I just went to Shoutwire and the story isn't on page one. It doesn't even figure among the stories on the six pages of editorials.
However, Joe, who is on a computer two feet away from me, shows it listed as story number three on page one. So there is something funny in the way Shoutwire presents articles to the public.
There is, however, another article by Vireliek about Israel that contains the following:
Raving Zionist Vireliek said:
Palestine, originally the property of Germany before WW1, was captured by the allies and responsibility of the area was given to the newly created League of Nations, basically the Allied Powers of WW1. This group created the British mandate of Palestine which gave the job of administration to Britain. When the League of Nations was dissolved, the British government claimed governance over the land for as long as the mandate remained in effect.
In his historical resume, Vireliek conveniently ignores the entire history of Palestine prior to the 20th century, and then he slides in that it belonged to Germany! What a way to completely ignore the Palestinian people themselves who had been on the land for thousands of years -- living peacefully with the very small Jewish population. He also doesn't mention that the existing Jewish population in Palestine was against the Zionist programme of a Jewish state, as Reed discusses in detail in
Controversy of Zion.
It also reveals his complete acceptance of the colonial mindset -- "it was the property of Germany" -- which fits in with his Zionist colonialism.
Raving Zionist Vireliek said:
Finally after much discussion, on November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution which called for a Jewish state to be created in the land of Palestine. The Jews used that resolution to start work on their new state. By May 14th, 1948 the state of Israel was officially declared a nation - 1 day before the British mandate of Palestine was set to expire. The land owned by the Arabs (45%) was supposed to become a Palestinian state, while the crown added the land it possessed to what the Jews owned to give them a bit over half of the land (55%).
This is where things started to get violent.
What about the Jewish terror organisations like the IRGUN that were carrying out attacks on the British and the Palestinians prior to the imposition of Israel? The Zionists had been "working on their new state" for decades, through blackmail and terror. Not a word on this from Vireliek. I have added a new thread with a UN Report on Zionist Terror in Palestine just to point out several hundred Zionist terror attacks from 1944-1948.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=4208.msg28006#msg28006
Raving Zionist Vireliek said:
Keep an eye out for "Israel: Victim or Aggressor? - Part 2 - The Aggression Begins". I hope you enjoyed the first part of the editorial. If you agree with my article I encourage you to comment as I have a feeling I'll have quite a few racists and anti-semites crying foul. So let's drown them out with some positive feedback.
So anyone who disagrees with his interpretation is either a racist or an anti-semite. Typical ADF name-calling.
The entire article is a completely falsified description of the history of Zionist control of Palestine. There is no discussion of the behind the scenes manoeuvering of the Zionists, the blackmail, the pressure exerted on politicians to get them to back the plan. There is no discussion of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis. The article is a joke from the historical point of view.
Either the guy is a paid tool or he is a useful idiot. An idea of how little he understands about the way we are controlled through the use of words and propaganda is shown in his discussion of his use of the term anti-semitism.
Raving Zionist Vireliek said:
I realize some people believe anti-semitism can be used to refer to other groups of people. So I checked it out by searching high and low on the internet for the meaning of anti-semitism. Turns out the way I use it is the only accepted definition of the word. So I'll continue using it the way it was meant to be used. Sure the original meaning hundreds of years ago may have been something else. But the origin of the word is not always the definition of a word. Please check the dictionary to confirm this for yourself.
So the entire question of power, of defining how people think by defining and redefining words, is irrelevant for Vireliek. The entire process of pathocratic double-speak, where the process is consciously used by pathological types, doesn't factor into his account. The control of the press by people who support Israel isn't mentioned.
So the guy is, effectively, an open Zionist agent. And we see that Shoutwire, whether it was consciously started as a front or not, has been brought into the fold, it is part of the system. That ties into the article and thread here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=4162
which discusses the conscious use of trolls by Israel to promote the Zionist cause, to flood websites with pro-Israeli propaganda. It is very easy to see how Shoutwire, regardless of its original intent (which, as Scottie points out, was to create as much noise and conflict as possible and to revel in it), could become easy pickings for an organised creaw like that sent out by Israel.
So either Shoutwire was set up initially with that in mind, or because of its ignorance in how the world really works, coupled with an attitude that it doesn't matter what they say as long as they are fighting it out on Shoutwire, they were quickly taken over. An example of ponerology in action because the intitial premise -- get people fighting each other -- is pathological. There is no concern for truth, for honest, careful and critical debate leading to a goal. With such an attitude, what might have been a useful tool has become just another Zionist mouthpiece, in spite of the abundance of anti-Israel articles it carries. That becomes the first-level meaning that is seen by sincere people. The pathocratic double-speak is the reality behind that mask.