120. “Unaccountable – Truth And Lies On Parliament Hill” by Kevin Page with Vern Stenlund
nuggets: 1. Stephen Harper created the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) in order to capitalize on the fallout from the Sponsorship Scandal that had engulfed the Liberal Party when it was in power and it was set up to fail for the last thing in the world that the Harper government wanted was transparency. (chapter 1). 2. Kevin Page thought that scumbag Thomas Mulcair was an “impressive person.” (pages 43 & 44). 3. Page thought that Derek Burney, enemy of the people, was “honest and tough.” (pg 55). 4. Page can’t say enough nice things about the “magnificent National War Memorial” and the brave young men and women “risking life and limb in service to the country.” Seriously?! Shidane Abukar Arone might have something to say about it, when he’s resurrected. Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens who are hunted down and murdered by Nazis, who rule there, might have something to say about that idea. Justin Trudeau is giving the Nazis in Ukraine moral and material support because, contrary to what tool Trudeau says, Canada does not have it’s own foreign policy. As Todd Gordon makes clear in “Imperialist Canada,” Canada is ‘allowed’ to plunder where it wants as long as it doesn’t step on uncle Sam’s toes and as long as it also supports uncle Sam. (pg 69). 5. An anchor at one of Canada’s big corporate media outlets tells Page’s associate that they are in the same business and explains that it’s “The transparency business.” That impresses Page mightily, sadly. (pg 81). 6. Page thinks that pro R2P Michael Ignatieff is a fine fellow who he “liked personally…” (pg 100). 7. Kevin Page, the stellar, upright, honest to a fault, competent first chief of the PBO, says that Canada “did not lose any banks,” without mentioning that that was because, as in the United States, they were bailed out, as explained by Bruce Livesey in his book “Thieves Of Bay Street.” As well, Page got a lot of credit for pointing out that the Harper government’s proposed purchase of 65 F-35’s was a more expensive proposition than the Conservatives were letting on, but he never mentions the fact that they are lemons – which any number of sources, American and Canadian, have attested – which you would think would be a factor in his deliberations. If it was taken into consideration, I see no indication of it in his book. See for example Adam Ciralsky’s Vanity Fair article titled “Will It Fly?”
121. “Pragmatic Illusions – The Presidential Politics of JOHN F. KENNEDY” by Bruce Miroff
nuggets: 1. “Preoccupation with his personal attractiveness has, unfortunately, done more to obsure than to clarify John Kennedy’s political record.” (pg 1). 2. Ted Sorensen would not allow Bruce Miroff to quote from his book. Miroff paraphrases him therefore. (pg 2). 3. “John Kennedy seemed singularly devoid of political passion.” (pg 4). 4. JFK’s phony battles with corporate America “Kennedy was actually to serve the status quo far better than its avowed champion.” (pgs 9 & 10). 5. Camelot was not just something that the establishment wanted and created. JFK himself wanted it. (pg 11). 6. The brutal Green Berets were a pet project for JFK, who created them. Also, Miroff, as do others, note Kennedy’s deep fascination with counterinsurgency, aka State terrorism. (pg 18). 7. Kennedy was solely interested in Foreign Affairs, where he felt that he could make his mark and become famous. (pg 23). 8. The claim that JFK was more hawkish in public than private doesn’t hold up. (pg 21). 9. JFK, like most of the political class, regarded citizens as spectators of their political life, not participants. (pg 24). 10. Bruce brilliantly crushes the lie behind Kennedy’s famous “…ask not what your country can do for you…” line. (pgs 25-26). 11. Miroff, writing about JFK so early on, seems to have not known about JFK’s use of the mob in his planning for the invasion of Cuba, although Miroff does mention information along those lines just then coming out. The deal that JFK made with the mob, as Seymour Hersh lays out in his book, “The Dark Side Of Camelot,” was that the mob would assassinate Castro, preferably on the day of the invasion, with the stated goal of demoralizing the island residents and bringing them around to supporting the invaders. The mob was to get less – it could never been ‘none’ or it would have looked suspicious – attention from the attack dog (not in a good sense) Bobby Kennedy, JFK’s United States Attorney General in return. (pg 32). 12. JFK had a penchant for the apocalyptic, which was not something peculiar to him, but he was more into doom and gloom than other presidents who were into doom and gloom. (pg 64). 13. Miroff, despite his very good reportage and very good work ethic, is nevertheless infected with Camelotism. He speaks of Kennedy’s “deep-seated hopes for peace.” You get no credit for hoping for peace when your idea of peace is that you terrorize everyone into submitting to the global dictatorship of the United States. [And Miroff’s brief review of the Alliance for Progress, which he explains was a bust, was not merely a bust, but part of Kennedy’s counterrevolutionary attack on the peoples of South and Central America]. And he never calls JFK’s, or the US government’s, terrorist activities terrorist activities. And it isn’t because he doesn’t use the word ‘terrorism’, for he does – on page 156 in connection with the Viet Cong [a derisive term, according to Chomsky, although I don’t know how it is derisive.] (pg 40). 14. Miroff calls Kennedy a Liberal. He, and others, can call Kennedy whatever they want to. But Kennedy wasn’t a liberal, or, if you like, he wasn’t a genuine liberal. What Kennedy and the entire American political class is is rightwing, which means fascist, which means evil. At one time, ‘Conservative’ may have meant something other than fascist, but not now and not in Kennedy’s day. (pg 295)
122. “Cold War and Counterrevolution – The Foreign Policy Of John F. Kennedy” by Richard J. Walton
nuggets: 1. The unclassy JFK responded to the Soviet’s warm welcome of the new American president with extreme rudeness. (pgs 5,6,65). 2. Anti-God JFK, like other leaders, invokes God – a lot. (pg 9). 3. Richard Walton cites as a positive Adlai Stevenson’s defence of Dag Hammarskjold, Secretary General of the UN from ’53 to ’61, probably because he doesn’t know how awful Dag Hammarskjold was. In fact, Adlai Stevenson, a proponent of the concept of ‘the internal enemy’ (the people are the enemy, for which reason there exists counterrevolution and counterinsurgency), was awful. Congo acquired a people’s champion in the person of Patrice Lumumba, who the US, Belgium and Canada opposed and those imperial powers worked together to undermine his leadership and then assassinate him. This was not a problem for the anti-Lumumba Hammarskjold. Lumumba led Congo for a whopping 81 days, before the colonizers and their Congolese allies had him killed and his body dissolved in acid. (pg 11). 4. JFK was ‘not’ ambivalent about the Bay of Pigs plan. He was all for it. (pgs 43 & 44). 5. JFK orders corporate-owned media to suppress information and it (NYT) complies. (pgs 44 & 45). 6. JFK lies to the American public about his intention to invade Cuba. (pg 46). 7. Walton speculates that Eisenhower, under whose administration plans for invading Cuba were begun, would probably have come to his senses and not carried out those plans. (pgs 58 & 59). 8. Kennedy blew it in regard to Berlin. (pgs 75,76 & 77). 9. JFK thoughtlessly panicked all of America with his sabre-rattling in regard to Berlin. (pgs 86-89). 10. Walton, who is actually an admirer of the terrorist JFK, is sure that Kennedy’s admirers, who claim that all of Kennedy’s screw-ups were learning episodes (leading to his ‘brilliant’ handling of the Cuban missile crisis), would one day look back and see those screw-ups for the screw-ups they were. (pg 93). 11. Fidel Castro had the right to ask for missiles from the Soviets and they had the right to supply them. (pg 118). 12. JFK, who took the world to the brink of a nuclear holocaust, also excluded the rest of the world, including America’s ‘allies’, from the handling of that self-created crisis. (pg 124)
123. “The Dark Side Of Camelot” by Seymour Hersh
“One final act of cover-up occurred in the early-morning hours of Saturday, November 23, as Bobby Kennedy and an exhausted Jacqueline Kennedy returned to the White House, accompanying the body of the fallen president. There was a brief meeting between Kennedy and J.B. West, the chief White House usher, who turned over the Usher’s Logs – the most detailed records that existed of the visitors, public and private, to the president’s second-floor personal quarters. The logs provided what amounted to a daily scorecard of president’s sex partners, who were usually escorted by David Powers, JFK’s longtime personal aide. The logs, traditionally considered to be the public records of the presidency, were never seen again by West, and are not among the documents on file at the Kennedy Library.
“Bobby Kennedy knew, as did many of the men and women in the White House, that Jack Kennedy had been living a public lie as the attentive husband of Jacqueline, the glamorous and high-profile first lady. In private Kennedy was consumed with almost daily sexual liaisons and libertine partying, to a degree that shocked many members of his personal Secret Service detail. The sheer number of Kennedy’s sexual partners, and the recklessness of his use of them, escalated throughout his presidency. The women – sometimes paid prostitutes located by Powers and other members of the so-called Irish Mafia, who embraced and protected the president – would be brought to Kennedy’s office or his private quarters without any prior Secret Service knowledge or clearance. “Seventy to eighty percent of the agents thought it was nuts, ” recalled Tony Sherman, a former member of Kennedy’s White House Secret Service detail, in a 1995 interview for this book. “Some of us were brought up in the right way,” Sherman added. “Our mothers and fathers didn’t do it. We lived in another world. Suddenly, I’m Joe Agent here. I’m looking at the president of the United States and telling myself, ‘This is the White House and we protect the White House.'” (pgs 10 & 11)
“[Joseph] Kennedy’s rapid and highly profitable shift into the liquor importing business helped trigger what would become an unverified national rumour by the time his son entered the White House: that Joe Kennedy had been deeply involved in the bootleg liquor business since the first days of Prohibition – a business that was dominated by such organized crime leaders as New York’s Frank Costello, Newark’s Abner “Longy” Zwillman, and Chicago’s Al Capone. The rumors were made more plausible by Joe’s shipbuilding experience at Fore River during World War I – most bootleg liquor came to America by boat – and by the sheer number of Kennedy and Fitzgerald family members who had been in the liquor business before Prohibition began in 1920. Joe Kennedy’s father owned at least three taverns in Boston as well as a prosperous liquor importing business that handled shipments from Europe and South America. And two of Rose Kennedy’s uncles, younger brothers of Honey Fitz, remained active in the bootleg liquor business during Prohibition.
“The difficulty in attempting to evaluate the many reports of Joe Kennedy’s participation in bootlegging is the remarkable lack of documentation in government files. The FBI, in the years since Joe Kennedy’s death, has released hundreds of pages of Kennedy files in response to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, but those files – a compilation of security reviews and fawning letters between Hoover and Kennedy – make no mention of any link between Joseph Kennedy, organized crime, and the bootlegging industry. Yet, in scores of interviews for this book over four years, former high-level government officials of the 1950s and 1960s, including Justice Department prosecutors, CIA operatives, and FBI agents, insisted that they knew Joe Kennedy has been a prominent bootlegger during Prohibition. “I do know that he had associates in organized crime who respected him,” Cartha D. DeLoach, a deputy director of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, said in an interview for this book in 1997. But, added DeLoach, “I only knew him through Mr. Hoover. He had considerable experience in the bygone era of smuggling, and that’s how he made his fortune, according to Mr. Hoover.”
“One uncontested fact is that Joe Kennedy, through his liquor importing activities, defied all the risks and all the gossip – a defiance his son Jack would emulate in later years – by doing retail liquor business with the most notorious organized crime families throughout the post-Prohibition 1930s and well into the 1940s.” (pgs 47 & 48)
“The only Kennedy insider to discuss the vice presidential nomination publicly over the next thirty-five years was Evelyn Lincoln, Kennedy’s personal secretary, who told the British journalist Anthony Summers that she was convinced in mid-1960 that J. Edgar Hoover and [Lyndon] Johnson had conspired. Hoover was known to be personally close to Johnson – they lived on the same street in northwest Washington – and had for years provided Johnson with information about Kennedy’s private life. In Official and Confidential, Summers’s biography of Hoover, published in 1993, Lincoln was quoted as saying that Johnson “had been using all the information Hoover could find on Kennedy – during the campaign, even before the Convention. And Hoover was in on the pressure on Kennedy at the Convention… about womanizing, and things in Joe Kennedy’s background, and anything he could dig up. Johnson was using that as clout. Kennedy was angry, because they had boxed him into a corner. He was absolutely boxed in.” In a later interview for this book, Lincoln told of finding Bobby and Jack deep in conversation early on the morning of July 15: “I went in and listened. They were very upset and trying to figure out how they could get around it, but they didn’t know how they could do it.” She did not hear any mention then of a specific threat from Johnson, Lincoln said. But, she added, “Jack knew that Hoover and LBJ would just fill the air with womanizing.”
“The principals are long dead, and the world may never know what threats Lyndon Johnson made to gain the vice presidency. Kennedy knew how much Hoover knew, and he knew that the information was more than enough to give Johnson whatever he needed as leverage. Kennedy’s womanizing came at great cost: he could be subjected to blackmail not only by any number of his former lovers but also by anyone else who could accumulate enough specifics about his affairs – even an ambitious fellow senator. Kennedy found a way to make the best of it after the imbroglio over the vice presidency. He explained to Kenny O’Donnell, a longtime Johnson-hater, as O’Donnell wrote in his memoirs: “I’m forty-three years old. I’m not going to die in office. So the vice presidency doesn’t mean anything…”” (pgs 129 & 130)
“I was an airhead, Mrs. Humphreys added. “I didn’t know then that a president could be elected on the whim of Chicago mobsters. In my ignorance, I thought majority ruled.”
“The reminiscences of Jeanne Humphreys were confirmed by a handwritten diary she compiled during her years with [Murray] Humphreys. The diary, made available in part for this book, provides a seemingly candid and often droll account of her husband’s role in the 1960 election. “It’s ironic,” one entry noted, “that most of the behind-the-scenes participants in the Kennedy campaign could not vote because they had criminal records.” Electoral politics, Jeanne Humphreys wrote at another point, “was a bunch of crooks run by a bunch of crooks.”
“A previously unpublished FBI biography of Murray Humphreys covering the years 1957 to 1961 further supports her account. The FBI file, dated May 17, 1961, and also made available for this book, describes the little-known Humphreys as “being one of the prime leaders of the underworld in the Chicago area.” By the mid-1950s, it adds, Humphreys, Giancana, and the voting mobsters were “members of what might be called the governing board of organized criminals in the Chicago area.” Humphreys’ areas of responsibility included “the maintenance of contact with politicians, attorneys, public officials, and labour union leaders in order to influence these people to act in behalf of the interests of the underworld.” The FBI specifically noted Humphreys’ close ties to the Teamsters Union and depicted him as “the go-between” for organized crime and the Teamsters in their joint effort to become entrenched in the lucrative Las Vegas hotel and gambling business.
“Sandy Smith, who interviewed Humphreys several times while working for the Chicago Sun-Times in the early 1960s, described him as “the fixer” for the Chicago syndicate. “Humphreys had the ability to go into a judge’s chambers and talk to a judge,” Smith told me. “He could go into the Department of Justice and talk to lawyers there. He could talk to the Internal Revenue Service. Humphreys was a hard guy to dislike.”
Humphreys had been one of attorney Abe Marovitz’s clients in the years before Martovitz became a Chicago judge. “He was like a good businessman,” Marovitz told me. “His talk was different than most hoodlums. He wasn’t a vulgar guy. He controlled unions, lots of unions,” and “they gave substantial money to folks in politics.” But Humphreys’ influence was not based on his appearance, the retired judge noted: “It was strictly muscle. Either you went along with him, or you found yourself shot in the head or someplace. It was just one of those tough things in those days.”
Jeanne Humphreys’ firsthand descriptions of her husband’s attempts to corrupt the electoral process are consistent with Smith’s view and the FBI file. In her account, the mob’s endorsement of Jack Kennedy and its determination to get him elected led to two two-week meetings in Chicago: one in July, before the Democratic convention, and one in late October, before the election. During those meetings, Humphreys and his wife were sequestered in a suite at the Hilton Hotel, as Humphreys coordinated the politicking. “We weren’t staying there,” Mrs. Humphreys said of the Hilton. “We were stuck there – two weeks at a time. I was not allowed to go out, as we were sure we were being surveilled. This was very secret. Murray’s phone rang off the hook. Always politicians and Teamsters.
“”This was the whole country,” she added. “The people coming to the hotel were Teamsters from all over. The Chicago outfit was coordinating the whole country – Kansas, St. Louis, Cleveland. They were coming in from everywhere, then fanning out across the country.” the mob-dominated union officials were coming to the hotel suite, Mrs. Humphreys explained, “to get instructions from Murray. When we went back in October, it was just a follow-up, to see that everything went the right way. They got Kennedy elected.”” (pgs 144 & 145)
“”Bobby, in my view, was an unprincipled sinister little bastard,” Thomas A. Parrott, a CIA official who worked on intelligence matters in the office of Maxwell Taylor, recalled in a 1995 interview for this book. In early 1962 Taylor, whose advocacy of counterinsurgency was viewed with disdain by his four-star peers in the Pentagon, was made chairman of what would become the most important foreign policy entity in the Kennedy administration – the Special Group for Counterinsurgency (CI). “Both brothers got enamored of counterinsurgency,” Parrot told me. “Everything had to be CI. I was the secretary.” Bobby Kennedy was also a member of Special Group (CI). The attorney general, Parrott said, would invariably arrive late at the highly classified meetings and put his feet up on the table “so others had to look at the soles of his shoes.”” (pgs 278 & 279)
124. “Shooting The Hippo – Death By Deficit And Other Canadian Myths” by Linda McQuaig
Eric Malling, with a tv show called W5, told a tale about New Zealand having to kill its zoo’s baby hippo because its government was out of money because social spending was too high, a lie. Consider:
“…TV screens were filled with Conservative politicians talking about the deficit. But Malling knew – as Tory strategists apparently didn’t – that men and women in suits talking about the deficit make boring TV. And Malling never bores… So while Tory politicians and businessmen droned on about the deficit with charts and graphs and stupefying numbers, Malling presented us with the baby hippo.
“He brushes aside all the political yackety-yack of the Tory leadership race and the inevitable election…
“Now we’re ready for Malling to tell us what does matter. He looks directly at the camera. He’s talking straight to us.
“”Economists are predicting that sometime in the next year, maybe two years, the deputy minister of finance is going to walk into cabinet – and it doesn’t matter whose cabinet – and announce that Canada’s credit has run out. Now that matters. Our lives will change dramatically.”
“Hippos, take cover.
“”Can’t happen to us? Well, it did happen to a country very much like ours, New Zealand.”
“For the next hour, Malling gently blends the New Zealand and Canadian situations. The suggestion that we might recognize ourselves in the mirror becomes stronger as the show progresses, and the fate of the two countries becomes virtually identical. “How does a country like New Zealand, like Canada, eventually hit the [debt] wall?” Malling traces the dramatic cuts New Zealand has made in government spending over the last decade, slashing social programs, introducing user fees, removing government regulations and privatizing just about everything the government owned, including the post office and the national airline.
“All this has been done, not by choice, but because the debt left New Zealanders with no other options, Malling explains. The health minister tells Malling this had to happen because New Zealand was “at the edge of the cliff.” Malling quickly tells his audience, “Well now, a lot of Canadians, I think, are getting a view of the cliff too.”
“The show is a masterpiece of TV journalism. It is Malling at his best, communicating a complex subject in a simple, direct and powerful way, with a touch of scepticism and humour. It is also a fine example of what could perhaps be termed “deficit pornography” – material designed to arouse our fears through the use of provocative imagery. The image of Canada poised precariously at the edge of a cliff, or about to slam into a concrete wall, has the power to stimulate fears about the deficit in a way that all those ponderous politicians and business leaders in suits had failed to. The show was a massive success by any usual measure applied in the media industry – fabulous ratings, a buzz in the corridors of power, a higher profile for Malling, a big effect on public opinion.
“Its only shortcoming – which went largely unnoticed – was that it distorted what actually happened in New Zealand. There is a fascinating story there, and it is highly relevant to Canada. But it’s not the story that Malling told. The real story is about how New Zealand’s politicians embarked on a huge experiment in which they transformed their country from an advanced social democracy into a free-market jungle with massive unemployment, growing inequality and a damaged manufacturing base. Have a look and you might see yourself in the mirror.
“But, in presenting New Zealand’s government-slashing solutions as a desirable model for Canada, Malling used his considerable skills to entice us further down this dangerous path.” (pgs 3-5)
“The interest rate became the key variable in the question of who won and who lost from inflation. Although the rate was the same for everyone, there was a great difference between how if affected each individual, depending on whether the individual was primarily a creditor or a debtor. Creditors benefited from high interest rates because they got a bigger return on their money. Debtors were hurt by them because they had to pay higher borrowing costs. In a war on inflation, with inevitably higher interest rates, creditors stood to gain, while debtors were likely to become cannon fodder.
“But who were the creditors? Clearly, they included wealthy individuals who owned large financial assets. Yet advocates of price stability or zero inflation, as it is sometimes called, often confused the issue by keeping the focus almost exclusively trained on another group of creditors – senior citizens who had accumulated savings over their lifetime. Seniors were the baby seals of the inflation debate. Just as the thought of seal clubs being clubbed to death rallied support against the Newfoundland seal hunt, the thought of pensioners being robbed of their life savings through inflation rallied support for the anti-inflation crusade.
“Sometimes single mothers were also included in the list of inflation’s victims, on the grounds that their support payments were often not fully indexed to inflation. (While this was true, single mothers were generally more adversely affected by anti-inflation policies that drove up interest rates and, consequently, eliminated jobs.) But if pensioners and single mothers stirred sympathetic emotions in the public akin to suffering baby seals, the wealthy aroused about as much public sympathy as the baby seal clubbers. If the public suspected that the anti-inflation war had the effect of further enriching the rich, there would be even less support for it; indeed, there would likely be a backlash against it.
“So arguments about the benefits of controlling inflation usually omitted any mention of the wealthy. In outlining the evils of inflation, for instance, The Great Canadian Disinflation, one of the key anti-inflation tracts published by the C.D. Howe Institute, lists as the number one evil the way inflation redistributes resources among different members of society. But authors David Laidler and William Robson leave the impression that the main effect of this redistribution is to harm pensioners and single parents: “Thus, even apparently moderate inflation severely erodes the real incomes of old people, of many single-parent households, and of others who depend on fixed nominal payments for a large proportion of their incomes – many of whom live in or close to poverty.” (The authors fail to mention that Ottawa’s main pension programs – the Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement – are fully indexed to inflation.) Instead, Laidler and Robson skilfully touch buzzwords that evoke sympathy – old people, single parents, poverty. Just like seal pups, bleeding, helpless. Strangely absent is any hint of investors, rich people, seal clubbers.
“The tract leaves the impression that the only people worried about inflation are old people and single mothers. Are we then to conclude that the C.D. Howe Institute, which is funded by large corporations, banks, investment dealers, life insurance companies, brokerage houses and wealthy individuals, has carried out its lengthy campaign against inflation primarily because it is concerned about the plight of pensioners and single mothers?”
125. “A People’s History Of The United States, 1492-2201” by Howard Zinn
nuggets: 1. Samuel Morison writes so casually about Christopher Columbus’s genocide that readers may be forgiven for thinking that nothing’s going on here. (pg 8). 2. There’s no ‘united’ in United States. There’s no meaningful ‘national interest’. (pg 9). 3. African slaves were checked very carefully by slavers’ doctors before the people transporting them were allowed to damage them seriously. Cruelty trumps sanity. (pg 28). 4. The astonishing cruelty of slaveholders who talked about the difficulties of their lives as slaveholders. For example, they worried about the consequences of their slaves not getting enough food and clothing. That’s on top of the slaveholders’ need to have laws that forbade freedom and escape from enslavement. (pg 46). 5. The American Constitution was written by men influenced by John Locke, who believed in elite rule. (pg 47). 6. Richard Morris figures that the first lockout by an employer in the US took place in 1640. It was directed at shipwrights. (pg 50). 7. law as a mechanism of control (pgs 99, 100). 8. Enter the disgusting Andrew Jackson. (pg 128). 9. President Martin Van Buren calls the abuse and slaughter of the Cherokee nations “sincere pleasure” and his efforts at having dragged out that atrocity as having had the “happiest effects.” (pgs 147 & 148). 10. Zinn notes that Henry David Thoreau had some interesting and good ideas about law. (pg 156). 11. Regarding the perverted Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, which the London Spectator commented on: “The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.” (pg 192). 12. Confederate troops were utterly depraved. (pg 193). The Anti-renter movement and Dorr’s rebellion largely missing from history books. (pg 216). 13. Whigs, or Republicans and Democrats came into being with Martin Van Buren. (pg 217). 14. Four years before Marx and Engel presented their Communist Manifesto, the Awl in America had an article that talked about class warfare. (pg 231). 15. Horatio Alger stories relied on for population control. (pg 254). 16. Plenty of rich people avoided war by paying for substitutes. (pg 255). 17. Mark Twain, aka Samuel Langhorne Clemens, denounces Christendom, which is deviant Christianity. (pg 321.). 18. Socialist Upton Sinclair was an establishment tool. (pg 365) 19. Clever bosses opt for unionization over the more frightening, to them, wild cat strikes. (pg 401). 20. WWII killed the people’s fightback in the class war. (pg 402.). 21. The Church Committee wasn’t so valorous. (pg 555). 22. “In the mid-1980s, with Ronald Reagan as President, the “fairness doctrine” of the Federal Communications Commission, requiring air time for dissenting views, was eliminated.” – Zinn. (pg 564). 23. Ronald Reagan tried to change the Voting Rights Act in order to make it harder for Blacks to vote. (pg 610). 24. Zinn gets Bernie Sanders wrong, calling him, without qualification, a socialist. (pg 612)
126. “War Against The People – Israel, The Palestinians And Global Pacification” by Jeff Halper
From “Introduction: How Does Israel Get Away With It?”:
“I began to look outside the box of the Occupation itself. I noticed that Israel has diplomatic relations with 157 countries, and virtually all the agreements and protocols Israel has signed with them contain military and security components. I also noted that Saudi Arabia no less had initiated the Arab League’s Peace Initiative in 2002, despite an almost atavistic rejection of Israel’s religious ideology. From those tiny threads, it dawned on me that when military relations are mixed into the diplomatic stew, new, surprising and seemingly impossible constellations emerge. As I began to trace Israel’s military relations more closely, another picture emerged in which Israel was actually a regional hegemon accepted as such – or at least related to as such – by the other countries of the region and beyond. Israel’s position in the world could not be explained by normal international relations; again, most countries strongly oppose its Occupation policies. Nor could lobbies or the Holocaust explain it.
“Israel, it seemed, was succeeding in parlaying its military and securocratic prowess into political clout, in pursuing what I now call security politics. The Occupied Palestinian Territories, I now understand, did not pose a financial burden on Israel or an unwanted source of insecurity and conflict. Indeed, the opposite was the case. Without an occupation and an interminable conflict, how would Israel sustain its strong international standing? The Occupation represents a resource for Israel in two senses: economically, it provides a testing ground for the development of weapons, security systems, models of population control and tactics without which Israel would be unable to compete in the international arms and security markets, but no less important, being a major military power serving other militaries and security services the world over lends Israel an international status among the global hegemons it would not have otherwise. Israel is a small country scrambling to carve out a niche in the transnational military-industrial complex. Where would it be without the Occupation and the regional conflict it generates?” – Jeff Halper (pgs 3 & 4)
Indeed. And as James Bamford reports in “The Shadow Factory – The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Evesdropping on America,” the bugging equipment on American telecommunications infrastructure is produced by two Israeli companies, namely Narus and Verint. If we are talking about war on the people, then I would call Israel’s telecommunications equipment, used to eavesdrop on everyone, weaponry as well. And it is ‘not’ for self-defense, anywhere. Who is attacking Israel or the United States? Bamford’s book has a chapter titled “Wiretappers” that looks closely at the surveillance technology of Israel that is sold around the world and to the US government. He writes:
“The NSA’s heavy involvement in cyber warfare dates back to 1996, when then CIA director John Deutch announced plans to create a “cyberwar” center at the NSA. “The electron,” Deutch warned, “is the ultimate precision-guided weapon.” The Information Operations Technology Center was created at the NSA in 1999 and became the leading organization for network exploitation and attack. Then in July 2002, President Bush signed a top-secret order directing the national security community, including the NSA, to develop, for the first time, rules and policies governing how the United States would launch cyberattacks against foreign computer networks.
“Known as National Security Presidential Directive 16, the order allows the president to launch a secret preemptive cyberwar against any number of foreign countries, from China to Pakistan…
“By moving into the world of cyberwar, the NSA has crossed another dangerous threshold. Corrupting or destroying another nation’s data network is considered by most countries an act of war.” (pgs 334, 335)
I don’t know what Israeli spokespersons say publicly about “Corrupting or destroying another nation’s data network,” but I’m sure that they are down with it. Like uncle Sam, Israel is utterly lawless and violent.