Friday, August 28, 2015

Arlene from Israel: More Light, in the Midst of Darkness

Michael L.

Our friend Shirlee of Jews Down Under has published a piece by Arlene from Israel entitled, More Light, in the Midst of Darkness.

Here is the opening:
We here in Israel we speak a good deal these days about a world arrayed against us – a world ready to do business with Iran for self-serving reasons.  In doing my writing, I have been remiss in not mentioning Canada, under the leadership of Prime Minster Steven Harper (pictured below).  Israel has no better friend in the world.  What is more, Harper has come out against both Iran and Islamic State – refusing to lift sanction against the former, and sending troops against the latter.
 I recommend that you guys give this a read.

The Iran deal emphatically must be opposed.


  1. PLEASE READ and share there is vital information here about upcoming rallies in the US.

  2. If anyone wants to read true Propagandized historical fiction prepare to be disgusted.

    It would take a whole F'ING book to derail all the out right lies and deception covered in it.

    1. Pitt,
      just read that and couldn't agree more.
      It's a sort of sickness that pervades the media. Outright lies and distortion are the norm. Whether it's supposed history, or reporting on contemporary events.
      Every day there is more of it.
      In the UK, BBC Watch and UK media Watch are busy all the time trying to hold people to account. It's incredibly depressing. And enraging.

    2. I follow them on Twitter, they do good work!

    3. Yes they do!
      However, "Sisyphean" and "Task" come to mind.


    4. btw, the wretched thing is 20,000 words!

      If you figure 250 words per page, that is 80 pages of text.

      He might as well edit and expand each section and turn it into a book!

    5. Yes, it's lying, appalling, and incredibly long.

      btw, Robert Byrd. (cough)

    6. Apparently the hate speech diary is well recieved by the owners and staff of DKOS Ratings priveledge suspended for inappropriate HR of the diary. I guess hate and lies speech is acceptable as long as it targets Jews

    7. To quote

      For the Democratic Party to expect Jewish people to sit across the table from Subir would be like expecting black people to accept Klansmen as part of the Democratic Party.

      Actually PoC HAVE accepted Democratic Party klansman, need I remind you of Robert Byrd...the *cough,cough* distinguished gentleman from West Virgina.

    8. Exactly!
      What are the chances of progressives starting a campaign to get everything with Byrd's name on it removed due to unacceptable racist connotations?
      Not holding my breath

      The hypocrisy is staggering.

    9. It's gets much worse. A new diary is up: Traitor Tom Cotton sides with Netanyahu against US

      Under one of my pseuds, I expressed my true feelings:

      Fuck off and die, Nazi filth. (0+ / 0-)

      by S M Tenneshaw on Wed Sep 02, 2015 at 05:25:43 PM CDT

      I suspect that comment and my ID will be gone soon. And that's OK.

    10. I have been on a NR (no ratings) for fighting the Pallywood propaganda. The progressive-nazi brigade opened up a help desk thread specifically to target me to make this happen. Yet I have NEVER had one response to any of my concerns.

      I swear somedays I think the best recruiting tool the right will ever have are the hypocritical bigoted scum spewing their bile over at DSKF (Daily Storm Kos Front)

    11. My ID is not gone, but suspended until I press an Acknowledge button. I don't if I'll do that or not.

    12. Of course kos is not a major problem, just a glaring symptom. Here's an even bigger symptom, straight from PBS news reader Gwen Ifill's Twitter account: Take that, Bibi.

      Now that's objectivity.

    13. Yup. Yup.

      Daily Kos is not a problem. It is a symptom. It is an expression of the problem. And the thing of it is if you were to analyze the bulk of dkos refuse what you find is that very little of the content has anything whatsoever to do with Israel.

      From their perspective we're the agitators because they're talking about Democratic Party politics and Hillary and health care, global warming, and so forth.

      Most of them don't give a shit about Israel any more than I fret about the Czech Republic.

      Every now and again a few of them will glance over in our direction, scratch their heads, and wonder what these maniacs are whining about?

      The problem that I have with them - the problem that we should have with the Democrats and the progressive-left - is not that they are racists so much as they have allowed anti-Jewish racism in the form of anti-Zionism a seat at their table.

      As for the Democrats and their history of racism, well, that's what the 60s was all about. The Dixiecrats got beat good, as well they should have been. Robert Byrd had been a Klansmen as had many Democrats of his generation, but they gave it up.

      Progressive-left anti-racism in the US, during the last quarter of the 20th century, was hugely succesful. It was so succesful that they refuse to declare victory and just smack everyone around them with the racist brush as a political tactic, even as they provide anti-Jewish racists with a megaphone.

      Meanwhile cops are getting shot-up in record numbers in the US.

  3. "I try to be fair, but not at the cost of calling a spade a spade. My sympathies lie with those who are suffering and it has disproportionately been Palestinians for the vast majority of the past 70 years. "

    At that point my patience ran out. I try to be fair, but he's a sexual thrill seeking asshole.

    1. Interesting how rules changed abruptly in 1948. 19th century - massive population changes in North America, Australia, New Zealand (homes of the most Progressive Progressives), then Armenian/Assyrian genocide.
      Greek/Turkish population exchanges. Post WWII - whole nations uprooted in Soviet Union, Millions of Germans removed, Prussia and Silesia erased. 1947 - Pakistan/India population exchange. And THEN 1948. Arab/Jews from Arab lands population exchange. This one Illegal, wrong, and immoral. So yes, f.. them.

    2. The Daily Kos crowd would be right at home with this:

      There's a video in it as well. It's quite something.

      Hope link is correct. If not, go to harrysplace.

  4. I have an old idea that's rattling around in my head for few months. I remember back in 98 or 99 a colleague of mine who worked at the US Army War College handed me a paper that had been recently published by the PLA (PRC Army) and translated into English. A seminal work called "Unrestricted Warfare". You can get it for free online or a bound version on Amazon for money. It's a very important piece of research because it states essentially how the PRC will wage 'war' (intentionally in quotes) as a strategic value to push its influence and power over the world deeper and wider. It says what they will do and how they will do it.

    The thrust of the thesis is that 21st warfare is multiaxial. Neither symmetric nor asymmetric. Neither political nor military nor economic, nor legal, nor diplomatic nor cyber nor waged in the media. But ALL of them simultaneously. Each with a different cadence and purpose but all unified to a common set of strategic goals. Further it makes no distinction between civilians and soldiers, politicians or the electorate, states or non state actors. But all of them like lego pieces that snap in and out as needed.

    For decades Israel fought symmetric/symmetric war against nation states and did quite well that way only to find that their enemies decided to shift to an asymmetric approach that could work tactically but only worked to enforce a strategic stalemate. For decades Israel has fought a symmetric/asymmetric war against what writers like Bernard Fall would call a classic guerrilla body; part asymmetric, part political, part media, part terrorist.

    There are two primary failures with this. 1) it's primarily defensive in nature. Save your cities, your civilians. At a very high cost. And 2) It loses the strategic advantage. In fact is has no strategic advantage at all., It doesn't purport to 'do' anything apart from 'don't lose'.

    So the challenge it seems is how to wage 'unrestricted war' against its enemies.What does that entail? Well back of the envelope, a few thing.

    Destruction of electronic financial instruments and assets
    Destruction of material assets
    False flag eg 'pseudo terrorism'
    Legal warfare
    Diplomatic warfare
    Classic warfare
    Police oriented warfare

    All simultaneously and all in an offensive posture at all times. The context has to be strategic goals not defensive goals.

    More on this later