Rowan needs a secretary
a: can't be bothered with posterity
b: has a low opinion of himself
c: scatters himself thin knowing well his are heady and dense doses
Latin America wakes to alternatives (Znet-Pilger-longish)
America is daring the rest of the world to burst their credit bubble. China is trying to find a risk-free way of doing this. Iraq is a mere pawn in the oil game, and to some extent in the zionist game, which America tends to bandwagon upon ideologically speaking. Europe is immune to this zionist bandwagon game, but not to the fear that it is going to be "swamped with immigrants" (this is the universal fear of regions targetted by neo-liberal international labor migration policies, i.e. the wealthy areas, and corresponds to the fear of poorer regions that they will lose their workers, their land, and their resources, and starve to death). Russia : aha ... who can read the depths of the Slavic Soul??
Money is credit (not debit) so its value is a product of mass psychology, hence the games above.
Religion is a degenerate form of yoga.
If America was a democracy it would choose fascism, but it
would pay people to describe it as democracy. Come to think of it ...
Other systems - I think I just covered that in my democracy section.
Between 18 and 20 a woman is like China, half discovered,
half wild, naturally beautiful with fertile deltas.
Between 21 and 30 a woman is like America, well developed
and open to trade especially for someone with cash.
Between 31 and 35 she is like India, very hot, relaxed and
convinced of her own beauty.
Between 36 and 40 a woman is like Europe. Gently aging but
still a warm and desirable place to visit.
Between 41 and 50 she is like Iraq, lost the war - haunted
by past mistakes. Massive reconstruction is now necessary.
Between 51 and 60, she is like Russia, very wide and
borders are unpatrolled. The frigid climate keeps people away.
Between 61 and 70, a woman is like Mongolia, with a
glorious and all conquering past but alas, no future.
After 70, they become Afghanistan. Most everyone knows
where it is, but no one wants to go there.
Edited by - Ernie Lynch on 02/10/2005 13:21:05
Rowan Berkeley. A refreshing dare. You strike one as one
whose answer to what came first the chicken or the egg
would say its actually the rooster. A select few would
dare to give that answer. By the bye is the Tony man for real?
newscentralasia.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1134 Letter to the Editor --
Variants of Turkism -- Rowan Berkeley ---
Dear dangerous zionists, say after me: 'look ma, no blood'
another check drawn on the power of dark intimation triggered by the holy hollow cause pr manifacturation; 'Gorby' slandering Rowan, after all, I think Rowan would think, like I do, that secession is much like the blessing for necessary mainstay: puttings in places as size reduction is for rock baking in the sun but not slaking in the rain for lack of that perfectly bloodless solution (exactly the sort of ones that cause the zionists to preclude they 'stir up hatred', never fails, as Gorby proves a ways down after the host of the comment by Gorby returns the ball for a point):
It's actually you who is attributing sinister motives to
Israel's detractors. You're just a basic liar and smear
merchant - nothing sinister about that. In fact it's dead
common among zionists.
Regarding your comments on Rowan Berkeley he stopped
posting comments to Lenin's Tomb and to here precisely
because he was earning disapprobation on both sites.
Frankly, I didnt follow that stuff about De-onto-whatsit
and I still dont know what it means. But to use one
persons comments on a blog to smear all anti-zionists -
and don't pretend you didn't do that - is as cheap a shot
as any fired from the zionists' "intellectual" arsenal.
And it's haloscan that notes the IP address.
One question (well a cluster of questions) - as a watchdog
against obscure manifestations of racism, do you have time
to combat the more overt forms, like say, zionism? And if
you do, what name do you use? And where do you do it?
Mark Elf | Homepage | 10.15.05 - 11:26 am | #
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=20 2 rowan comments and 6 comments on rowan (I swung by this item a few weeks ago)
This rasputin article link is pretty brilliant, though it
seems to be based on Webster Griffin Tarpley’s new book,
“Synthetic Terrorism”, which I suppose I should try to get
hold of. Now Tarpley, like Larouche, holds to a theory of
’synarchism’ which I find frankly absurd, namely, that
Likud Zionism is an equal partner with top-down Nazism in
running the NWO. I have simplified this equation by
leaving out other Zionisms than the Likud one (which after
all did start out as an ally of Mussolini, so that much is
known) and also leaving out non-top-down Nazism (i.e. all
the non-ruling-class white power organisations, which are
basically diversionary, except in so far as they may
provide patsies - just like the corresponding far left
groups). BUT, even having said all that, I still think the
idea that any sort of Jew is in bed with any sort of Nazi
is a priori somewhat absurd - Mussolini’s early
philo-judaic form of fascism is a mere anomaly in the
light of the broader and now incontrovertible antagonism
between Jews and Nazis worldwide.
for all you girls creamin your panties as your head soaks up the lucubrations of more dearly beloved by the lawful letterlayerer Rowan I have some bad news:
Location:London, England, United Kingdom
I'm lucky - owing to a mild but painful spinal injury and thanks to the generous state disability benefit system in the UK I don't have to work. So I cruise the web all day and try to assemble the Big Jigsaw.
a WayBackMachine copy
nationalanarchist.com/importance.html seem to have missed this one so far (pretty substantial ((as these google searches for his tediously small but cast far and wide comments and dialogues go)) altercation)
# Rowan Berkeley Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 11:13 pm
Better than taking back the word ‘liberal’, would be grasping the fact that the two terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have had their meanings switched around over the last hundred years or so. ‘Liberal’ actually means, let capitalism and the market have their way. ‘Conservatism’ means, hold something back from subjection to the market, call it what you will, the commonweal or something.
haaretzdaily.com/hasen/.. here's economical way of formating stuff if you are after only one in a million commenters, you get only his to this: haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=626277 Title The Conspiracy Theory Of Intelligent Design
Name: Rowan Berkeley
City: London State: England
This will sadden Paul, I know, but I am sure it`s the real explanation : the dispute between (ostensibly) christian creationists and (historically) jewish secularists in american education and law is a gigantic red herring intended to distract attention from the actual jewish affiliations of the bush regime.
There is something in Matthew's article that confuses me. He says:
"While the United States became increasingly bogged down in Iraq, the Iranian position was strengthened as anti-American sentiment rose throughout the region and it became increasingly unclear that military action would be taken. The Iranian nuclear program has proceeded apace - or even been accelerated - while the neocons fell from favor and Rice returned to her realist roots. She brought Robert Blackwill, her former boss in the first Bush administration's National Security Council, onto her staff and charged him with wresting control of Iraq policy away from the Pentagon. At this Blackwill, who favors engagement with Iran, has been successful. Paul Bremer was wooed away from the neocons, dropped his support for Ahmed Chalabi, and the American Enterprise Institute and other neocon strongholds are now seething with discontent about the outcome of their venture."
---But surely Chalabi is being accused of feeding intelligence to Iran, of endevouring to act in Iran's interest as that interest is perceived by Iranian intelligence itself, of being in effect an Iranian mole within the neocon cabal. In what way is Bremer cutting him loose supposed to illustrate a more 'realist' (i.e. negotiatory) position vis-a-vis the Iranian power elite, then?
Let me just reiterate my question : if Chalabi was an Iranian agent within the neocon cabal, then how does getting rid of him assist the 'realists'? Surely, if he is Iran's man in the theatre, then keeping him would be the best way to spite the neocons, who were totally fooled by him to their great cost and embarrassment.
To address the question you are all talking about, it might be worth looking at the usually sensible Uzi Benziman in Haaretz, who has fallen rightly or wrongly for the CFR line. I have much graver doubts about it, but people like Ian Lustick support it. It holds that evacuating the west bank, or at least some of it, is still feasible, that Sharon can be made to do it, and that this will defang the entire middle eastern conflict. Pollyanna-ish, but there it is. Perhaps what is really at issue here is a symbolic de-escalation of Israeli aggression in the region, if I can put it that way.
There is a question of practicality here. If Mr Gedanken wants to engage in pre-emptive strikes against the potentially dual-use nuclear facilities of countries hither and yon, he is going to have to factor in the known effect of this which is that all such countries will accelerate their nuclear programs and the said targets will in fact multiply. Now, to target a proliferating set of proliferators he has to trade off accuracy and selectivity of strikes against rapidity and number. In other words, he has to plaster the planet with RNEPs. Not too smart really. He would be better advised to grasp the fact that Israel, unlike your average country, is a partially failed colonial enterprise analogous to apartheid-era South Africa. Israel itself is the 'head of the snake' of proliferation, as should be obvious really if one was not blinded by the fashionable American religion of Holocaustianity, which sees absolutely everything through Spielbergian eyes.
"US analysts estimate that Russian military expenditures have tripled during the Bush-Putin years, in large measure a predicted response to Bush administration bellicosity. On both sides, nuclear warheads remain on hair-trigger alert. The Russian control systems, however, have deteriorated. The dangers ratchet up with the threat and use of force.
As anticipated, US military plans have provoked a Chinese reaction as well. China has announced plans to "transform its military into a technology-driven force capable of projecting power globally by 2010," Boston Globe correspondent Jehangir Pocha reported last month, "replacing its land-based nuclear arsenal of about 20 1970s-era intercontinental ballistic missiles with 60 new multiple-warhead missiles capable of reaching the United States."
China’s actions are likely to touch off a ripple effect through India, Pakistan and beyond. Nuclear developments in Iran and North Korea, also in part at least a response to US threats, are exceedingly ominous. The unthinkable becomes thinkable.
In 2003, at the UN General Assembly, the United States voted alone against implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and alone with its new ally India against steps toward the elimination of nuclear weapons."