06 October 2009

will it make us more aggressive or settle our hash?

[click image]
\\\\\ 10/06/2009 11:21:00 AM \\\\\ ,

21 comments:

  1. Aletho News10/6/09, 12:22 PM

    Saudi Bank Governor Denies Talks to Replace Dollar
    By Camilla Hall

    Oct. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabia hasn’t held talks with China and other countries on dropping the dollar as the currency for pricing oil, Saudi Central Bank Governor Muhammad al-Jasser said, denying a report in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper.

    The Independent report is “absolutely incorrect” and there has been “absolutely nothing” of that nature discussed between Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter, and other countries, al-Jasser told reporters in Istanbul, where he’s attending an International Monetary Fund summit. The dollar pared losses after his remarks.

    The London-based newspaper said today that Gulf oil producers and nations including China, Japan, Russia and Brazil had held secret talks on a nine-year plan to phase out the dollar in oil trade, and move toward pricing the fuel in a basket of currencies plus gold. It cited unidentified Gulf officials and unidentified Chinese bankers.

    “I don’t give credence to this story,” said Simon Williams, a Dubai-based economist at HSBC Holdings Plc. “Short- term, it’s highly unlikely that oil will not continue to be priced in dollars.”

    The dollar pared losses against the euro following al- Jasser’s comments, trading at $1.4725 as of 9:40 a.m. in London, from $1.4648 in New York yesterday. It weakened to $1.4749 earlier on the Independent story. It was at 89.10 yen, from 89.53 yesterday, after falling to 88.86...

    and:

    Oil states say no talks on replacing dollar

    http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE59507620091006?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604

    ReplyDelete
  2. wimpy10/6/09, 1:28 PM

    I don't know. Fisk has some pretty hotrod sources in the ME and a sterling reputation. He DID seem to have gone outright senile in one of his dispatches from Iran a few months ago, but I don't think that's enough to suspect his entire reputation for journalistic integrity is flushed. The SCO announced their intention to diversify out of such heavy dollar reserves. And other countries concerned by the naked power maneuvers and egregious maltreatment of Arabs, or just ones who are pissed at us for fucking the whole world and want to be on the side of the powers with the stronger hand, are very plausibly interested in joining them. Obama had his chance to show the U.S. wasn't on a world domination trip, and he's blown it. This is the most sensible approach for other countries to defend themselves against our perfidious oligarchs. So... unless Fisk has just become so frustrated and angry that he will lie to freak out D.C., I don't think anyone should disbelieve his report.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aletho News10/6/09, 4:43 PM

    The biggest mistake being made by Fisk is suggesting that the currency of transaction in oil sales is relevant to what the reserve composition is in those nations. Remittances can be and are converted into whatever currencies those nations choose to hold, in other words it is their choice of investment, not the currency that they are paid in, that matters.

    Fisk's theatrics aside, the dollar is threatened not by a "cabal" of oil exporters but by the US financial industry's criminality.

    Mike Whitney has a much better analysis:

    Dollar Hysteria
    Is the Sky Really Falling?
    06.10.2009

    http://alethonews.blogspot.com/2009/10/dollar-hysteria.html

    The entire hoopla about the Iranian oil bourse was also really just another way to paint Iran as a threat:

    Is the Left Promoting War on Iran?

    By Bob Finch (includes excerpt by PCR)

    http://obamboozled.blogspot.com/2009/08/is-left-promoting-war-on-iran.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. wimpy10/6/09, 7:45 PM

    Well. Pfeh. The POINT of being threatened by changing to petroeuros or petrogold is that it makes dollars less attractive as reserve currency. PCR is correct, but I don't know what would give him the idea it isn't the reserves that are threatened by things like the IOB, and like the SCO countries' announcement that they are diversifying their reserves out of the dollar.

    While I agree that American oligarchs would find this an act of war, only their little 20% would back that, which is WHY they're jumping out their assholes to find better excuses.

    It seems to me that every country on earth recognizes that the ONLY way to stop America from starting WWIII is to dump their dollar reserves in unison. They are happy to try to hold onto what value there is left as long as we don't cross their lines. Otherwise, it's cheaper and healthier to just kiss off their dollar reserves... nail our asses for fucking them up in our bottomless greed.

    Bernanke has been helping the effectiveness of this strategy by printing up as much as it takes to cover our nut since we turned insolvent. I'm no economist, but every good one I've read says the dollar is only going to be doing okay until things reach a certain equilibrium and THEN it's going to tank, that unless we have some hot shit big new industries going right away, THAT is when the depression will hit... and the more money printed, and the more dollar reserves dumped, the worse the depression will be... that it will take more than a decade to dig out of it.

    We no longer have the manufacturing base or the military personnel to overcome a depression with war. Who's going pay the military industrial complex, and with what if the float is sunk? How do we pay our military? And can Prince pay his men with trillions of worthless dollars? I don't think so.

    No. I think PCR is being patriotic, trying to keep the necessary impression that we can survive the weakening of the petrodollar... survive most of the Eastern Hemisphere, and half the Southern one, dumping their dollar reserves.

    I have no clue if Fisk has this from a viable source, or even who that might be, or if he's just hoping to scare DC off its psychotic rampage, whatever, but for sure the left is not promoting war on Iran. Some liberals are, but the left is definitely fighting its hardest to ward off WWIII.

    ReplyDelete
  5. wimpy10/6/09, 7:58 PM

    No. Really! The military can't support itself anymore! Contractors do everything for it. Even if you can draft every kid in America, WHO is going to pay them? Pay to feed and arm and clothe and house them? And with what?

    I don't see how anything but bluff can get us through, and I don't think we're really bluffing anyone with half a brain anymore. We scare the pee out of them. That's true, but, ultimately, we don't have the ability to carry out our threats if they just throw up their hands and decide its cheapest to just pull the rug out from under us.

    AND WHO COULD BLAME THEM?

    Nobody.

    We're the bad guys.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Aletho News10/6/09, 9:57 PM

    "The POINT of being threatened by changing to petroeuros or petrogold is that it makes dollars less attractive as reserve currency. PCR is correct, but I don't know what would give him the idea it isn't the reserves that are threatened by things like the IOB, and like the SCO countries' announcement that they are diversifying their reserves out of the dollar."

    Over three trillion US dollars are exchanged for other currencies daily, making it the most liquid of markets. Nobody has to hold dollars in order to purchase oil, they can purchase them at any moment they care to. likewise once a transaction is completed the recipient of dollars can dispose of them instantly.

    "While I agree that American oligarchs would find this an act of war, only their little 20% would back that, which is WHY they're jumping out their assholes to find better excuses."

    In fact almost everyone is a stakeholder in the dollar. The "war for the petrodollar" meme is simply another powerful argument FOR war. That it is completely baseless is another matter.

    "every country on earth recognizes that the ONLY way to stop America from starting WWIII is to dump their dollar reserves in unison."

    Not likely. Just as almost all states (excepting Venezuela perhaps) support the GWOT theme for the purpose of augmenting their own power, they all have a stake in the established order of militarism etc... At times you could make the argument that the US has been serving Chinese interests in occupying Iraq for example.

    "the dollar is only going to be doing okay until things reach a certain equilibrium and THEN it's going to tank, that unless we have some hot shit big new industries going right away, THAT is when the depression will hit... and the more money printed, and the more dollar reserves dumped, the worse the depression will be... that it will take more than a decade to dig out of it."

    But the dollar's problem is not which currency oil is transacted in.

    "We no longer have the manufacturing base or the military personnel to overcome a depression with war."

    The concept of war overcoming depression is a militarist myth. It was the fact that the US destroyed the manufacturing capability of its competitors that brought the depression to an end, the US had a global monopoly or market domination after WWII. That, and not military spending ended the depression.

    By taking this position Fisk IS by definition a WARMONGER. He is expounding a casus belli where one in fact does not even exist.

    Yes, the US may be headed over a cliff economically but it is no more tied to currency of oil transactions than the decline of the British empire was due to the currency of coal transactions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. wimpy10/6/09, 10:42 PM

    Mayhap you are right about the petrodollar theory being actually warmongering... but since it only spells shifts in preferences for reserve currencies to my mind... I don't seem to be able so far to catch your wave.

    And it would come as a surprise to a lot of other people if they managed to catch your wave too. But if you really are right about this, I do so wish you'd be able to set it down in such a way as to truly make sense. All you've managed to do so far is point out that coming up with this misleading excuse for war is giving the war-makers what they need... but... if everyone else is seeing the threat to the petrodollar as the move away from the dollar as preferred reserve currency, then, well, it's just back at war makers making war and peaceniks screaming that financial markets have to stop pushing humans into the burning abyss.

    You cited PCR, and he admits, as do all the best economists, that dumping the dollar reserves tanks us for real. I know currency markets are fluid and anyone can change out and back in at will... but... what if the will to hold dollars dries up in places where they MEAN for us not to have the wherewithal to continue our murderous hegemony? Sure, to a point, the GWOT thing is good for all oligarchs everywhere, but there are lines not to be crossed and we are crossing them.

    If the petrodollar has bubkes to do with the denomination of reserve currency, and bubkes to do with the strength of the dollar, then, at worst, screaming about that being motive for attacking Iraq and next Iran is only deluded... not warmongering. MOST PEOPLE DON'T THINK IT'S REASON ENOUGH TO ATTACK ANOTHER COUNTRY. The people screaming about it are screaming AGAINST attacking another country.

    So. While you and PCR may be right about it being no threat to our economy, extending that to accuse people who are deluded about this point of warmongering is taking the argument too far. Not even the most jaded America First freak I know thinks this delusion [IF it is a delusion] is an act of war.

    ReplyDelete
  8. wimpy10/6/09, 11:35 PM

    From the bottom of the PCR piece linked behind Lenin a few posts up:

    What is happening is that the hundreds of billions of dollars in TARP money given to the large banks and the trillions of dollars that have been added to the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet have been funneled into the stock market, producing another bubble, and into the acquisition of smaller banks by banks “too large to fail.” The result is more financial concentration.

    The expansion in debt that underlies this bubble has further eroded the US dollar’s credibility as reserve currency. When the dollar starts to go, panicked policy-makers will raise interest rates in order to protect the US Treasury’s borrowing capability. When the interest rates rise, what little remains of the US economy will tank.

    If the government cannot borrow, it will print money to pay its bills. Hyperinflation will hit the American population. Massive unemployment and massive inflation will inflict upon the American people misery that not even Marx and Lenin could envisage.

    So, to use his term, it seems to me that switching from the dollar as the lingua franca of the oil business, erodes the US dollar’s credibility as reserve currency... which has been why I have believed the big boys are hot to prevent this sort of thing.

    That may be obvious, and still wrong, but I really would like to have a solid basis to change my mind. I mean, the ease of exchange argument can be applied to the reserves themselves and if it is no threat in the one, what makes it a threat in the other?

    No. I really think a glut in dollars floating around is as crushing as all the Treasuries extant being called in simultaneously. I think, actually, we are way beyond bankrupt and it's just that no one's called us on it yet... not that they don't know they can use this as a weapon... just that they haven't called us on it yet... maybe because there's hay to be made and maybe because we're too psychotic... but there is a line and we have all but crossed it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Aletho News10/7/09, 8:35 AM

    People are being told that a "cabal" of Ayrabs are scheming to undermine their personal wealth and real future earnings. This gives not just Americans but dollar holders around the world a stake in their unseating or demise. It is not only flagrant warmongering but it is plainly baseless.

    Peter Schiff who runs an anti-dollar investment fund has jumped on the bandwagon for obvious marketing purposes, he is interviewed on Fisk's story:

    Schiff points out the central importance of interest rates on currency exchange rates. This is absolutely correct. He then goes on to discuss the Fisk story, Schiff claims that once oil exporters sell their oil they are stuck with dollars. Do YOU believe that?

    Lets get this CLEAR. Once exporters receive dollars they can exchange them for whatever currency they like! Just like you or me they can choose to buy Euro Bonds, US Treasuries, or shares in SINOPEC. This is why relative interest rates are so critical, the investment decision is based on RETURN on INVESTMENT relative to anticipated RATE of INFLATION.

    Three trillion dollars are exchanged into other currencies daily. NOBODY is stuck with dollars!

    If the US ever actually enacts currency controls then you begin to have an argument. Of course in that case only US trade would be settled in dollars. For the present the US dollar remains fully convertible.

    "... if everyone else is seeing the threat to the petrodollar as the move away from the dollar as preferred reserve currency, then, well, it's just back at war makers making war and peaceniks screaming that financial markets have to stop pushing humans into the burning abyss."

    Yes. Perfect cover for Fisk's tribal wars for greater Israel. The people "SCREAMING" about the petrodollar are creating a smokescreen. This is not a benign activity. Fisk et al are not deluded.

    Offering a phony casus belli is NOT an anti-war action. People for the most part will acquiesce to war if they think that there is a real national interest involved. If you think that giving them a phony national interest in war is not warmongering then that is the DELUSION.

    Fisk is not only guilty of warmongering on this issue, he has been warmongering right along. From his baseless accusations against Syria for the Hariri assassination to his demonization of Hezbolah he softens up liberals in order to deter objection to Zionist aggression. He has written articles that are specifically attacks on 9/11 truth, a subject about which he demonstrates profound ignorance. Thomas Friedmann, Richard Perle and Irving Crystal are smooth talkers too. It's time that those who think that they are opposed to militarism to get wise to Fisk.

    "it seems to me that switching from the dollar as the lingua franca of the oil business, erodes the US dollar’s credibility as reserve currency... which has been why I have believed the big boys are hot to prevent this sort of thing."

    You "BELIEVE" they are trying to prevent this sort of thing on the basis of? A bunch of phony leftist warmongers babbling about it. If you have any other basis for your belief I would like to hear it.

    What has eroded the dollars credibility is the printing of money which will eventually debase the purchasing power of the currency. The petrodollar focus gives cover to this theft also. It is a distraction and WORSE.

    ReplyDelete
  10. wimpy10/7/09, 12:03 PM

    Three trillion dollars are exchanged into other currencies daily. NOBODY is stuck with dollars!

    Okay. What happens when that number suddenly jumps to 5 trillion or 8 or 10 trillion? That day comes when people's confidence in dollars is too low, whether they are the guys in charge of reserve currencies or your basic walking around capitalist.

    Nobody is stuck with dollars until there are so many of them wanting to be exchanged that you have to give so many of them in exchange for something else that you find your wealth vastly diminished.

    I believe the demise -- threatened or actual -- of the petrodollar to be part of the loss of confidence that floods the market with too many dollars wanting to become some other currency... which in addition to the profligate printing of dollars makes our currency's position such that when the music stops, it will not find a chair. So, we have established that rich guys might become steamed enough to want to attack somebody to prevent it, and, clearly, we're so crazy other countries who might otherwise have jumped right into whatever they could do to tank our economy hold off, not wishing to get invaded.

    The disconnect seems to be a the pivot where you think this is viewed as an act of war... that you actually agree, but want people to shut up about it because it's warmongering, or you yourself may place the priority of a strong dollar over peace [not an accusation, just exploring where we're out of sync on this issue] or you genuinely believe that whatever currency is used, it has no bearing on global perception of the dollar's worth and that a bunch of assholes who have NO grasp of economics are playing fast and loose with global perceptions with their cockamamie ideas about petrodollars, convincing the war-hungry American public that it IS an act of war.

    It's only an act of war to finance oligarchs if you cause the confidence in the dollar to be eroded.

    They happen to run the world, but the people don't see this as a viable excuse to physically harm someone. So the disagreement comes in at the point where I see men and women trying to wake people up to the bullshit that incites the oligarchs to start generating baldfaced lies in order to attack another country, and you see them as warmongering. I think you have this sideways and are being too harsh.

    I am not a close follower of Fisk. I think he's arrogant, which is ugly, but fairly usual in really successful people. What I've heard of him, beside of course the 9/11 crap, and one piece I think I linked somewhere on my sidebar about the Iranian "Green Revolution" where he seemed to me to be outright senile, mostly lucid and not particularly Israel-centric. Actually, he disses them pretty hard on the matter of Lebanon. But, like I say, I don't know what's up with him.

    I just know he has cultivated lots of good sources and mentions that this information was confirmed by separate means, so even if it is untrue, he and his paper seem to have done what they could.

    If it were actually warmongering, wouldn't we have heard the media or the government officials or Wall Street screaming at the top of their lungs about this? The fact that they are SILENT about it tends to give it more credence. Nobody was using that as their public reason for Iraq and nobody is using that against Iran. They're cooking up all manner of lies about the regime in Iran, but not this business. So if Fisk, et al., are warmongering, they're doing a piss poor job of it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Aletho News10/7/09, 12:47 PM

    "Okay. What happens when that number suddenly jumps to 5 trillion or 8 or 10 trillion? That day comes when people's confidence in dollars is too low, whether they are the guys in charge of reserve currencies or your basic walking around capitalist."

    This question is neither here nor there. If this situation came to pass it would have nothing whatsoever to do with a "cabal" of Ayrab oil exporters.

    Your re-stated "belief" is still not backed by any argument supporting the mythical notion that currency of settlement of oil trades has a significant impact on the problems of the dollar.

    Did you read the Mike Whitney piece all the way through? It seems as though you either missed the quote from Washington's Blog or you somehow didn't take it in. Oil really does not make up such a huge portion of international current account settlements any longer. In fact it is dwarfed by not just manufacturing and services but to a much larger extent investment flows.

    Fisk's hyperbole really was written for an audience that has no grasp of global finance and trade. I suggest a re-read of the Whitney article linked above.

    ReplyDelete
  12. wimpy10/7/09, 11:55 PM

    I have been hassling with moving all my stuff onto my replacement computer all day. I have not been ignoring you.

    I read Whitney.

    Your gig about the "belief" thing is obnoxious.

    Financial markets are run on perception/belief, nor should you beat people up for believing Nobel Laureates. The FACT is that many people believe, whether it's true or not, that loss of petrodollartude means loss of confidence in dollar reserves. That's not warmongering. I'm not talking about just the people blaming Iraq on it. I'm talking about people in general. Before all this crap started. Whether you are right about this or not doesn't make any difference to them.

    I'm not going to become an economist and try and become famous enough to talk them out of it... assuming I would end up agreeing with you after all that work. There's no time, and your sources don't seem to be getting through to people as it is. So, I hear you, and I will keep my mind open.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Aletho News10/8/09, 7:37 AM

    99,

    I keep responding to your points with factual arguments only to get ripostes that restate a "belief". To bring this to your attention is doing you a favor. Would you really blindly follow anyone that had a Nobel prize?

    It may be true that in the world of propagandized opinion facts don't matter but is that really where you want to be?

    BTW, Fisk's position is regarded as a kook freak show by the financial community. This whole media blitz on the masses about the petrodollar is only for proletariat consumption. Below is the analysis reported in the WSJ:

    Measured in euros, U.S. per capita GDP is down 25% since 2000
    By DAVID MALPASS - October 8, 2009

    If you want to know why the dollar has been falling this week and gold hit a new high, look no further than the weak jobs numbers last Friday and the weak communique issued over the weekend at the G-7 meeting in Istanbul. Deploring "excess volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates" isn't exactly a ringing defense of the greenback. And 9.8% unemployment convinced markets that monetary policy will remain loose regardless of dollar weakness.

    Bond buyer Bill Gross of the Pimco fund summed up the situation nicely in a recent CNBC interview. Asked whether low interest rates will weaken the dollar, the influential allocator of global capital said: "I think that's part of the administration's plan. It's obviously not announced—the 'strong dollar' is always the policy, so to speak. One of the ways a country gets out from under its debt burden is to devalue."

    How convenient for the war-makers to have Fisk come along and assign blame for the dollar demise on a "cabal" of Arabs when in fact the demise has nothing to do with currency of oil transactions and everything to do with offshoring and borrowing for war-making.

    Obviously the massive declines in the exchange value of the dollar have been driven by real world factors and not some potential future alteration in currency of settlement for oil trade. This should be readily apparent to Fisk. May Fisk rot in hell for his despicable service to disinformation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. wimpy10/8/09, 1:22 PM

    Are you mentioning all this to Fisk himself? I hope. I think I'm catching the drift that the desire to shift the blame for this financial apocalypse might make these guys eager to foist it on Iran, and Fisk seems to be helping that, opening a gate for that, ergo the accusation of warmongering. Though I have not heard "them" doing that, and have not heard of that being put about on the MSM either. So you may be worried about war pigs who'd prefer no one mentioned their motives, who might actually be thwarted somewhat in their drives by this sort of publicity.... Don't know.

    With respect to the "belief" business, your thrust seems to be the popular tactic of dissing it that scientific minds might prevail, and that's pretty outrageous when few are qualified economists, even many who call themselves economists. While, no, I wouldn't follow a Nobel Laureate blindly, not even Krugman, I would, yes, take his word for quite a lot, since he's been pretty loud about the mess we're in and the ways not to have gotten in it and the ways to get out of it, all ignored by people obviously not of such a fiscally responsible cast of mind. So I have two choices: become an economist, or believe what from economists seems the soundest to me. That's pretty much true of everybody. You hop in and try to tune me up. Which I think is bodhisattva work, and am glad for it, but what is it about your position that is sounder than others'?

    You keep seeming to be making distinctions without a difference, or not ones that apply on heavily enough in the common parlance to warrant basing the term "warmonger" on them. It is likely to just be written off as animus against Fisk and leftist intellectuals. Where's THAT going to get you?

    You keep missing my point about belief driving markets, that the subject belief has been one of its drivers for many moons, before we started in making warlike with Saddam in 1991. It's actually the reason the corrupt bastards were able to pull off outrageous stuff like CDOs... belief... belief is potent stuff. In one light it is folly. In another it is profitable. In another it is transcendental. Many positive and negative aspects to belief. So while it's well to disabuse people of poisonous habits of mind, such venom over a distinction too recondite for most, is at best counterproductive.

    If you could calm down enough to string together some pertinent quotes, to show Fisk himself where he is erring, swallow back the urge to curse him to rotting in hell before you are sure he, or his editor, has at least heard your concerns, THAT could really be of great service to humankind.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Aletho News10/8/09, 2:42 PM

    99,

    The independent and Fisk ARE the mainstream media.

    In response to more than one of your points I would caution that good propaganda is always at least 90% truth.

    The economic knowledge needed to follow my argument is minimal. These concepts would not befuddle a potato vendor in an open market in Quito. My Quechua skills would be the only impediment.

    Fisk paints Arabs as a threat to the value of the dollar, he at the same time distracts from the true cause of the debasement of the dollar as well as distracts from the true motive behind US aggression in the M.E. Israel scores bigtime with his narrative. My argument is not counterproductive, the issues will have to be dealt with eventually.

    Fisk is not interested in critique. He is doing his job quite well, if he wasn't I'm sure he would hear about it from his paymasters. He openly disdains those who have attempted to enlighten him about 9/11.

    You should be aware of the fact that Fisk repeatedly accused Syria of masterminding the Hariri assassination for years with no factual basis whatsoever. These accusations have NOT been borne out, instead it has been revealed that the Mehlis commission attempted to obtain fraudulent testimony knowingly. Fisk was an element in a criminal frame up. I have nothing but contempt for him and his ilk and I'm sure the sentiment is reciprocated.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Aletho News10/8/09, 2:46 PM

    99,

    This is what the real threat to the dollar is:

    Senate Passes $636 Billion Military Bill
    Bill Includes $128.2 Billion for Iraq, Afghan Wars
    by Jason Ditz, October 06, 2009

    The Senate today voted 93-7 in favor of the $636 billion defense appropriations bill to provide funding to the US military over the fiscal year beginning this month...

    Has Fisk reported on this threat?

    ReplyDelete
  17. wimpy10/8/09, 5:25 PM

    You have Quechua skills? Bravismo! :-P

    Not being a close follower of Fisk's work, and observing a rather obnoxious level of arrogance coming from him, I do not doubt that he has done some stupid/shitty/ill-motivated things. I too have difficulty being patient with 911 Truth deniers, though grant that some simply could not function where they need to function if they do not deny that truth... not that it's okay then, but that some of them really DO provide other benefits to humanity that we would not enjoy if they did not make that sacrifice. Sy Hersh comes to mind. If Fisk were someone who consistently brought us vital information we could not get if his contacts were scared away with such a thing, I would be nicer about his refusal to go there. All I can say about him is that he's done some sterling work, and I have never seen him be soft on Israel, have never experienced him coming from an attitude of even starting to want war.

    Could be he subconsciously highlights the antagonisms to keep himself in his limelight of being the antiwar journalist who goes in and busts Americans for providing Israel with weapons of death.... That could be, but he's not in any wise on Israel's side or the United States' side in any of these conflicts. He so isn't. He's for Palestine and for Lebanon and for Iran has been at pains to show what shits we are for ruining their lives. I don't know about the Syria thing. So if he is warmongering when he fancies himself so antiwarmongering, he can not possibly help but want to know where he might accidentally be warmongering. He might not LIKE it. He might not agree, but he CERTAINLY ought to be given the chance to LOOK.

    Otherwise, yer just calling him names that don't necessarily apply, just letting your anger about the 911 stuff make you want to besmirch the snot out of him wherever you find something the least bit less than impeccable about his work. That's NOT helpful. It's just angry. And you are, ahem, taking that out on me!

    Moi! Who am darling and so Zen! :-P

    I'm totally with you on the real threat to the dollar. It wouldn't be threatened by all these negative perceptions if that were not the bottom line, if we hadn't completely fucked it over at home and in our zeal for selling foreigners bad debt and in our psychotic leveraging of our Death Star urges.

    So. Truly. You are too angry with Fisk. He isn't that ill-motivated. He's just a jerk about some things and pretty cool about others.

    We HAVE to face that the hope for 911 Truth is gone. We have killed too many people behind it now, and too many have made too much money, and committed way too many crimes against humanity in its name. I heard the death knell begin to toll when Bill Clinton pulled his "HOW DARE YOU!" act, but didn't lose all hope for the patient until Obama made it 100% perfectly crystal clear where he stood on the matter. He was our last hope and the best that can be said for him is that he put us out of our misery right away.

    So, please try to take this as solidarity, I think you should lighten up on Fisk and anyone else who makes you this angry so that you can better nail them on their perfidies and mistakes and bad motives. While I don't think I can ever keep myself from telling someone they are a spineless jackass for going with the official story, I have also faced that letting it enrage me against them can ONLY be bad for ME, only make me less likely to be HEARD when I need to be emphatic about something. That's true for all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Aletho News10/8/09, 6:12 PM

    99,

    Not everyone is open with their agenda. Many writers and journalists are quite adept at concealing their true angle. It would be so much simpler if they were all bombastic buffoons but such is not the case.

    Fisk and Chomsky are not anti-Israel they simply think that the tactics that Israel uses are bad for Israel. This means that they still support the same goals that Netanyahu does.

    Fisk and Chomsky as well know their readers and deliver what their readers want, this is the only way to be effective at reaching your audience and promoting your desired message. Along with the sing song comes the vital tidbit of disinformation such as Fisk's incessant blather about Syria having bombed Hariri or Chomsky's incessant denial of the power of the Israel lobby. What makes this recent Fisk article different is the fact that there is almost no sing song, just a completely baseless assertion that has been denied by every single party that was purportedly involved. Nonetheless the propaganda mission is a success and the Independent (which has self described as pro-Israel) will not care that its credibility is tarnished.

    It is well documented in Congressional testimony from the church hearings and other sources as well that US intelligence agencies have infiltrated our media. To presume that they are doing so only to become right wing or conservative mouthpieces would be quite naive. In fact they no doubt run the gamut, I refer to it as full spectrum dominance of media. Since I look for the take away lesson or message from articles rather than how they make me feel or if I generally concur with the writer's tone or ideology, I can identify the operatives by their real actions. An example would be the pundits such as Noam Chomsky who condemned Iran's election results. The "action" is de-legitimization of the Iranian government. It matters little that anti-imperial language is thrown in because the audience has already been exposed to that type of language anyhow. The goal of damaging solidarity with Iran's regime is achieved. The same would apply to a concocted tale about a "cabal" of Arabs that are going to harm the dollar. Westerners resent paying for imported oil and this theme appeals to their resentment, the "action" involved is to shift the blame for financial failure onto a secret cabal of Arabs. The "action" is a complete LIE and Fisk knows it just as he knows that the official 9/11 narrative is unsupportable. Continuous exposure to this type of "action" leaves the Western audience callous to attacks on the chosen enemy. How could we become irate when Israel bombs a supposed nuclear plant in Syria when our trusted Fisk has been telling us for over a year that the regime there conducted a dastardly assassination in Beirut?

    The problem here does not seem to be any extraordinary "anger" that I harbor for Fisk but rather that you have chosen not to examine the facts yourself and to simply trust your guy with the "hotrod contacts".

    I know that you are capable of analyzing the issue and determining that Fisk is full of it. I have presented the facts that you need, all you have to do is part with your faith and approach the question with an open mind.

    ReplyDelete
  19. wimpy10/8/09, 6:47 PM

    I can agree that Chomsky is a dangerous old bastard who's long since outweighed his helpfulness with his too numerous perfidies.

    I have already granted that your certitude in this, while in any case unfairly characterizing those in disagreement as warmongering, will make me keep on the lookout for where my take may be in error, and all things being equal, you and I for example, that should be enough to jog you off your jabs about my "belief" and my "faith".

    Every aspect of the phony "Green Revolution" -- except for unseating the regime -- has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, and so Chomsky's shit is just a turd in an ocean of it. And even if this from Fisk is a lie he is knowingly putting forth, which is NOT made clear just because you insist it, that too is but a turd in this ocean of shit.

    While I am heavily in favor of the fervor with which you oppose war, and that you will stick to your guns before just caving to be companionable, you are being seriously unreasonable about this... even if every word of it is gospel, you just sound like I imagine a phial of snake venom in a lab somewhere would sound if it could make itself heard.

    What in the fuck are you doing putting THIS much effort into tuning ME up on the subject when you won't take the gate open to you to do it where it might COUNT?

    You have shut your ears to perfectly reasonable points here and just continue accusing me of some sort of preference for mysticism where hard facts (that are heavily softened by long-standing public perception problems) belong. Do you think that barking down everyone with that perception problem will fix this? Are you on your way to Hu's office and Putin's, et al.? WHY are you having a cow on my blog?

    Do you wish for me to dis Fisk harder, when I don't particularly uphold him to begin with? If so, your mission may be accomplished as things play out. Isn't that good enough for you? Do you just need to vent by having these periodic fits on lefties who don't seem to be meeting your specs? How can you doubt I am a good faith actor in these matters when I have lost Iranian friends in my efforts to keep them alive to be so pissed off? When I have resisted all inducements to just fall into the propagandistic glue pot about this stuff? And, FURTHER, pledged to unglue myself wherever I find I have actually been stuck?

    I've already assured you I'm going to keep my eye open to correct myself when/if I find myself to be erring here, and that, by now, means you will be the first person notified when/if it happens.

    WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Aletho News10/8/09, 7:51 PM

    Well, my, my. "Snake venom" eh? Perhaps you should review the thread, my references to "belief" were simply in response to your verbatim attestations. I was reminding you that you were basing your position only on belief.

    My intent is to debunk the "war for the petrodollar" meme. Perhaps you are unworthy of notice but some of my earlier comments were copied onto pulse media's comments as well as another site and they did generate dozens of reads on the two articles I linked to which would be generally suppressed and are quite intriguing for those that do choose to read them. From there I just got sucked in to a debate perhaps because of my being unwilling to just write you off as hopelessly defensive about an article which you had put up.

    Pulse Media's presentation of Fisk's article was more skeptical than yours. Perhaps I just want to preserve one little corner of the blogosphere from succumbing to this disinformation. I have not doubted YOUR being a "good faith actor" though I have no doubt at all about Fisk.

    If you go to my blog you will find that I devote significant coverage to what I label "media theatrics" a term I use because people have heard propaganda too many times:

    http://alethonews.blogspot.com/search/label/Media%20Theatrics

    http://atheonews.blogspot.com/search/label/Media%20Theatrics

    I will let you have the final word of course.

    ReplyDelete
  21. wimpy10/8/09, 8:15 PM

    I don't particularly want it... but I don't think I've been especially defensive of Fisk's piece, just not willing to immediately buckle to the notion that it's a baldfaced lie purveyed by a warmonger. And, yes, PULSE really does seem to be the kind of place this type of discourse is especially practiced. You have not wasted your time here, just been vexingly combative where I don't think it is called for.... Thank you for your attention, and here's hoping next time won't be so rocky.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)