Thursday, December 23, 2004
Another Jew-hating Academic Heard From
I was reading the online Letters section of the Asian Times on a Spengler article I posted when I found a Dec 7 entry from a "Jose R Pardinas, PhD" of Miami:
Spengler then continues to say that Muslim immigrants in Europe have an inordinate influence on European political decision-making. Well, as I understand it, that's the way democracy is supposed to work: it's all about competing constituencies fighting for their own peculiar interests. Here in America we have the Jewish constituency with its agenda on behalf of Israel. No American politician (or newspaper) would dare to raise a peep against this group's disproportionate influence on American foreign policy. Should we then not say that American politicians are afraid of the American Jewish minority? Of course they are! Why, then, should it be different for European politicians dealing with their Muslim minorities?
Whenever I see an anti-American or anti-semitic screed by someone with a doctorate, my first thought is that the chances are excellent that this individual is funded by government grants, as they would never survive in the marketplace otherwise. And indeed I was able to find a prominent researcher via Google with that exact name degree and initial. I'll hold off on conclusively linking this person with the Jew-hating POS who posted the AT letter until I am absolutely sure they are one and the same. However there is little doubt that the same person also made the following posts:
From a BBC article on Iranian nukes:
The Iranians would be crazy to abandon their nuclear programme. In the end the world would be a safer place and there would be greater justice, if powers are balanced in the Middle East. I personally hope they get their nukes.
Jose R. Pardinas, Miami, USA
Here's a more recent one in AT:
I really enjoyed Professor Kaveh L Afrasiabi's lucid analysis of the way Iran might deal with an American/Israeli attack on its military and industrial infrastructure [How Iran will fight back, Dec 16]. If this level of clear-headedness and intelligence pervades the Iranian leadership, Iran will be an enormously influential country in the not very distant future. Anyhow, I'm confused on one aspects of his analysis. Given the anomalous (indeed bizarre, if one factors in the Christian-Zionists) influence of Israeli-Jewish interests on American foreign policy, why would Iran not target predominantly, or even exclusively, Israel during such a confrontation? The way I see it this strategy would have the following psychological and practical consequences: It would mobilize the vast influence of well-endowed political lobbies and their surrogates in the mainstream American media (eg the Wall Street Journal, Fox and others) in averting a conflict in which Israel may actually get fatally mauled. After all, while the limited conventional and nuclear capabilities of Iran are unlikely to provide much deterrence against a rampaging superpower like the USA, how many nuclear strikes (in theory, of course) could a small country like Israel sustain before it passes forever out of history? One, two? It's unfortunate, but it has to be admitted that the current American leadership is a clear and present danger to world civilization. Other countries will have to sooner or later face it down using its own chosen weapons.
I've set up a Google Alert for Dr Pardinas. I have reason to suspect he is currently unemployed, but if he is as eminent a person in his field as I believe he is, when he lands a job I'm sure I'll be aware of it. And if it turns out to be government funded, I'll see what I can to to make his employer aware of the Doctor's views on how terrorist enablers should have weapons of mass destruction so they can "face down" the US.
Spengler then continues to say that Muslim immigrants in Europe have an inordinate influence on European political decision-making. Well, as I understand it, that's the way democracy is supposed to work: it's all about competing constituencies fighting for their own peculiar interests. Here in America we have the Jewish constituency with its agenda on behalf of Israel. No American politician (or newspaper) would dare to raise a peep against this group's disproportionate influence on American foreign policy. Should we then not say that American politicians are afraid of the American Jewish minority? Of course they are! Why, then, should it be different for European politicians dealing with their Muslim minorities?
Whenever I see an anti-American or anti-semitic screed by someone with a doctorate, my first thought is that the chances are excellent that this individual is funded by government grants, as they would never survive in the marketplace otherwise. And indeed I was able to find a prominent researcher via Google with that exact name degree and initial. I'll hold off on conclusively linking this person with the Jew-hating POS who posted the AT letter until I am absolutely sure they are one and the same. However there is little doubt that the same person also made the following posts:
From a BBC article on Iranian nukes:
The Iranians would be crazy to abandon their nuclear programme. In the end the world would be a safer place and there would be greater justice, if powers are balanced in the Middle East. I personally hope they get their nukes.
Jose R. Pardinas, Miami, USA
Here's a more recent one in AT:
I really enjoyed Professor Kaveh L Afrasiabi's lucid analysis of the way Iran might deal with an American/Israeli attack on its military and industrial infrastructure [How Iran will fight back, Dec 16]. If this level of clear-headedness and intelligence pervades the Iranian leadership, Iran will be an enormously influential country in the not very distant future. Anyhow, I'm confused on one aspects of his analysis. Given the anomalous (indeed bizarre, if one factors in the Christian-Zionists) influence of Israeli-Jewish interests on American foreign policy, why would Iran not target predominantly, or even exclusively, Israel during such a confrontation? The way I see it this strategy would have the following psychological and practical consequences: It would mobilize the vast influence of well-endowed political lobbies and their surrogates in the mainstream American media (eg the Wall Street Journal, Fox and others) in averting a conflict in which Israel may actually get fatally mauled. After all, while the limited conventional and nuclear capabilities of Iran are unlikely to provide much deterrence against a rampaging superpower like the USA, how many nuclear strikes (in theory, of course) could a small country like Israel sustain before it passes forever out of history? One, two? It's unfortunate, but it has to be admitted that the current American leadership is a clear and present danger to world civilization. Other countries will have to sooner or later face it down using its own chosen weapons.
I've set up a Google Alert for Dr Pardinas. I have reason to suspect he is currently unemployed, but if he is as eminent a person in his field as I believe he is, when he lands a job I'm sure I'll be aware of it. And if it turns out to be government funded, I'll see what I can to to make his employer aware of the Doctor's views on how terrorist enablers should have weapons of mass destruction so they can "face down" the US.
papijoe 11:00 AM
|