Sunday, November 30, 2008



When I began this blog two years ago I expressed its main purpose:

'What is missing from daily news coverage in the United States is often more important than what is in it, especially since the big news media are designed to be more opinion-forming than informative.

That is largely what this blog will be about: What is being omitted from the U.S. news reports that logically should be there? When you look at the jigsaw puzzle assembled for you by the TV news editors, why is there a piece conspicuously missing from the middle of the picture? What was the motive for leaving a hole in the picture? Who benefits from the omission? Who would have been displeased if the information had not been left out?'

As I've shown repeatedly since writing those words, the important subjects most often missing from American “news” are Israel, the Israel Lobby, and the influence of Jews in American society. I raise this again today because of reporting of the attack on the Jewish Chabad house in Mumbai.

Notice the puzzlement over why a Jewish establishment would have been chosen as target:

'On Wednesday, the Chabad house became an unlikely target of the terrorist gunmen who unleashed a series of bloody coordinated attacks at locations in and around Mumbai’s commercial center. It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.'

At least the Associated Press said outright, 'The attackers' main targets appeared to be Americans, Britons and Jews,' . . . of course without any explanation as to why Jews were included.

As often happens, reports specifically aimed at a Jewish audience were more open:

'Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, this afternoon denounced the terrorist assaults in Mumbai, India. . . Hier called terrorism "the plague of the 21st century" and said the attackers "were not just delivering a message to the Indian government. They were sending a message to America and London and Jews and the state of Israel."'

The ludicrous implication that the occupation of the Jewish center was 'unlikely' and might have been 'accidental' is a typical evasion of mentioning Israel as the root cause of anger and hatred in the Islamic world and the Middle East. And who in all the world is Israel's only support? The United States. And who faithfully trots at the heels of America? England. When the United States invaded Iraq because Israel wanted Iraq neutered, England provided the illusion of a 'coalition' – while Israel was carefully omitted from any discussion of the attack on Iraq which it instigated through its creatures in the Pentagon.

(Throughout VIEW FROM THE MOON you will find many detailed discussions and facts relating to the preceding paragraph.)


'In 2003, barely out of their teens and newly married, Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka, moved from Brooklyn to the coastal city of Mumbai, India, to manage a mix of educational center, synagogue and social hall known as a Chabad house, one of about 3,500 outposts around the world run by the Lubavitch Hasidic movement. Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg were born in Israel, though he and his siblings were brought to Crown Heights as children by their parents.

'Rabbi Holtzberg’s parents, Noah and Freida, spent most of Thursday holed up in their house in Crown Heights, but left for Israel late in the afternoon. Meanwhile, Rivka Holtzberg’s parents, Rabbi Shimon and Yehudit Rosenberg, who live in Israel, boarded a plane to Mumbai.'

Wednesday, November 26, 2008


Yesterday we were bombarded with government plans for even more huge amounts of money to be given to banks. As I forced myself to listen to the television news – BBC, MSNBC, CNN -- I heard the same message again and again:

The government must do something to get the public to start borrowing again. More billions of dollars will be given to the banks in the hope that they will begin to lend money and stimulate Americans to borrow. The people must be motivated to start using their credit cards more. America's financial future depends on more borrowing.

'Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve's new $800 billion effort to combat the financial crisis is designed to make credit more accessible to shaken consumers who aren't sure they want more debt.'

Why? Why give $800 billion more to banks in order to encourage the populace to borrow more money and safari farther into Darkest Debt? What is the magic of borrowed money?

If the object is to encourage Americans to start buying more, in order to stimulate the economy with consumer purchases, why not just give the $800 billion (and all those earlier billions in handouts) directly to American citizens? There are about 306 million people in the US, and $800 billion would give every man, woman, and child about $2,600.00. This would mean about $8000 in cash for a family of three. Could you use that this Christmas?

Given the choice, would you prefer to have $8000 free and clear, or to borrow $8000 on which you'll be charged interest that will require you to repay not just $8000 but more like $12,000 and up?

We're told that it wouldn't be safe to give the $800 billion directly to the people, because they might not spend it. Horrors! Save money. Only direct donations to Al Qaeda could be more unpatriotic.

The system is insane. The thinking that supports the debt system might seem insane, but I'm sure it makes sense to the banks who not only get money directly from the U.S. government but also huge profits in interest payments from the people who will rent that money from them.

Saturday, November 8, 2008


'Dutch Outcry Over Naming Ship After Nazi' and 'Outcry in Netherlands over Nazi Link to Ship's Name' are headlines of the past 24 hours which imply that all Holland is in an uproar because of something equivalent to the discovery that a major dike was defectively engineered and is about to drown everybody in Amsterdam.

The published story begins, 'It ought to be a proud milestone in Netherlands seafaring heritage – the construction of a ship its owner claims will be the largest in the world. There's just one problem: the name.'

'Edwin Heerema, founder of the company that commissioned the vessel, wants to name it the “Pieter Schelte” after his late father, Pieter Schelte Heerema, who was renowned as a maritime engineer.'

Why is Holland in a state of collective outcry because a man wants to name a ship with his illustrious father's first two names? Note the picture which appears in the story.


Next note the solitary source of the 'outcry': Ronny Naftaniel, director of Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel, who cried, 'For people who know his pitch-black history, this ship should not be named for him. Not now, not ever.'

'Pitch black?' A spokesman for the son explained that Pieter Schelte Heerema was widely appreciated during his life, that he joined the Nazis out of opposition to Stalin's soviet communism (as did a multitude of other non-German Europeans) rather than enthusiasm for national socialism, and by 1943 had changed his mind and worked against the Nazis. The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation says that he provided "very important" services to the resistance. There is no assertion that he ever did anything illegal or immoral in his life.

But his virtues or lack of them aren't the point here. The point is that the head of a small pro-Israel organization in the Netherlands has managed to have a minor event reported and exaggerated by news organizations all around the world.

I had never heard of the “CIDI” until this morning, but it took me about two seconds to realize its similarity to the major Jewish/Zionist pressure organizations in the U.S. which are plentifully discussed in this blog – the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith (ADL) and AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee).

By its own account, the Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel distributes propaganda about Israel and the Jewish people. 'Our publications on the relationship between the Netherlands and Israel, anti-Semitism . . . play a large role in defining public opinion in the Netherlands.'

Ronny Naftaniel, director and outcrier of the CIDI, son of a German Jew, expanded the CIDI to 'monitoring anti-Semitism in addition to challenging criticism on Israel.' The American ADL also describes itself as 'monitoring' 'anti-Semitism', when in fact it is a bruising and unscrupulous aggressor in trying to silence all criticism of Israel or Jews.

The fictitious 'outcry' over the name of a ship which will lay pipes in offshore oil fields is typical of the ludicrous extremes to which such groups as the CIDI, the ADL, AIPAC and the Simon Wiesenthal Center will go – not least in order to stir up unease among Jews who may donate and pay their leaders' salaries.

Thursday, November 6, 2008


The election just ended reinforced my belief that the most important characteristic of a leader is confidence. Even a would-be leader who is equipped with the intellect and experience to lead people through a challenge will not attract as many followers as a would-be leader who exudes a superior imperturbable confidence.

Most people, whether soldiers or voters, are unsure of themselves. In a difficult or dangerous situation they hope that somebody is better able than they are to guide them to a successful outcome. When pressure is on, emotions make the uneasy herd more likely to flock after a supremely confident leader than after a person who makes good arguments but doesn't appear as sure of himself.

Ironically, it doesn't matter whether the confidence of the strongest leader is based on superior ability or not, as long as the crowd believes that it is. 'He wouldn't be so confident if he didn't know what he's doing.' On the other hand, the confidence that brings power to a leader must be completely convincing in every way.

Words alone won't do the trick. In the recent election one candidate constantly repeated, “I can do this! I'm prepared! I know how to do this!”, but beyond the words a large number of voters intuitively felt that the man lacked complete, unshakable confidence. Tone of voice, tempo, body language, along with a kind of instability when making decisions under pressure were at least as important as words in communicating true confidence or lack thereof. From that candidate, the herd sniffed uncertainty and nervousness.

The other candidate conveyed confidence with an impressively steady demeanor under pressure, with certainty, and with a sense that his daily decision-making was thoughtful and firmly controlled. He didn't boast as much about his leadership ability as the other candidate did, but his carriage, his voice, the calm and measured movement of his body, aroused in those looking for a leader to trust a sense of steadiness, sureness, and unshakable confidence that they concluded must rest on a solid foundation.

Monday, November 3, 2008


You are “friends” of presidential candidates even if they've never met you.

Your dollars are always “hard earned”.

“I'm a maverick” means, “I've worked in the Republican Party for years, but now that they're in deep trouble I'm disowning them.” [“Maverick”: An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, considered the property of the first person who brands it. From Samuel Maverick, 1870 American pioneer who did not brand his calves.]

“Elitist”: One who speaks good English and is therefore ill-suited to be president.

“Just like us”: A candidate who speaks poor English and therefore qualifies for the presidency.

“Our heroes”: Everybody who has enlisted in the army.

“Support our troops” : Support continuing whatever wars the politicians have involved our troops in.

Regardless of what much of the world has thought for a century, in American politics “socialism” is the equivalent of “hell”, and “socialist” is the equivalent of “devil”.
(Exception: Socialist economic policies are not “socialism” if promulgated by Republicans.)

There are “real Americans”, and therefore “unreal Americans”. The difference can't be defined, but one clue is that the more an American favors wars and rude behavior toward foreign leaders, the more “real” he is.

Any criticism of American society is “un-American” and automatically makes the critic unfit for public office.

“Threats to our allies” means “Threats to Israel”.

“Our good, stalwart friend, Israel” means, “I want the Jewish vote”.

“It's time we get this country moving again” means, “I'm running for President.”