The communitarian global governance model shifts public duties formerly performed by answerable public servants to unaccountable private-public partnerships and community oriented development police, and it adds new duties to their job descriptions every day. The terms for Communitarian global governance have been quietly adopted for over a century in legislation, private meetings and agreements between national leaders and international community developers. All the regions and regional trade unions have already been established. Every member state in the European Union has already adapted their national legal systems and formally adopted communitarian supremacy of law. In the United States and the United Kingdom, communitarian supremacy has been introduced quietly into the national systems under the guise of Free Trade Agreements (like the early EU), environmental and consumer protections, volunteerism, service training, healthy neighborhoods, neighborhood watch, neighborhood planning, Transit Oriented and ABCD Development, 2020 Visions, Rebuilding Community, The Wars on Terror, Drugs, Smoking and Obesity, and many more ways... all designed with one Common Purpose in mind.

      Q. How do we learn to recognize communitarianism in our own community?

      A. At the local level, Communitarian governance bypasses the normal municipal and county government apparatus. Every agency is merged with the others. it's called Interdepartmental Cross Training. There are no more separations of powers. Elected officials often hire city administrators and employ outside advisers and groups like ICLEI to draft communitarian plans and revised ordinances and regulations. New citizen responsibilities and requirements are swiftly adopted without debate by elected council members who all gain financially from the development games. (The list of Seattle Community Developers who earned high level posts in the Obama administration is long.) The day-to-day redevelopment of each individual community is administered by lower-level, un-elected and self-appointed councils, boards, committees, international partners, advisers and community development teams, many of whom don't have the first clue what they're working to implement.

      Even where we live, in a tiny rural Alaskan community of 400 residents, our local Community League is communitarian now. For years the league had two small jobs. They took care of the community well and hosted our tiny, once yearly, one day fair. Under the patient guidance of retired teachers, mental health providers and federal parks employees they've spiritually evolved into a Board of Directors with seven standing committees. Now they're asking everyone here to tell them their skills so we can all volunteer to help them with all the new grant funded community economic development.

      Q. How far has it penetrated in the U.S.?

      A. The core foundation for the U.S. communitarian system is already established. Community Development is a standard agency in every state. The term Sustainable Development expanded from the UN into the mainstream private business sector in less than a decade. Every inch of the USA has an adopted plan and vision for the future, and the goal of every single one of them is to ensure sustainability.

      In the cities, Communitarians have already conditioned Americans into accepting aspects of life in controlled collectives. Borrowing from the most successful collectives in recent history, Communitarians utilize and expand on programs, policies and ideas perfected by the British Fabians, Imperialists, Russian Soviets, Chinese Communists, Nazis, Fascists, and Israeli commandos. This is why you hear so many Americans saying "it's socialism!" or "it's communism!" or "it's fascism!" or "it's capitalism!"; many people recognize these ideologies when they see them manifesting. But it's only once people start seeing more than one ideology going on at the same time that communitarianism begins to make total sense.

      Q. Is there an easy way people can identify if a communitarian regulation is in violation of U.S. law?

      A. Yes. In the U.S., any law not based in property is unconstitutional. All legitimate U.S. law must adhere to constitutional principles, and the U.S. Constitution is based entirely in property ownership. All legitimate criminal activities must produce some level of property damages. Civil suits must also request compensation for damages to property. Communitarian crimes are actions by people that interfere with the community developers' plans for rebuilding a safer, more livable community. Anything designed to improve "quality of life" is a communitarian program.

      Communitarian Law is supposed to bring the entire world peace, security, harmony and happiness. Preventing bad people from doing bad things is the communitarians enlightened, moral imperative. Like high tech soothsayers, they steal our most private information and use it to predict our future, then they use their special trained community cops to stop bad people and bad things from happening.

      Q. Should I buy more guns? (I hear this one a lot!)

      A. Under the communitarian system, individual rights and liberties are not always balanced against the common good in the same violent way it happened to the people of China, the Ukraine, Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan. The more morally evolved and quasi-spiritual communitarians are a lot nicer when they balance individual and state rights against the rights of the community in more easily persuaded countries.

      Q.. Is there an easy way to spot communitarian activity?

      A. Yes. Any move by a small group of concerned citizens to change community behaviors is suspect. Their activities often begin with regulating private business and updating land use regulations. If there are a lot of new agencies promoting sustainable development and the creation of small "expert" councils with sub-committees (like the Alaska Food Policy Council) we can soon expect drastic, unnecessary changes to our personal freedoms. Some actions, like the new xray scanners in American airports, are right in our face and can't be ignored. Others are more subtle and behind the scenes; we have to look a little closer to identify them.

      Right now they're very busy teaching us our new roles as global citizens. Internationally acclaimed communitarian legal advisers teach people across the world how to teach their neighbors to become better stewards of their local environments.

      To a communitarian, we become better citizens and stewards when we willingly give up any constitutional claims to unalienable rights. Community Rights are more moral than outdated Individual Protections under the people's law. Communitarian gods and goddesses are the ones who balance our freedom to travel, move goods, offer services, produce food and products or otherwise live naturally off our privately and publicly owned lands.

      Q. What's the final result of communitarianism?

      A. The communitarian system changes formerly free people from being controllers over their own lives and resources to becoming the controlled resources themselves.

      • Communitarianism is the brainchild of Amatai Etzioni (aka Warner Falk) , a Zionist "socio-economist" at George Washington University as well as some sort of an international diplomat without portfolio.

        Wrong. Amatai Etzioni has given his view of communitarianism. The term is just a way of avoiding the term "communism" because Marx, and more so Stalin and Mao, polluted the waters. Jesus is a communist, not a Marxist.

        Amatai's base is Maslow. It's not original. It's not original with Maslow. If Maslow were to have applied for a patent, it would have been rejected for being too obvious.

        Amatai is one of my Facebook friends. I've reposted some of his work on this blog. Go figure....

        One thing I've noticed about the "Jewish" academic/intellectual world is that they network each other's work even though they may disagree and thereby even inadvertently in many cases, elevate the mediocre to on high (not a comment on Amatai's intellectual abilities). It stems from a combination of things. Historically, Jews had often kept to their own. Also, they were in money since they weren't allowed in the manual trades.

        I wish I could direct you to the story of how a new language she couldn't get a grip on used by facilitators at her Roosevelt Neighborhood Council planning sessions led her down a rabbit hole right here in the Northwest. If you're not cognizant of Communitarianism as something more than an general idea it would behoove you to familiarize yourself with it's very real and very slippery global agenda.

        Oh, no, I'm well aware of all the word gaming going on. Semantical Theology is my focus.

        By the way, "Niki Raapana" is coming back to me. It's much more common for me to forget what I've rejected than it is to forget what I've accepted. It's Biblical.

        Communitarianism is the global "community" legal system. It strikes a balance between fascism, eugenics, communism, socialism, capitalism, environmentalism, warmongering, democracy, and totalitarian dictatorships with mysticism, Biblical, Talmudic and Sharia moral platforms.

        Look, people are arguing over the word. You own the word, you own everything. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

        Charles, you are aware that I'm a communist, right?

        A. No. The emerging communitarian global system has many similarities to both capitalism and communism. Most of its homeland judicial structure, land and resource use policies and social welfare programs were tested and perfected by totalitarian communists in Russia, South America, Europe and Israel. The communitarian's financial and economic system was tested in the western imperialist and capitalist nations as well as in many of the former colonial states and developing nations classified as Third World.

        You see here that she doesn't define communism correctly. She's using Marx. Marx is not the inventor of "communism."

        She's giving her view of things. Okay. You though are treating her view as Gospel or nearly so. You appear to be her disciple, or are you just bouncing this off me to see if there are holes in it?

        It's not my intention to offend you, but I'm not impressed.

        She's read. That's apparent. She's thought about these things. I'm not going to take that away from her, but I'm past this level -- long ago.

        She's just looking at the world and seeing the hodge-podge that it is and calling it an understood worldly "Movement" of sorts.

        To be blunt, market socialism is a joke. I'm not saying she doesn't think so. I'm saying it won't work and that it is not communitarianism, despite what one sociologist has said.

        The basic 1848 communist theory was that capitalism and communism were two necessary, conflicting, temporary stages in human social development. The final happy stage would arrive when the whole world descended into chaos and all sides to every conflict finally synthesized under one perfect ideology. Although Marx called the communism stage a dictatorship of the proletariat, he never said what the final stage would be called. It's our thesis that the final stage in the Hegelian-Marxist dialectic is called communitarianism.

        Totally Wrong. He called the final stage communism but couldn't see what that would look like. The dictatorship of the industrial workers was still the socialist phase. She needs to do her homework.

        2. The religious basis for communitarianism rests in the oldest dialectic still in existence, the Talmud.

        Wrong. The oldest dialectic is the prophecy from the beginning. Try the historicism of the Old Testament for one.

        Etzioni thinks he has a vision. He's not unique in that. The "unwritten Talmud" is, again, a joke. There are people who take it seriously, but I assure you, it's a ruse. It's now a trick of the mind. There was no secret oral teaching handed down by Moses. Jesus destroyed the Pharisees. It only remains for everyone to wake up -- Resurrection. That's Hegel, by the way

        Zionist led Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of Islamic law in formerly Christian nations are part of a perfectly crafted Hegelian ploy to ensure a brutal, endless conflict continues to grow between the two primary religious barriers to communitarian global governance.

        Christianity is communism. Perhaps I need to have a discussion with Niki Raapana, especially if she has much of a following. I don't say she wouldn't open her eyes. God alone knows whose name is in the Book of Life.

        3.. Politically, it's the Third Way, Radical Middle theory that allows its followers to justify fascist warmongering on the corporate right and encourage peace actions of the antiwar left, at the same time.

        It's people flailing in the dark and being insane and talking non-stop. That's the "Movement." That's the kingdom of the proverbial Satan.

        Hegel taught his followers to play both sides if necessary, to flip-flop back and forth, because long drawn out staged wars and senseless bloody conflicts are essential to human advancement.

        I have never seen anyone posit this version of Hegel's mind and intentions, etc.

        Hegel was a professing Christian. He was first and foremost a theologian. He was not a philosopher, per se. He believed in Jesus as the Christ.

        I would require a great deal more of Niki before adopting this view of Hegel. I have not though read everything he wrote.

        Both Bushes and both Clintons were described many times in the American press as communitarians; Senator Barack Obama was hailed by the Democrats as the Third Way Wonder Boy in 2004.

        People have been playing the center and both sides off on each other since the dawn of history -- I dare say since long before the "written" word.

        4. Communitarian Law is the legal foundation for the emerging world justice system. It's the global standard of norms for rebuilding the world under a new model of governance with jurisdiction over all national state citizens. Internal structural changes necessary to adopting a global bureaucracy were outlined by the United Nations in Local Agenda 21. LA21 supports every UN Resolution of Rights adopted since its inception. This document expands the authority of global institutions and their global decrees into every private home and private business on the planet.

        Oh, there's no doubt that the Plutocrats are being themselves. What's new? The problem is selfishness. Do away with that, and we all have it made. God and Jesus differentiated while remaining one soul -- not working at cross purposes. There's your key.

        There will be a one-world government. Surely you realize that. It's not whether but what kind. The Millennium is the New World Order. It's just not the Plutocrats'. Their attempt comes first. They fail. That's Hegel. It doesn't even end there.

        Anyway, Hegel was much, much smarter than Marx. Marx can't hold a candle to Hegel. People will come to see that. Waking up is also waking up to that Marx was a second-rate thinker at best.

        Here's LA21

        Section III

        Strengthening the Role of Major Groups

        Chapter 28

        Local Authorities' Initiatives in Support of Agenda 21

        PROGRAMME AREA

        Basis for action

        28.1. Because so many of the problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities, the participation and cooperation of local authorities will be a determining factor in fulfilling its objectives. Local authorities construct, operate and maintain economic, social and environmental infrastructure, oversee planning processes, establish local environmental policies and regulations, and assist in implementing national and subnational environmental policies. As the level of governance closest to the people, they play a vital role in educating, mobilizing and responding to the public to promote sustainable development.

        Objectives

        28.2. The following objectives are proposed for this programme area:

        (a) By 1996, most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their populations and achieved a consensus on "a local Agenda 21" for the community;

        (b) By 1993, the international community should have initiated a consultative process aimed at increasing cooperation between local authorities;

        (c) By 1994, representatives of associations of cities and other local authorities should have increased levels of cooperation and coordination with the goal of enhancing the exchange of information and experience among local authorities;

        (d) All local authorities in each country should be encouraged to implement and monitor programmes which aim at ensuring that women and youth are represented in decision-making, planning and implementation processes.

        Activities

        28.3. Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations and private enterprises and adopt "a local Agenda 21". Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies. The process of consultation would increase household awareness of sustainable development issues. Local authority programmes, policies, laws and regulations to achieve Agenda 21 objectives would be assessed and modified, based on local programmes adopted. Strategies could also be used in supporting proposals for local, national, regional and international funding.

        28.4. Partnerships should be fostered among relevant organs and organizations such as UNDP, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) and UNEP, the World Bank, regional banks, the International Union of Local Authorities, the World Association of the Major Metropolises, Summit of Great Cities of the World, the United Towns Organization and other relevant partners, with a view to mobilizing increased international support for local authority programmes. An important goal would be to support, extend and improve existing institutions working in the field of local authority capacity-building and local environment management. For this purpose:

        (a) Habitat and other relevant organs and organizations of the United Nations system are called upon to strengthen services in collecting information on strategies of local authorities, in particular for those that need international support;

        (b) Periodic consultations involving both international partners and developing countries could review strategies and consider how such international support could best be mobilized. Such a sectoral consultation would complement concurrent country-focused consultations, such as those taking place in consultative groups and round tables.

        28.5. Representatives of associations of local authorities are encouraged to establish processes to increase the exchange of information, experience and mutual technical assistance among local authorities.

        Means of implementation

        A) Financing and cost evaluation

        28.6. It is recommended that all parties reassess funding needs in this area. The Conference secretariat has estimated the average total annual cost (1993-2000) for strengthening international secretariat services for implementing the activities in this chapter to be about $1 million on grant or concessional terms. These are indicative and order-of-magnitude estimates only and have not been reviewed by Governments.

        B) Human resource development and capacity-building

        28.7. This programme should facilitate the capacity-building and training activities already contained in other chapters of Agenda 21.

        http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_2...

        Scary, this is not! The Christian Commons would do very much the same anyway. We'd leave out the mammon, and everything would be by consensus of the movement within by the Holy Spirit consistent with the Gospel teachings of Jesus Christ: Peace, giving and sharing all, and right sexual conduct (there is no real peace without right sexual conduct, but I say it anyway).

        Communitarian criminals are people who took a risk, traded home farm products, sold or donated used children's clothing, harvested natural herbal remedies, made too much noise, had an argument, smoked or farted in public, got fat, made somebody feel bad, had a dirty kitchen or dirty kids, looked scary, talked to themselves, sat down on the sidewalk, didn't care enough about keeping the neighborhood clean, nice or safe, or refused to donate their private land to help save the trees, birds, fishes or animals.

        So, Niki is what, a libertarian capitalist? It's a pathetic ideology, and second-hand smoke is obnoxious.

        Also, most people have gotten fat by virtue of empty calories dished out by rabid corporate capitalists. The socialists are not the ones. Many socialists blow the whistle on the greedy, sociopathic capitalists. Sure, capitalism for the poor and socialism (bailouts) for the rich. It was original with me even though someone else may have said it before I did.

        Caveat emptor/laissez-faire is unadulterated crap. It's straight from the bowels of Hell. The Austrian School of Economics is the shill school. I gag at all the "Christians" running around lauding the anti-Christs at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Mises hated Jesus. Mises was a Mammon worshipper. So many Jews are. Just look at who has brought so much of the evil that is usury into the world.

        There will be no usury in the "Millennium." That's not anti-Jew. Jesus was a Jew. He is the biggest enemy mammon has ever had, and the banksters know it.

        To Hell with finance capitalism. Marx stole that from Jesus too.

        Niki sounds like a hedonist. How much libertinism is underlying this counter-communism?

        Where are the complaints concerning sexual license? It's interesting that it's not discussed. Is she a "free love" proponent -- everything goes and it's none of my business if the neighbor is diddling his children? Watch out for the White Throne wrath. Man sits upon it.

        Do you know who that is? Do you know who the father of the son of Man is? Who wins? How interested are you in the real truth?

        The system is designed so that the agency that writes and adopts the communitarian law is also the agency that sits in judgment of the accused. The burden of proof is not on the state. There is no appeals process for communitarian crimes; only guilty people are charged with committing communitarian infractions of revised and updated ordinances.

        This is Niki's idea of the logical extension of her vision of communism. However, the word of Jesus is the law. The Talmud is not. Stand up, Niki.

        A. LA21 itself is a lengthy, boring document (that few will ever take the time to read). It describes the goals and ultimate purpose of equitably micromanaging all global land, people and natural resources. LA21 suggests structural changes and specific legislation to be introduced in every nation. LA21 defined a vaguely benevolent system of Community Law that overrules all contrary national and state constitutional law. The UN's official 1987 definition of Sustainable Development is the communitarianized, spiritual version of Marx's atheistic "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

        It's a plan. Plans get revised. We are on a globe. We do have to share the very air, unless the capitalists "buy" it all up, which they want to do. Ten cents please to take your next breath. Next stop Hell.

        ...Marx's atheistic "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

        Why don't you just hand Marx all the credit and strengthen your enemy?

        Did you look around this blog to see where you are? I think you have. What don't you understand? "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." (Acts 2:44-45 KJV)

        Where do you think Marx got it? He turned Hegel on his head, but what about Jesus and the other Christians? He just stole it outright, and its people like Niki who help in that. Try taking back the words. I am.

        Has she not read the New Testament? Have you not read it? She speaks from ignorance. It's blasphemous to call Acts 2:44-45 atheistic. It shows her profound misdirection.

        It's a real disadvantage to our nation that very few Americans know (or care) that every federal agency in the United States changed their mission statements to promote sustainability immediately after LA21 was adopted. Our leaders never once bothered to tell us that LA21 is based in communitarian law or that UN Sustainable Development principles violates our precise legal contracts that say our government has to defend our private property, private business, private farms, private medicine, private worship, and private lives from all invaders, foreign or domestic.

        These things are still being worked out. There's nothing wrong with having Sustainable Development principles. In fact, not having them would be dumber than dumb. If unsustainable behavior is a threat to everyone and necessarily to Niki and you as individuals, how can the governments of humanity defend anyone while allowing others to destroy the very nature that underpins existence in the flesh on this plane?

        Private, private, private but no commons is moronic.

        I will read the rest, but I don't see any reason to continue raising redundant points.

        I am not anti-governmental regulation. The Kingdom of God is within, and it's regulatory. Some people find it too strict, but I love it.

        Regulatory law, agency law, has been around a long, long time. It's nothing new. People argue over it. It changes.

        I am an environmentalist. It's a sacred obligation. I would like to be able to be even better at it by virtue of the government of society at-large. That said, everyone who has read this blog for long, realizes that I'm opposed to coercion.

        The anti-environmentalists will though go to Hell.

        "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." (Revelation 11:18)

        "...destroy them which destroy the earth." That means destroy, among others, the anti-environmentalist. That's freedom. Real freedom isn't what Niki's talking about. Real freedom is freedom from evil, and anti-environmentalism is sheer evil.

        What's your position on Mountaintop Removal? Do King Coal's private property rights trump Mother Earth and the whole to humanity? Do you know that "Mother Earth" is Christian? Air-headed self-styled Christian capitalists don't know it. They think the concept is foreign to Jesus. The Earth is a gift from God. Treat it right, or go to Hell!

        The concept of "Creation Care" is right.

        Continuing: The Bill of Rights is not based on property. The idea that it is, is really lame. I open my mouth and speak freely. It is not reduced to my mouth being my "property right." When I pray to God, I am not exercising my property rights. I am not a materialist. The spirit is over matter.

        I am a communitarian, but I do not say, "we become better citizens and stewards when we willingly give up any constitutional claims to unalienable rights." She's wrong.

        Niki thinks she was free because she "controlled" her life and resources? That's Satanism. Did you know that? She's using "control" in the Satanic way. You better think twice.

    • Charles Krafft

      Go visit Niki's blog and take this up with her. She's not a condescending wiseacre like Gordon Duff. I haven't studied Hagel, Marx or the New Testiment so I can't really debate you. Nor do i want to defend Niki. I'm not her disciple. I'm simply interested in where her research has led her. I like it that she was local and has helped me understand what happened the city I grew up in. That's all.

      I've taken my share of LSD and have always wondered if believers like yourself see colors and hear music when you accept Christ, or do you just reach a dialectical dead end and decide to just start punctuating every sentence with scripture?

      "I don't want to offend you," but
      Bob Dylan once said when the chandelier in his bedroom started to shake he knew it was time to go ask Pat Boone to baptize him in the swimming pool.

      One thing I'm pretty sure I am not is a communist. I was a Retro-Avant Gardist until I discovered that was Slovenian socialist nostalgia. So, I crossed the border at Trieste so to speak and became a National Futurist. Had I been Ezra Pound in exile in Italy with Allen Ginsberg at my heels like a hell hound I would have swatted him like a fly instead of debasing myself with a mea culpa, as gleefully reported by Pound's biographers.

      Be a communist. I'm the last person to harp on Hell because you're one.

    • Okay, Charles, I'm glad you spoke plainly regarding your position vis-a-vis Niki.

      "...dialectical dead end...." No, no dead end. You really need to do yourself the favor of reading the Gospels and pondering the deeper meanings. Frankly, you might get it.

      I can't speak for others as to what they experience in accepting Christ. I could relate stories I've heard, but that's not exactly what your wondering. You have to understand that as many different people there are in the world who "accept" Christ, that's how many different versions of "Christianity" there are. No two people are identical.

      If you do read Hegel, you might find that God and Jesus are different and one at the same time. Of course, Hegel got that from reading the Christian Bible -- same here.

      LSD and such are often considered a short cut. It's difficult to wrap ones mind around an LSD trip. I do not believe that they are short cuts. You took it. You don't believe. LSD is what one brings to it, isn't it?

      Bob Dylan was a supernatural thinker from his early childhood. He could make the connections more easily on account of that. Pat Boone is another matter. His version of Christianity is Red, White, and Blue, and I don't mean as used on this site.

      "National Futurist" sounds Nazi-sh to me with good reason. Yeah, yeah, I've read Eustace Mullins. So, White Identity isn't always racist or ethnically bigoted, but anyone who says he or she is into it shouldn't have to be pointedly asked: "Are you a racist?" He or she should be clear up front. I don't like people who beat around the bush luring others in. In general, say it and defend it, or shut up.

      "Be a communist. I'm the last person to harp on Hell because you're one." Good, that shows potential for redemption.

      Read Jesus with an open heart. Let me know.

      Gordon Duff really is condescending in the bad sense. You're right. He doesn't have any reason to be condescending -- if you follow my drift.

      He deleted some of my comments on his site rather than supplying backup for his further allegations.

      http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2010/12...

      It's the worst so-called journalism I've seen from what is supposed to be part of the alternative press. He clearly has a number of screws that are loose, as they say, not that I'm perfected yet and not that I disagree with everything he says. He's just too reckless.

      Peace,

      Tom

      • It really is necessary to point out that Amitai Etzioni's "communitarian," which is a huge twist on the term, is not communism of the Marxist, Christian, Neolithic, or pre-Neolithic varieties. His communitarianism is free-market, apparently as in opposed to both coercive and non-coercive varieties of communism.

        There is a free-market communism that is non-coercive communism that allows others and anyone to engage in so-called capitalistic market activities also where the money might be other than money as used in general today.

        The distinction between visions of communitarianism can be highlighted by the fact that very often when I've explained that Jesus is a communist and/or have spelled out a bit the concept of the Christian Commons, I have often been met with questions such as, don't you mean communitarianism or wouldn't it be better to use the term communitarianism so as to avoid all the negatives conjured up by the term communism. There are also those who openly maintain that position even after I've gone to great lengths to explain the educational value in the process of taking back the word communism.

        What Amitai is doing is "taking" the term communitarian. I'm not sure what was going through his mind when he decided to start to do that. He did not coin the term. Communitarianism is definitely not his brainchild. His re-branding of the mixed economy with the term communitarian is perhaps his way of working in other than what most people mistakenly believe to be the purely economic since he discusses society from his more macro sociological perspective. He does of course speak to individual psychological issues, albeit from a non-spiritual position.

        I hope this helps shed some additional light on the subject of this comment thread.

    • Charles Krafft

      Amatai Etzioni is an ex-Irgun terrorist (Warner Falk) with a new Judeo-Supremisist name. Of course he cobbled together his philosophy for a American communitarian security state from other sources. He's the Jewish "Iron Chef of socio-economics"!

      Check out Deudonné M'Bala M'bala the comedian at the forefront of anti-communitarianism in France:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2tngwutC9U

      But let's get back to Wikileaks, the subject of this thread. Young Ryan Dawson doesn't buy the Julian Assange phemenon.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZQ-lEVazgs&fe...

      Dawson's skepticism mirrored my take when Assange appeared on the Larry King Show. I still think there's something sketchy if not futile about using a full court press on the MSM in order to subvert it.

      • You don't know that Etzioni is a Jewish supremacist. He may have been and may still be, but you don't know it. You don't know it anymore than you know Julian Assange is a Mossad agent.

        You're also giving the term "communitarian" to Etzioni when you know that he's misapplied it, for whatever reason.

        As for the French comedian, the video is consistent with what I'd read.

        On Ryan Dawson's video, I'd seen it and left a comment. I was under whelmed. He took the same position as Gordon Duff and a number of others.

        I've already covered the rationale for using the newspapers as Julian has. Julian had published materials that journalists didn't run with. He went back to the drawing board. Now WikiLeaks is a household name, and the world is waiting for the Israel-related releases. I don't find his actions either sketchy or futile, especially not futile. Did he say he was out to subvert the press? If anything, he made it clear that he's out to get them to do a much better job. He has raised the bar considerably.

        Now, I'm growing weary of discussing this subject. Until there's something new, I'm on to other issues.

        Barring the government completely destroying everything, Julian Assange and/or WikiLeaks will release the cables regarding Israel and the Mossad. That will be that.

        Gordon Duff will still be a duff about it; but by then, Duff will have poisoned his own well with all of his blog posts and red-handed ducking.

    • Charles Krafft

      A Moscow court ordered former Yukos executives Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev to serve six more years in prison today. Here's some old news about Assange from Russia, the country that got taken to the cleaners by the same Jewish clique of Harvard School of Economics "disaster capitalists" Obama has surrounded himself with.

      Iraq (WikiLeaks), part 3. Who’s behind the project?
      http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/11/25/35608580.html

      "In 1991, Assange, then 20, is arrested with his accomplices for infiltrating the central server of the Canadian telecom company Nortel. After several rounds of questioning, he admitted his guilt on all 25 charges.

      He was facing 10 years in jail, yet Assange managed to get off with just a fine. That is, he managed to escape even a suspended sentence, which is odd – Australian hackers were given prison terms of up to two years for similar misdemeanors. Assange started studying physics and mathematics at Melbourne University, but quit studying. It seemed to him that the military sponsored and thus regulated the education process.

      ...In this context, pronouncements by American officials are also pretty interesting – oh yes, we want to get him, but he’s in Sweden and that’s an independent state. Yet in the situation with Viktor Bout and Thailand, this didn’t get in the way of American justice. In trying to figure out why he’s allowed to roam the world freely, one might suppose that his publications are beneficial to someone.

      ...One such case is Microsoft. Assange brought forward the details of a British government request addressed to the company. According to the documents, MI5 requested “confidential” information that the computer giant could have furnished. This case is also interesting because the name of one Daniel Schmitt surfaced a little down the track, a Microsoft lobbyist who allegedly passed on the UK requests to Assange. Sort of covert promotion of the business’s powers. Incidentally, there was an exposé on Schmitt himself a little later – it seems that the real surname of the lobbyist is Domscheit-Berg.

      Assange could never get such “resonant” information from ordinary employees. Scholars of the WikiLeaks phenomenon insist that he works for the Australian intelligence service. Assange admitted this at one stage – when the Swedish court first charged him, the journalist declared that members of his home intelligence service got in touch with him beforehand and warned of such a possible turn of events.

      Some experts go even further, saying that in actual fact, Assange is closely affiliated with the Israeli Mossad. The “Iraqi diaries” are pointed to in support of this theory – as far as foreigners’ access to US secret materials on the Middle East goes, only Israeli agents enjoy such privileges. And that’s without mentioning that round-the-world flights several times a week cost a pretty penny. The site does not provide sufficient financially compensation."

      • I'd already seen it. Duff cited this "Russian" crap. It's poorly thought out. It makes stupid accusations by jumping to conclusions.

        Assange didn't admit to being an agent. If being contacted means someone's an agent, then I'm an agent.

        I'm not interested in going over Duff's "evidence" again. It was dumb then, and it's not going to get any brighter with the passage of time.

        Jeffrey Sachs' sin is laissez-faire capitalism, not being an ethnic Jew.

    • iain mcleod

      wow man, you seem too self righteous to be enlightened tom. just saying

    • Was Jesus too self-righteous for you? If not, explain why he was not but, in your humble opinion,  I am. Be specific and prepared to back it up.