In last month’s Anti-Empire Report I brought you the latest adventure of US State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki trying to defend the indefensible. She said then: “As a matter of longstanding policy, the United States does not support political transitions by non-constitutional means,” which prompted me to inform my readers: “If you know how to contact Ms. Psaki, tell her to have a look at my list of more than 50 governments the United States has attempted to overthrow since the end of the Second World War.”
On March 13 her regular attack on all things Russian included this exchange with Associated Presswriter Matthew Lee:
Lee: On this issue, did you get any more about this request to the Vietnamese on Cam Ranh Bay and not allowing the Russians to – and not wanting them to allow – you not wanting them to refuel Russian planes there?
Psaki: Well, just to be clear – and maybe I wasn’t as clear yesterday, so let me try to do this again – it’s – our concern is about activities they might conduct in the region, and the question is: Why are they in the region? It’s not about specifically refueling or telling the Vietnamese not to allow them to refuel. [emphasis added]
Lee: So there hasn’t been a request to stop refueling them, or there has?
Psaki: It’s more about concerns. It’s not as much about Vietnam as much as it – as it is about concerns about what activities they would be in the region for.
Lee: Okay. Well, you – I mean, there are U.S. planes flying over there all the time.
Psaki: Sure, there are.
Lee: So you don’t want Russian planes flying there, but it’s okay for U.S. planes to fly there? I mean, I just – it gets to the point where you – the suggestion is that everything the Russians are doing all the time everywhere is somehow nefarious and designed to provoke. But you can’t – but you don’t seem to be able to understand or accept that American planes flying all over the place, including in that area, is annoying to the Chinese, for one, but also for the Russians. But the suggestion is always that the American flights are good and beneficial and don’t cause tension, and that other people’s flights do cause tension. So can you explain what the basis is for your concern that the Russian flights there in the Southeast Asia area are – raise tensions?
Psaki: There just aren’t more details I can go into.
Cold War 2.0, part II
On Saturday, the Obama administration released a series of satellite images that it said showed the Russian army had joined the rebels in a full-scale assault to surround troops in the area around the city. Russia has denied that it is a party to the conflict, and it was impossible to verify the three grainy black-and-white satellite images posted to Twitter by the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.
According to the United States, the images, commissioned from the private Digital Globe satellite company, showed artillery systems and multiple-rocket launchers Thursday in the area near Debaltseve.
“We are confident these are Russian military, not separatist, systems,” Pyatt tweeted. (Washington Post, February 15, 2015)
When the time comes to list the ways in which the United States gradually sunk into the quicksand, slowly metamorphosing into a Third-World state, Washington’s campaign of 2014-15 to convince the world that Russia had repeatedly invaded Ukraine will deserve to be near the top of the list. Numerous examples like the above can be given. If I were still the jingoistic nationalist I was raised to be I think I would feel somewhat embarrassed now by the blatant obviousness of it all.
For a short visual history of the decline and fall of the American Empire, see the video “Imperial Decay” by Class War Films (8:50 minutes).
During Cold War 1.0 the American media loved to poke fun at the Soviet media for failing to match the glorious standards of the Western press. One of the most common putdowns was about the two main Russian newspapers – Pravda (meaning “truth” in Russian) and Izvestia (meaning “news”). We were told, endlessly, that there was “no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia.”
As cynical as I’ve been for years about the American mainstream media’s treatment of ODE (Officially Designated Enemies), current news coverage of Russia exceeds my worst expectations. I’m astonished every day at the obvious disregard of any kind of objectivity or fairness concerning Russia. Perhaps the most important example of this bias is the failure to remind their audience that the US and NATO have surrounded Russia – with Washington’s coup in Ukraine as the latest example – and that Moscow, for some odd reason, feels threatened by this. (Look for the map online of NATO bases and Russia, with a caption like: “Why did you place your country in the middle of our bases?”)
Cold War 2.0, part III
Following the murder of Russian opposition leader, and former Deputy Prime Minister, Boris Nemtsov in Moscow on February 27, the West had a field day. Ranging from strong innuendo to outright accusation of murder, the Western media and politicians did not miss an opportunity to treat Vladimir Putin as a football practice dummy.
The European Parliament adopted a resolution urging an international investigation into Nemtsov’s death and suggested that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Council, and the United Nations could play a role in the probe.
US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham introduced a Senate Resolution condemning the Nemtsov murder. The Resolution also called on President Obama and the international community to pursue an independent investigation into the murder and redouble efforts to advance free speech, human rights, and the rule of law in Russia. In addition, it urged Obama to continue to sanction human rights violators in the Russian Federation and to increase US support to human rights activists in Russia.
So it went … all over the West.
Meanwhile, in the same time period in Ukraine, outside of the pro-Russian area in the southeast, the following was reported:
- January 29: Former Chairman of the local government of the Kharkov region, Alexey Kolesnik, hanged himself.
- February 24: Stanislav Melnik, a member of the opposition party (Partia Regionov), shot himself.
- February 25: The Mayor of Melitopol, Sergey Valter, hanged himself a few hours before his trial.
- February 26: Alexander Bordiuga, deputy director of the Melitopol police, was found dead in his garage.
- February 26: Alexander Peklushenko, former member of the Ukrainian parliament, and former mayor of Zaporizhi, was found shot to death.
- February 28: Mikhail Chechetov, former member of parliament, member of the opposition party (Partia Regionov), “fell” from the window of his 17th floor apartment in Kiev.
- March 14: The 32-year-old prosecutor in Odessa, Sergey Melnichuk, “fell” to his death from the 9th floor.
The Partia Regionov directly accused the Ukrainian government in the deaths of their party members and appealed to the West to react to these events. “We appeal to the European Union, PACE [Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe], and European and international human rights organizations to immediately react to the situation in Ukraine, and give a legal assessment of the criminal actions of the Ukrainian government, which cynically murders its political opponents.”
We cannot conclude from the above that the Ukrainian government was responsible for all, or even any, of these deaths. But neither can we conclude that the Russian government was responsible for the death of Boris Nemtsov, the American media and politicians notwithstanding. A search of the mammoth Nexus news database found no mention of any of the Ukrainian deceased except for the last one above, Sergey Melnichuk, but this clearly is not the same person. It thus appears that none of the deaths on the above list was ascribed to the Western-allied Ukrainian government.
Where are the demands for international investigations of any of the deaths? In the United States or in Europe? Where is Senator McCain?
Torture via sanctions
Discussions on constraining Iran’s nuclear program have been going on for well over a year between Iran and the P5+1 (the five nuclear powers of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany), led by the United States. Throughout this period a significant stumbling block to reaching an agreement has been the pronouncements of Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA is the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, and its inspections are considered a key safeguard against countries using civilian nuclear energy technology to produce weapons. Amano has consistently accused Iran of failing to reply fully and substantially to queries about “possible military dimensions” of present and past nuclear activities, or failing to provide sufficient access to nuclear facilities.
Failure by Iran to comply fully with IAEA demands undermine Tehran’s efforts to win the lifting of crippling UN, US and other sanctions, which currently prohibit foreign companies from doing business with Iran and deny access to the global financial system. Media coverage of the negotiations regularly emphasize Amano’s claims of Iran’s insufficient responses to IAEA’s demands. It is thus worth inquiring just who is this man Amano.
In 2009 Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano became the head of the IAEA. What the Western media routinely fail to remind its audience is that a US embassy cable of October 2009 (released by Wikileaks in 2010) said Amano “took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency. Amano reminded the [American] ambassador on several occasions that … he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”
Even if Iran makes a superior effort to satisfy IAEA and Washington’s demands on all issues, it would remain questionable to what extent and how rapidly the sanctions would be removed, particularly under a Republican-controlled Congress. Iran specialist and author Gareth Porter recently wrote that “the United States and its allies have made no effort to hide the fact that they intend to maintain the ‘sanctions architecture’ in place for many years after the implementation of the agreement has begun. Last November, administration officials explained that US sanctions would only be removed after the International Atomic Energy Agency had verified that ‘Tehran is abiding by the terms of a deal over an extended period of time’ in order to ‘maintain leverage on Iran to honour the accord’.”
To appreciate the extraordinary degree of pressure and extortion the United States can impose upon another country we should consider the case of Libya in the decade-plus following the destruction of PanAm Flight 103 in 1988 over Scotland. To force Libya to “accept responsibility” for the crime, Washington imposed heavy sanctions on the Gaddafi regime, including a ban on international flights to Libya and payment of billions of dollars to the families of the victims. Libya eventually did “accept responsibility” for the crime, although it was innocent. As difficult as this may be to believe, it’s true. Read my account of it here.
Even after Libya accepted responsibility it still took years for the US to wipe out the sanctions, and it’s not clear that at the time of Gaddafi’s death in 2011 all of them had been removed. Once a nation becomes an Officially Designated Enemy of the empire the methods of torture can be exquisite and endless. Cuba is presently negotiating the end of US sanctions against Havana. They will need to be extremely careful.
“Like others of his ilk – such as David Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens – he learned too much in college and too little since.” Sam Smith
I’ve never been too impressed by what college a person went to, or even if they attended college at all. Gore Vidal did not attend any college; neither did H. L. Mencken; nor did Edward Snowden, who has demonstrated a highly articulate and educated mind. Among the many other notables who skipped a college education are George Bernard Shaw, Ernest Hemingway, and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Then we have graduates from Ivy League colleges like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Tom Cotton. I don’t have to present the case for Bush’s less-than educated mind; we’re all only too familiar with its beauty. But Obama has matched Georgie Boy for stupidity and inanity time and time again. My favorite, which he’s used on at least five occasions, is his reply to questions about why his administration has not prosecuted Bush, Cheney, et al for torture and other war crimes: “I prefer to look forward rather than backwards”. Picture a defendant before a judge asking to be found innocent on such grounds. It simply makes laws, law enforcement, crime, justice, and facts irrelevant. Picture Chelsea Manning and other whistle blowers using this argument. Picture the reaction to this by Barack Obama, who has become the leading persecutor of whistleblowers in American history.
Is there anyone left who still thinks that Barack Obama is some kind of improvement intellectually over George W. Bush? Probably two types still think so: (1) Those to whom color matters a lot; (2) Those who are very impressed by the ability to put together grammatically correct sentences.
And now we have Mr. Cotton, Senator from Arkansas and graduate of Harvard undergraduate and law schools. He’ll be entertaining us for years to come with gems like his remark on “Face the Nation” (March 15): “Moreover, we have to stand up to Iran’s attempts to drive for regional dominance. They already control Tehran and, increasingly, they control Damascus and Beirut and Baghdad. And now, Sana’a as well.”
Heavens, Iran controls Tehran! Who knew? Next thing we’ll hear is that Russia controls Moscow! Sarah Palin, move over. Our boy Cotton is ready for Saturday Night Live.
- Washington Post, February 15, 2015, “Amid doubts, truce in Ukraine appears to take hold”
- RT, March 12, 2015, “EU lawmakers demand international investigation into Nemtsov’s death”
- John McCain website, Press Release, “Senators John Mccain And Lindsey Graham Introduce Resolution Condemning Murder Of Russian Opposition Leader Boris Nemtsov”
- Research for this section was done by a person who was raised in the Soviet Union and now lives in the United States.
- Middle East Eye, March 27, 2015, “Sanctions and the fate of the nuclear talks”
I’ve been spending a lot of time reading books lately — and learning a lot from them too.
First I read a book by David J. Morris entitled “The Evil Hours: A Bibliography of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” — and my main takeaway from it was this: People are more susceptible to PTSD if the way that they were traumatized involved an act of injustice.
Knowing this, it came as no surprise to me the other day when I was wandering around the buildings and grounds of that massive VA hospital complex in San Francisco and got yelled at by a young Iraq vet who obviously had PTSD. “Injustice!” he screamed. “The Iraq war was unjust? The whole freaking world is unjust!” And that’s the way this vet saw the world, post 9-11.
However, this guy looked hauntingly like he might have been a young post-Vietnam-era vet, just stepped out of a time machine from the 1960s. And there was certainly lots of injustice back in Vietnam too — wherein only the poor jerks in the Mai Lai massacre got caught while all the higher-ups such as Henry Kissinger and various weapons manufacturers just made money on that Tonkin Gulf scam.
Next I read Nicholas Carr’s book, “The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains,” all about how human beings think and how our brains’ working structures are constantly being influenced by stuff in our environment. Even learning to read has changed our brains. Even clocks did that too. And from this information, I concluded that hate changes our brains too. Jesus was right. Hate is a slippery slope.
After that, I read Steven Gore’s new murder-mystery, “Night is the Hunter”. Steven Gore’s books always keep us on the edge of our seats — and also teach us stuff about power and its ability to corrupt those who hold it as well. http://www.amazon.com/Night-
Then I read a book by murder-mystery author Chelsea Cain, who I had heard speak up in her home town of Portland last week. “Even as a child I was always on the look-out for dead bodies.” Boy, she should go off to Yemen right now — where the U.S. and the Saudis are bombing women and children there like there was no tomorrow and charred corpses of babies are just lying around like driftwood on a beach.
Cain mostly writes about serial killers. And apparently, according to Carr’s POV, serial killers’ brains can get stuck in a groove where, “If you are a hammer, all the world looks like a nail.”
“I’m also always looking for good places to dump bodies,” said Cain. And apparently the American war machine is too! She should try checking out Afghanistan or Libya or Gaza. Lots of places for mass graves there for sure.
Then I decided to take a break from books and watch some old seasons of “Survivor” on Roku. And while watching a season that had been taped in June of 2001, I noticed that all the contestants were really friendly and sweet to each other. Is that really what life was like before 9-11? Season 23 of Survivor is far more merciless and cut-throat. Or is it just that they cast more villains in the power roles?
Have Americans become so much more immune to violence these days? Have our brains simply stopped caring that over a million people in the Middle East have died directly or indirectly by our hands since 9-11? Or that for every American killed in the 9-11 tragedy, approximately 40 innocent women and children have had their bodies burned, their heads blown off or their intestines spread out all over the sidewalk by American weapons, bullets, bombs and brains? http://www.paulcraigroberts.
The internet may have changed the way that our brains now physically function, but our so-called leaders’ post-9-11 thinking has certainly changed our hearts into cold unthinking inhuman stone.
In any case, please remember just this one thing during the 2015 Easter season: Our American brains clearly have changed since September 11, 2001 — and even though Christ has risen, Americans have sunk.
American aircraft went into action against Islamic State positions in Tikrit on March 25 in direct support of a stalled Iraqi offensive. The following day General Lloyd Austin, top commander in the Middle East, told Congress that he would like his forces to protect the Syrian “moderate” rebels who are currently trained and armed by the U.S. Also this week a major new theater was opened in Yemen, where a Sunni Arab coalition started sustained air strikes against Shia rebels with Washington’s explicit support.
The alarming aspect of these new developments is that the U.S. role appears to be entirely reactive and not based on a coherent long-term strategy. The engagement in Tikrit has the obvious short-term objective of countering Iran’s growing influence in Iraq, rather than inflicting a decisive defeat on the IS.According to a report in Thursday’s New York Times, President Obama approved the airstrikes, requested by Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, on the condition that Iranian-backed Shiite militias move aside to allow a larger role for Iraqi forces that have worked closely with U.S. troops. They went into action only after Qassim Suleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps who has been advising anti-IS forces around Tikrit, was reported to have left the area:
The United States has struggled to maintain influence in Iraq, even as Iran has helped direct the war on the ground against the Islamic State. But as the struggles to take Tikrit mounted, with a small band of Islamic State militants holding out against a combined Iraqi force of more than 30,000 for weeks, American officials saw a chance not only to turn the momentum against the Islamic State but to gain an edge against the Iranians.
According to a Pentagon statement issued on Wednesday, the purpose of the strikes was to hit ISIS targets and to enable “Iraqi forces under Iraqi command to continue offensive operations.” The meaning is clear when we consider General Martin Dempsey’s statement at the onset of the offensive that Iraq’s 24,000 forces included 20,000 “Iranian-trained and somewhat Iranian-equipped” [sic!] Shia militiamen. Those militiamen “pulled back” east of Tikrit once the U.S. began conducting airstrikes, General Lloyd Austin, the U.S. Central Command commander, told Congress on Thursday: “I will not – and I hope we will never – coordinate or cooperate with Shiite militias. Preconditions for us to provide support were that the Iraqi government had to be in charge of this operation. We had to know exactly who was on the ground.”
This means that Tikrit will remain under IS control, unlike the city of Amerli where the IS jihadists were driven back by a militia-led ground offensive backed by U.S. airstrikes. According to Gen. Austin, 4,000 Iraqi soldiers and police were now fighting in Tikrit. This is but a fraction of the 23,000 Shiite militia and government forces previously attacking the city. It is obvious that this force cannot complete the job, airstrikes or no airstrikes. “Never, ever coordinating or cooperating” has tangible military consequences.
The U.S. military, as of now, is willing to provide extensive air support only to those Iraqi units that have no obvious Iranian or Shia connection – even if this means that the overall numbers of combatants on the ground and their effectiveness is woefully inadequate to the task of pushing back the battle-hardened IS veterans. Even if Tikrit eventually falls to the small “Iraqi government-commanded” force – an unlikely proposition – the far more important city of Mosul, 140 miles further north, will remain safely under IS control for many months to come. This is exactly what “Caliph” al-Baghdadi wants.
This is no way to fight a battle, let alone a war. Iraq is a sectarian mayhem in which the U.S. should not intervene yet again. It threatens to become but another example of improvised, ad-hoc American involvement in pursuit of unattainable political objectives – such as a “substantial Sunni component” in the Iraqi army – or the exclusion of Iran’s influence from Baghdad which has been made possible by George W. Bush’s war.
General Austin’s statement that he would like his forces to protect the Syrian “moderate” rebels is no less incongruous. Protected from whom, exactly? Most of them want to fight Bashar al-Assad, rather than the IS. “Protecting” them means putting American boots on the Syrian ground in support of an utterly unreliable and untested force in a Hobbesian nightmare, with the possibility that the U.S. gets directly involved against the only army in the region able and willing to fight the IS. Again, this is just what al-Baghdadi would like to happen.
Entrepreneurs’ versus the corporatists’ mode of business culture are separated by a vastly different view of enterprise. The former deems his work as innovative, creative and beneficial to customers. The later see the corporate organization as an institution end of itself. Competition makes the business pioneer sharp and driven, while any competitor is targeted for demise within the corporative culture. Buyouts of ventures that show promise may be a payoff reward for the struggling enterpriser, but the corporatist CEO sees the absorption of new technology as a twofold gain. Acquiring the means to create or advance market share and stamping out any future competitive threats.
This corporatist culture actually has merged with the definitive enforcement partner; namely, the state. The morphing of anti-trust safeguards into a system of crony alliance protection is the current standard for the globalist economy. The implication is that a company needs to pay to play and become “Free Trade” proponents to even remain in business.
Thomas E. Woods Jr. cites a prime example of the contemporary corporate-government fascism that controls the global economy, with the example of Government Electric. In The Cultural Costs of Corporatism: How Government-Business Collusion Denigrates the Entrepreneur and Rewards the Sycophant, the formula is set.
The best case study in political entrepreneurship may be General Electric. CEO Jeffrey Immelt pretty clearly laid out his approach in a letter to stockholders in the depths of the 2008–9 recession, and just days after the inauguration of Barack Obama, who promised to “remake America.”
“The global economy, and capitalism, will be “reset” in several ways. The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner. . . . Successful companies won’t just “hunker down”; they will seek out the new opportunities in a reset world.”
Later in the letter, Immelt stated more directly that GE saw the government as its best potential customer:
“GE’s broad technical portfolio positions us as a natural partner as the role of government increases in the current crisis. Over the past decade, we have positioned GE to lead in the “big themes.” These include emerging market growth, clean energy, and sustainable healthcare. . . .
Governments will invest to stimulate their economies, solve societal problems, and create jobs. GE’s broad portfolio and expertise position us as a natural partner. Tackling important problems together will require teamwork and respect between business, government, and society. We know how to do this and intend to play an important part in solving these essential challenges.”
If success is measured by the amount of retained money or return on assets and especially how little taxes are paid, the GE mold is frightening. Corporatism: The Real World of Corporate Favoritism reports.
“General Electric’s annual SEC 10-K filing for 2011 (filed February 24, 2012) reveals that the company paid at most 2.3% of its $81.2 billion in U.S. pretax profits in federal income taxes over the last 10 years.
Indeed, General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, paid no federal corporate taxes in the United States in 2010, according to a report in The New York Times.”
The book, Rescuing Capitalism from Corporatism by John David Rose documents the long record of GE’s criminal price fixing going back to 1911 anti-trust violations. By any reasonable criteria, over a century of predatory pricing and monopolist market domination is a definite cultural deficiency.
Corp Watch contributor Charlie Cray lists a series of General Electric transgression topics and examples. Some of the more relevant items are:
Defense Contracting Fraud
Violations of Securities Laws
History of GE Labor Relations
Environment and product safety
Anti-competitive and consumer protection
Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
It would be difficult to explain away such a pattern of conduct as merely the side effects of becoming a prevailing behemoth. More to the point, the mentality that allows and encourages such behavior is a fundamental component that invigorates transgressions against ethical business practices. The net effects upon society, encourages the corporatist mindset to consolidate their state sponsor cronyism.
It seems unnecessary to dispute the negative consequences of “too big to fail” after the 2008 collapse. However, the concept of The Economic System of Corporatism offers this assessment.
“Coupled with the anti-market sentiments of the medieval culture there was the notion that the rulers of the state had a vital role in promoting social justice. Thus corporatism was formulated as a system that emphasized the positive role of the state in guaranteeing social justice and suppressing the moral and social chaos of the population pursuing their own individual self-interests. And above all else, as a political economic philosophy corporatism was flexible. It could tolerate private enterprise within limits and justify major projects of the state. Corporatism has sometimes been labeled as a Third Way or a mixed economy, a synthesis of capitalism and socialism, but it is in fact a separate, distinctive political economic system.”
Yes, once again, let’s called this synthesis by its true name; fascism. Just how well has the government achieved this utopian and fantasy notion that government is in the business of dispensing social justice?
At the heart of the corporatist mindset is control of markets and elimination of competitors. Government survives on deceiving the public and transnational corporations thrive on working their partnership relations with official authorities.
GE may be one of the most obvious offenders; nonetheless, the formulation of politics picking winners and losers based upon bribes and favoritism is a dreadful system. Preference for an actual free market based upon a decentralized merchant economy is the only alternative to globalism, which is enslaving the world.
The corporatist culture fuels the despotism, which society is so willing to accept. Voting how to spend your money is one of the few options a consumer has. Business collaborators with government crooks feed the abuses that GE perfects so well. This confederation in crime naturally harms ordinary citizens.
Sadly, Orientalism has not yet run its course. On the contrary, it has assumed different forms and has gained momentum in recent years.
No doubt, this love child of Imperialism which has helped create an inconceivable chasm between the East and the West has naturally done away with any possibly constructive interfaith and intercultural interaction in the world.
In fact, the emergence of extremist groups such as Daesh or ISIL in the name of Islam is a byproduct of this systematic effort by the West. By way of cementing its misrepresentation of the East in general and Islam in particular, Imperialism proceeds with its long-pursued agenda of creating stereotypes in the world and portraying the easterners as ‘despotic and clannish’ when they are placed in positions of power and conniving and sycophantic when in subservient positions. No wonder, extremism is generously funded and promoted by the West.
Lending an absurd quality of strangeness to the easterners, Imperialism generally depicts women as the beleaguered class and the dissidents as victims of the most monstrous forms of human rights violations while it itself masquerades as champion of truth and freedom.
As Edward Said encapsulates this notion in his seminal work Orientalism (1978), this attitude reflects a political vision of reality whose structure promotes the difference between the familiar (Europe, West, us) and the strange (the Orient, the East, “them”).
Thus, demonizing and otherizing the easterners serve as effective tools in the hands of Imperialism. After all, the ulterior motive behind Orientalism is the intellectual colonization of public opinion on the one hand and on the other, a ravenous desire to seek a safety-valve to the colonization of the natural resources of a certain country.
To Demonize or not to Demonize; that is the Question
Demonizing operates on two levels: they demonize you because they simply wish to colonize you; 2. they demonize you because they dread your increasing power, i.e. they are afraid of your emerging power which they fear to confront or/and which they find impossible to subjugate.
As part of this pernicious practice, Islamophobia can be defined as any concerted effort to demonize the glorious faith as monolithically bad, to consequently fabricate a fear of it and all that is considered Islamic and to ultimately dispel the mounting spread of the faith in the world.
In a similar vein, Iranophobia can be viewed as an extension of the demonization process by the West and as a new form of neo-Orientalism.
The new harbingers of neo-Orientalism sometimes infiltrate the Muslim communities under the guise of scholars, philosophers and intellectuals. Some of them are either well paid by Imperialism or they may be following their own fiendish agenda which may spring from their inveterate fear of or loathing to the Muslims or the easterners.
In modern times, these self-styled intellectuals infiltrate the eastern communities through modern means such as seminars, conferences and symposiums in order to avail themselves of a double pleasure, that is, to visit the country and subsequently deliver a ‘believably’ twisted account of their observations in the first place and to quench their voyeuristic quest for adventurism for the Orient which has long been on their wish list in the second.
Something Wicked this Way Comes
In November 2014, Harvard scholar Stephen Greenblatt readily accepted an offer to serve as the keynote speaker to the First International Shakespeare Conference in Iran at the University of Tehran without asking for any honorarium or travel costs as is the wont especially for someone of his fame and in view of his “busy schedule”.
“In April 2014 I received a letter from the University of Tehran, inviting me to deliver the keynote address to the first Iranian Shakespeare Congress.”
This came rather as a big surprise to one of the organizers who initially broke the matter to him as a shot in the dark, for his earlier efforts to invite other celebrated scholars to lecture at the Shakespeare Conference had failed like water off a duck’s back due to the lack of financial support.
So, Greenblatt was more than available and he was a well-known scholar in the field to boot. Besides, he had made some name in New Historicism School which made him even a far better candidate for the job. Given that, the organizers took the bait and decided to go on with necessary arrangements without thinking even for a moment that the Harvard scholar might be pursuing other than anything academic. Parenthetically, the professor had in his first email expressed his insatiable passion to visit the land of his dreams and how he was fascinated as a child by the photos he had seen of Isfahan and Persepolis.
That was how he had shrewdly obliterated any room for mistrust. Of course, once by way of dismissing any gaping suspicion, he had briefly asked who would pay for him or if any of his costs would be covered by the conference only after all arrangements had been made. And he secretly gloated over his easy triumph in outsmarting the organizers.
Eventually the promised day arrived and he deplaned at one in the morning at Imam Khomeini International Airport while the first organizer against whom he later spewed out his spiteful diatribe in an unmanly essay received him warmly at the airport.
“And there, waiting for me when I deplaned at 1:00 AM, was none other than the author of the articles denouncing the secret Zionist investors who controlled the world. He was smiling, gregarious, urbane.”
Eventually, the next morning, Greenblatt delivered a rather incoherent keynote speech at the conference as though he had not even spent a reasonable amount of time in preparing himself to deliver a decent lecture and later paid a two-day luxury visit to Isfahan and Shiraz to fulfill his dreams which inflicted an exorbitant cost on the University of Tehran.
Once back home, Greenblatt declined to convey even a word of gratitude to the first organizer who had spent two sleepless nights because of him through email or through any means of communication hitherto invented by human beings. That was extremely odd especially for a man who made a display of etiquette and gentlemanly manners to be so precociously unappreciative.
Et tu, Brute?
A few weeks later, the professor wrote an essay titled ‘Shakespeare in Tehran’ in the New York Review of Books and made a relentless attack on the first organizer and censured him to extremity, exhausting all his linguistic competence to this end. Unlike the established code of conduct by critics, Greenblatt numerously quoted him out of context from the different articles he had written in condemnation of Israeli atrocities. In the attitude of traditional Orientalists, he had cherry-picked some anti-Zionist rhetoric which seemed to have enormously pained the professor.
To everyone’s chagrin, Greenblatt implicitly voiced his support for Israel and Zionism.
“Did my prospective host—someone who had presumably grappled with the humane complexity of Shakespeare’s tragedies—actually believe these fantasies reminiscent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? A simple check online showed me that one of the scholars who signed my letter of invitation had written, in addition to essays on “The Contradictory Nature of the Ghost in Hamlet” and “The Aesthetic Response: The Reader in Macbeth,” many articles about the “gory diabolical adventurism” of international Zionism. “The tentacles of Zionist imperialism,” he wrote, “are by slow gradation spread over [the world].” “A precocious smile of satisfaction breaks upon the ugly face of Zionism.” “The Zionist labyrinthine corridors are so numerous that their footprints and their agents are scattered everywhere.”
Of course, that was the beginning of Greenblatt’s invasion on the organizer’s personality which can be interpreted as an egregious instance of character assassination.
There was a time when I transiently presumed that the age of stereotyping and otherizing is over but unfortunately, Greenblatt’s essay proves that the Orientalist viewpoint still prevails, that there is a cosmic gap between the West and the East and that this trend of stereotyping is painfully promoted by some western scholars.
One May Smile, and Smile, and be a Villain
Now it tragically transpired to everyone that the scholar who seemed so politically naïve, never expressed a political word and persistently presented himself as an agreeably smiling man with intellectual resources suddenly proved to a be a covert pro-Zionist who may even garner a medal of honor from Mr. Netanyahu.
Unfortunately, his superficial account did not end here.
Apparently overwhelmed by paranoid fear and ‘New Historical’ conspiracy theories, he saw himself surrounded by spies and intelligence agents at the faculty site.
“I also noticed among the men a few who stood apart and did not seem to be either students or faculty. It was not difficult to imagine who these might be.”
At the dinner table, when I asked him about Shakespeare’s anti-Semiticism (without consciously trying to hurt his delicacy as he was a Jew; besides, Greenblatt seemed affable and somehow likeable), he felt extremely agitated, saying that “Shakespeare was just curious about the Jews.” It was then when I came to understand the multilayered meanings of curiosity which was until then to me a naked word.
However, another instance of Greenblatt’s brazenly distorted representation of Iran is about Bagh-e Fin in Kashan:
“I wanted to see the late-sixteenth-century Baghe Fin, one of the walled enclosures that in old Persian were called “paradises.” (Other English borrowings from Persian include the words peach, lemon, and orange, along with cummerbund, kaftan, and pajama.)”
Here, the professor ridicules this paradise which was to him “a relatively small, dusty, square garden with very old cedar trees lined up in rows along very straight paths. A twinge of disappointment is built into the fulfillment of any desire that has been deferred for too long, so it is not surprising that my experience of paradise, in the form of the Bagh-e Fin, was a slight letdown.”
To deliver Greenblatt from his cocoon of ignorance as to the wonders of Iran, it should be noted that Bagh-e Fin is a garden in the midst of the desert. Iranians are noted and praised for their exceptional talent in building paradisal gardens in the heart of the desert such as Bagh-e Fin in Kashan and Bagh-e Shazd-e in Kerman.
But how can a man evidently endowed with critical intelligence fail to understand this simple fact?
What, Can the Devil Speak True?
In his depiction of Iran, Greenblatt is judgmentally biased and even before coming to the country, he had carried with him his baggage of pride and prejudice but what he observed in Iran fiercely challenged his entrenched expectations and dealt a heavy blow to his hidebound beliefs as well as to the hatred he had so keenly harbored in his heart in years about the Islamic Republic of Iran.
To his bewilderment just before him stood women and men who spoke courageously, intelligently, and boldly. Before his very eyes, he beheld women and men whom he had surreptitiously denigrated.
“… and there began a question period, a flood of inquiries and challenges stretching out for the better part of another hour. Most of the questions were from students, the majority of them women, whose boldness, critical intelligence, and articulateness startled me.”
But now his eyes reeled and his head swam when he found himself incapacitated to imbibe all that grandeur of a great nation where he had come with an agenda pushed under his arm by the Zionists before coming to Iran. In fact, the illusion of ‘American Exceptionalism’ which was clearly discernible in his condescending attitude towards the Iranian scholars and students as well as the conference organizers was shattered to smithereens.
That is how the scholar’s neo-Orientalist mission failed altogether. There are serious responses to his illogical and biased essay in Iran and abroad. Even Iranian runaway malcontents like Hamid Dabashi have blasted him for his essay.
The similitude of Greenblatt is as the similitude of a non-practicing scholar whom the Persian poet Sa’di compares to “a bee without honey. Tell that harsh and ungenerous hornet/As thou yield no honey, wound not with thy sting.”
The Rest Is Silence
In Literary Theory Course for PhD program which I am teaching this semester, my students vehemently refused to cover any of Greenblatt’s theories, insisting that I skip him as a critic in our course which I welcomed as I perceived their wounded pride and their monumental mistrust of New Historical theories and other lies represented by Greenblatt.
This commendable display of resilience and patriotism on the part of Iranian students evinced an unbreakable bond between them and their country as well as an overpowering repugnance to the enemies of Iran and those who wish to tarnish the image of the nation.
I can’t say for sure if I for one regard any respect for Stephen Greenblatt as a scholar not because he has made craven efforts to assassinate my character in his cabalistically dictated essay but because he has unforgivably insulted my nation. As William Shakespeare rightly put it, “To be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man picked out of ten thousand.”
Andrew Kreig, founder of the Justice Integrity Project, is not the first to point out the inconvenient truths surrounding the 1964 report of the Warren Commission. His continuing series of articles on the details contain a series of shocks which bring into high relief the falsehoods sold to the public by the major media. His book, Presidential Puppetry, has built out a picture of events both compelling and frightening.
Kreig has been thorough, building a monumental data base which, along with following the action, examines the impact of the assassination on American politics, those who report the news, and the many incidents following the death of JFK and continue to take place today.
Today most Americans, according to the polls, believe the Warren Commission Report mislead the public. The question of what happened on November 22, 1963 remains a hot topic, with between 1,000 and 2,000 books written on the subject.
People still care what happened. They still want to know; they still don’t.
Bill O’Reilly was an ambitious young reporter when he lied about having been on George de Mohrenschildt’s porch when the shots were fired which killed the man who was a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald. It was a dramatic claim disproved by audio tapes of only within the last several years.
Mohrenschildt was supposedly about to testify before congress that Oswald did not kill the President. Thereafter local authorities ruled the death a suicide. The chief counsel for the Congressional investigation, then ongoing, was replaced by one who deferred to the CIA. Bill O’Reilly also wrote a book, the best seller, Killing Kennedy. It accepts the facts as laid out by the Warren Commission.
From that day to now Kreig claims many parts of our lives have been impacted and the course of our history altered.
Now we know Oswald could not have acted alone. New forensic evidence indicates Kennedy was shot at least once from the front, twice from the back.
In 1963 Americans were more trusting of government. Americans, dissatisfied with what they get in print and on television seek news and facts online. Mislead on many issues a reaction has been building. This is one of the reasons the ratings for the Main Stream Media have been dropping.
Blow back is, “an unforeseen and unwanted effect, result, or set of repercussions.” Sometimes it is a long time coming, but it always arrives.
The misplaced reverence to the ill formulated U.S Constitution and hidden subjugation back to the City of London is one aspect of history that is not taught in government schools or discussed in institutes of higher education. This subject is probably new to most observers of the legacy from the Founding Father’s biggest mistake. Regular readers of BREAKING ALL THE RULES are familiar with the arguments made in the essays, In the beginning: Let there be the Articles of Confederation and Articles of Confederation was Preferable. Now the case for the betrayal of the purpose of the American Revolution needs to be explored.
Cited on the US Constitution Gave Legal Ownership and Control of the United States to London site is an assessment by Michael Edward.
“Neither the American people nor the Queen of Britain own America. The Crown Temple owns America through the deception of those who have worn their allegiance by oath to the Middle Templar Bar. The Crown Bankers and their Middle Templar Attorneys rule America through unlawful contracts, unlawful taxes, and, contract documents of false equity through debt deceit, all strictly enforced by their completely unlawful, but ‘legal,’ Orders, Rules and Codes of the Crown Temple Courts Our so-called ‘judiciary’ in America. This is because the Crown Temple holds the land titles and estate deeds to all of North America.”
An examination of The Templars of the Crown provides elaboration on this appraisal. For an even more in-depth analysis, review the material that probes AMERICAN LAND OWNERSHIP, A TRUE OXYMORON, which deals with the work of James Montgomery.
“Many of you are aware that the laws of this nation and it’s states, were made to be in compliance and submission to the laws of England, only modified by state and federal law. You will see in this last Chapter state statutes from just a few of the original colonies, that this is the case. Are these what are called ancient statutes? Yes. However, since the king’s Corporation is alive and well as are his heirs, so is his Trust and the law used to create and govern it. The law that governs his Trust can only be amended, no law could be enacted contrary to the king’s will and cestui que trust, the main corporate sole where office is always found, the Crown. The king’s practice of granting lands in this country to those loyal to him continues, along with their land grants being protected by state ancient statutes which are still on the books. We are governed by the king’s nobles just as in times of old England, self proclaimed nobles, and corporate trusts. They rule this country and the world. The huge corporations have been granted power and liberty not known by the common man. The nobles, real and the created, occupy their possessions as fiduciaries and trustees of the king’s grants; only if they remain loyal to the system, their privilege and life style are their reward.”
Invest the time in discovering all the historic accounts, legal rulings and linkages that go back to the Crown, AKA, the City of London.
If you are unfamiliar with The (British) Crown Empire and the City of London Corporation take a quick refresher course on the actual nature of the financial foundation and codified sanction that purports to be lawful. Jurisprudence may be legal by the definition and formulations of the judicious barrister class, but it certainly is not founded on the basic principles of natural law.
Julian Websdale concludes: “The whole Earth is governed by The Crown, through Crown Colonies which belong to The City – The Crown Empire. It governs Africa and still governs China and India. The colonies of the Earth are really just Crown Colonies – The United States of America are states of The Crown.”
Now this interpretation may seem bizarre to most and the plot thickens in the The construe Powers – Behind the Global Empire piecing together a long account of legalized equity mandates.
“The signed treaties and charters between Britain and the United States reveals that King James the 1st was not only famous for translating the Bible, but for signing the first charter of Virginia in 1606. That charter granted America’s British forefathers a license to settle and colonize America and guaranteed future kings and queens of England to have sovereign authority over citizens and colonized land in America. The treaty of 1783 identifies the king of England as the prince of the United States. King George the 3rd gave up most of his claims over American colonies, but he kept his right to continue receiving payment for his business venture of colonizing America.”
The next element to consider has The Top of the Pyramid: The Rothschilds, the British Crown and the Vatican Rule the World. Read this account and trace back the historic lineage of some of the Englishmen who founded America.
“To have the Declaration of Independence recognized internationally, Middle Templar King George III agreed in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 to establish the legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, referred to internally as the Crown Temple States (Colonies). States spelled with a capital letter ‘S,’ denotes a legal entity of the Crown.
At least five Templar Bar Attorneys under solemn oath to the Crown, signed the American Declaration of Independence. This means that both parties were agents of the Crown.”
As time proceeds, the sell out of the “shot heard around the world” revolution deepens.Two Constitutions in the United States. 1st was illegally suspended in favor of a Vatican “Crown” corporation in 1871. This approving assessment of the Federal Constitution views a Shadow Government in place since 1871.
“Since 1871 the United States president and the United States Congress has been playing politics under a different set of rules and policies. The American people do not know that there are two Constitutions in the United States. The first penned by the leaders of the newly independent states of the United States in 1776. On July 4, 1776, the people claimed their independence from the Crown (temporal authority of the Roman Catholic Pope) and Democracy was born. And for 95 years the United States people were free and independent. That freedom ended in 1871 when the original “Constitution for the United States for America” was changed to the “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.
The Congress realized that the country was in dire financial straits, so they made a financial deal with the devil – the Crown (a.k.a. City of London Corporation – est. by the Catholic Church on Jan 1, 1855 ) thereby incurring a DEBT to the Pope. The conniving Pope and his bankers were not about to lend the floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a way of taking back control of the United States and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed. With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia.
With the passage of “the Act of 1871” a city state (a state within a state) called the District of Columbia located on 10 sq miles of land in the heart of Washington was formed with its own flag and its own independent constitution – the United States’ secret second constitution.”
Lastly, Three Corporations run the world: City of London, Washington DC and Vatican City list the City of London houses as including:
Rothschild controlled ‘Bank of England’
Lloyds of London
The London Stock Exchange
All British Banks
The Branch offices of 384 Foreign Banks
70 USA Banks
Fleet Streets Newspaper and Publishing Monopolies
Headquarters for Worldwide Freemasonry
Headquarters for the worldwide money cartel known as ’THE CROWN’
Conclusion: “City of London directly and indirectly controls all mayors, councils, regional councils, multi-national and trans-national banks, corporations, judicial systems (through Old Bailey, Temple Bar and the Royal Courts of Justice in London), the IMF, World Bank, Vatican Bank (through N. M. Rothschild & Sons London Italian subsidiary Torlonia), European Central Bank, United States Federal Reserve (which is privately owned and secretly controlled by eight British-controlled shareholding banks), the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland (which is also British-controlled and oversees all of the Reserve Banks around the world including our own) and the European Union and the United Nations Organization.”
This introduction to the actual influence and pompous legal authority that underpins the financial hierarchy is based upon a historic explanation that is foreign to most Americans. The implications are staggering and for this reason alone, most are not willing to do their own research. Do not get caught up in the uncanny departure from the usual rendering of reality. Remember that the City of London’s coat-of-arms reads in Latin – Domine Dirige Nos – which translates, Lord, direct us. The true question, asks just which deity do the soldiers of the Crown adore?
[K]eep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ … He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. (1 Timothy 6:14-15)
Yahweh’s exclusive sovereignty
All men not surrendered to Christ act as if they’re sovereign. Men identifying themselves as patriots often claim to be sovereign. No! There is only one sovereign.
To claim sovereignty is to not only claim autonomy1 from God, it’s to usurp Yahweh’s2 place as God.3 Human sovereignty, as expressed in the theory of natural and unalienable rights, is not a biblical concept. Rather, we can trace it back to the Age of Enlightenment. In fact, autonomous sovereignty can be traced all the way back to Adam and Eve’s rebellion in the Garden when they challenged Yahweh’s sovereignty and thereby attempted to establish their own.
The reality is: man is but a pot in the hands of the Potter:
But now, O Yahweh … we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. (Isaiah 64:8)
[S]hall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (Romans 9:20-21)
As Creator, the Potter has the authority to do with His pots whatever He chooses. As Sovereign, He has the right to do whatever He decides with His entire creation. In fact, He’s the only one with this right. As the Potter, all rights are exclusive to Him.
“Certainly, we have a right to life!”
Do we? Does man have a right to life? Or is even the right to life exclusive to God?
If man has a right to life, that right then dictates God was obligated to create us. If this is true, who’s really the prime cause: the Creator who was obliged to provide the right or the created who had the right to life?
Only Yahweh has a right to life. It’s inherent in who and what He is: I Am That I Am—the great and only self-existing I Am That I Am.
For us, life is not a right. It’s first a gift from the Life Giver and then a responsibility. We are obligated to use our lives as intended by the One who gave us life.4 To claim life as our right is to eliminate any requirement of responsibility to our Creator. In reality, it’s an attempt to usurp His exclusive claim to sovereignty.
The inherent problem in claiming even life as a right should be obvious. Is it any different with other rights—even those enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which are hallowed by most Americans, particularly Christians?
Most Americans view the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution as sacrosanct and inviolable. But this is the song of a siren.5
The First Amendment’s guaranteed “rights”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Are these rights enumerated in the First Amendment biblical? If they’re biblical, they’re guaranteed by Yahweh. If guaranteed by Yahweh, they should be found in the Bible. If they’re not biblical, they’re “guaranteed” by someone else who can and has incrementally taken them away:
In Understanding the Constitution: Ten Things Every Christian Should Know About the Supreme Law of the Land, David Gibbs, Jr., and David Gibbs III argue for unalienable rights:
Our rights come from God, not from the state. Therefore, the state cannot take them away. What Uncle Sam gives, Uncle Sam can take away. But our nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence makes clear that our rights are unalienable because they come from God.
This sounds wonderful, but is it true? The State has certainly taken away an unwanted infant’s right to life. The State has incrementally taken away gun owners’ Second Amendment rights.6 The State has taken away the right to happiness, in particular the right to own property. Because rights come from the State, the State can take them away at its pleasure.7
The right to religion
What about the First Amendment’s right to religion as provided in the Free Exercise Clause? Does man have a right to whatever religion and god he chooses? If so, how does this comport with the First Commandment?
I am Yahweh thy God…. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:2-3)
For thou shalt worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. (Exodus 34:14)
Man may choose to follow a god other than Yahweh, but he does not have the right to do so. It logically follows: Should government then provide such a right? If it does, what’s this say about such a government?8
If it’s your right to choose any god you prefer, you cannot be judged for doing so. And if you can’t be judged for choosing another god, who’s really sovereign?
It’s not our sovereign right to choose our god but God’s sovereign right to choose us. Consequently, the alleged right to choose one’s god is itself a claim to divinity, tantamount to what was offered Adam and Eve in the Garden, “Ye shall be as gods!”
Christians need to rethink their love affair with First Amendment’s seditious “right” to religion. It was provided not by Yahweh, but by a group of Theistic Rationalists and Enlightenment Freemasons, whose ideological paradigm is polytheistic to its core.
The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause is responsible for transforming America from what was a predominantly monotheistic Christian nation (a united nation under one God) into one of the most polytheistic nations ever (a divided nation under many gods). It is arguably the most clever cover devised by man for sedition against Yahweh. It certainly has duped the majority of Christians into promoting the First Amendment as if some grand Christian ideal is found therein.
Only the Sovereign has a right to religion.
The right to free speech and a free press
How about the First Amendment’s right to free speech and a free press? If these rights (and the others enshrined in the Bill of Rights) are biblical like many Christians believe they are, they must originate in the Bible.
There are two inherent problems with the oft-parroted concept of God-given Constitutional rights:
1) Except perhaps as the Paper’s Timekeeper in Article 7, the Constitution knows nothing of God.
2) God and His Word know nothing of optional rights. Instead, the Bible is replete with God-expected responsibilities.
Is there anything in the Bible that provides for or even allows for people to gather for any reason whatsoever or to freely say anything they choose? No, there is not. Instead, the Bible puts limitations on both these activities.
Under the Constitution, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are used to provide protection for those who promote false religions, infanticide, sodomy, violence, obscenities, and other atrocities condemned by Yahweh.
Are these rights provided by your Sovereign? Indeed, they are! That is, if you look to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights as unalienable, established and secured by We the People in the Preamble.
What about what’s said about God? Do we have a right to say anything we wish about Yahweh or does the Bible put limitations on what can be said about Him?
And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of Yahweh, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:15-16)
Exodus 23:13 commands us to not even mention the names of other gods. The Bible condemns any favorable or casual promotion of other gods, whereas the First Amendment protects the “right” of those who do so.
The right to free assembly
The provision in Amendment 1 for U.S. citizens to assemble peaceably appears innocuous. But is it harmless to provide sodomites, infanticide advocates, and Satanists the right to peaceably assemble? If you’re a proponent of the Constitution and a defender of Amendment 1, you must defend the rights of such criminals and anti-Christians to assemble and promote their wicked agendas, thereby becoming complicit in their sins.
The Second Amendment “Right”
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“Certainly, we have the right to defend ourselves and our families!”
No, we do not! We have the responsibility to do so:
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [beginning with spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)
The Second Amendment is one of the very few components in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that’s close to being biblical. However, the late 18th-century founders robbed bearing arms of its potency when they replaced the non-optional, God-expected biblical responsibility to bear arms in defense of ourselves and our families with the optional Enlightenment right to do so.
An optional right is much easier for government to control, manipulate, and even divest. Think about it: The Amendment with the wording “shall not be infringed” is the most infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty-seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity is likely to see the Second Amendment whittled away entirely or repealed altoghether.9 This is the inherent nature and danger of alleged God-given rights as opposed to God-expected responsibilities.
Even when it comes to the Second Amendment, it’s not our optional right to bear arms in protection of ourselves, our families, and others. It’s our responsibility to do so, not because of some undefined, indistinct natural law, but because the one and only Sovereign dictates it in His revealed Word.
Only One with rights
There is only one Sovereign, and, as such, rights are exclusive to Him. The rest of us are endowed with responsibilities to Him. To claim otherwise is to usurp His jurisdiction as God, which is what the Enlightenment founders did. This insidious, age-old battle is found time and again throughout the Bible.
When the late 18th-century founders replaced immutable biblical responsibilities with capricious human rights, they replaced Yahweh as Sovereign with We the People. Their government guarantees seditious unbiblical rights, which non-Christians and Christians alike have been more than happy to claim.
Americans have been spellbound by the song of a siren. In the process, they have traded Yahweh’s righteousness for their own alleged rights. Claiming rights to ourselves rather than responsibility to the one and only Sovereign is just another instance of man’s sacrilegious claim to divinity. May God have mercy on us!10
Rights: Man’s Sacrilegious Claim to Divinity (audio sermon)
Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
Chapter 18 “Amendment 9: Rights vs. Righteousness” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
- Autonomy or self ruled as opposed to theonomy or God ruled.
- YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. Regrettably, it was deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
- The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight (audio sermon)
- Chapter 18 “Amendment 9: Rights vs. Righteousness” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
- Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
The Destruction of a Nation…
“we are asked to feel guilty about men in prison. We are told how many are of particular racial groups, and this is somehow our fault, no matter how many laws these convicts violated.” R. J. Rushdoony, “Systematic Theology”, Vol. 1, pg. 464
With substantial support from biased reporting by the media we have experienced social unrest and rioting by Blacks over police infractions that have subsequently been proven false by a jury and by the Federal judicial system. In the Tryvon Martin case local authorities decided against indictment but deceptive press coverage caused enough Black outrage to force a trial. George Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury. In the Michael Brown case in spite of media-fanned riots both Federal and local authorities decided against indicting Darrin Wilson.
In both cases the neocon controlled media provided distorted and incendiary coverage designed to create a violent reaction. In both cases rather than presenting the evidence as it existed they distorted the evidence to make it seem that an atrocity had been committed. “White policeman kills unarmed Black teen” does not do justice to either event.
In an article in the “Atlantic” TA-Nehisi Coates writes ”The investigation concluded that there was no evidence to contradict Wilson’s claim that Brown reached for his gun. The investigation concluded that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back. That he did not shoot Brown as he was running away. That Brown did stop and turn toward Wilson. That in those next moments ‘several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson’. That claims that Brown had his hands up ‘in an unambiguous sign of surrender’ are not supported by the ‘physical and forensic evidence,’ and are sometimes, ‘materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible for otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time.’”
Though slave owners no longer exist in the United States the media and Black leadership is still trying to harness White Americans with guilt over slavery. Programs on slavery are frequent and any true depiction of current Black society is studiously suppressed.
We have a Black president, there are Blacks in Congress, sports at both the college and professional levels is primarily Black. Blacks have responsible high paying government jobs, they are frequently seen in all current advertising; they own businesses and many are now solidly ensconced in Middle Class and upper 1% neighborhoods. There are many loving and supportive Black families that are producing talented and upwardly mobile children.
An honest assessment of Black progress is very positive. As a race they are doing extremely well. Sadly, none of this is put forth in the press and media. Instead, we get a constant ear splitting whine about racial prejudice.
In the first volume of “Sytematic Theology” R. J. Rushdoony (RJR) writes, “Basic to all non-Christian politics are, first, a false covering, and, second, the cultivation of guilt. By cultivating guilt the state seeks to make its citizenry impotent and enslaved. A false sense of guilt, moreover, has no solution and no escape is possible from it, as long as it is held. The state then offers a false covering to that cultivated guilt: a statist program of noble ideas which in practice means the further enslavement of the people, and the increase in statist powers.” Pg. 465
Slavery and the Holocaust are salient examples of the procedure. Egregious manipulation of our government is allowed by grief over the Holocaust and preferred racial citizenship is accorded by guilt over slavery. In both cases the guilt is cultivated and in both cases it is bogus.
Christianity is dangerous to the state because Christians are freed from guilt and able to think clearly. “Guilty men are not free men: they are slaves.” (RJR)
In spite of the great progress Blacks have made there are still major problems. Shootings are part of the evening news for every major city and too often they involve Blacks shooting other Blacks. Black unemployment is part of the problem and government assistance programs share part of the guilt. The major culprit, however, is the media which extends their fraudulent news coverage by giving a bully pulpit to self-serving Black leaders with deceitful messages. The uncontrolled emotional rage, fanned by the press, ignites riots that make matters worse. Riots destroy the fabric of society. They work against freedom. It must be acknowledge that the crime rate in Black inner-city areas is several times that of similar White neighborhoods. Racial prejudice can no longer be used as an excuse. We have elected a Black President, twice; a bigoted society would not do that.
A new group of Black realists needs to sit down with their biased leadership and hammer out a just and honest program for Black citizens. There are some excellent Black pastors that would help with such a project. Blaming people, places, and things will not provide progress; it must come from the Blacks themselves.
Though they are hardly coming from a position of strength Blacks are right about policing. Major changes are needed in the behavior law enforcement. Demands by policemen that innocent citizens submit to personal indignities tarnishes their reputation; policepersons who cannot determine who needs to be handcuffed and who does not do not belong on the street. Law enforcement needs to earn a better reputation in both White and Black neighborhoods. When respect is restored compliance will follow.
It is frightening to see a line of almost automated, black garbed, heavily armored police with loaded guns marching toward a residence where civilians will be surprised by a paralyzing no-knock raid. The object is to shock with massive impregnable force and demand acquiescence. These Swat team operations grew from a small number to over 40,000 per year by the beginning of the Twenty-First Century. Read here. Policing has morphed from protecting society to considering almost everyone to be an enemy.
Bad laws, too many laws, the war on drugs, and war as a way of life are all part of the problem. The Neocon hate for Christianity and their success in purging it from U. S. society has had devastating effects on behavior. We are considered a Christian nation with a population that overwhelmingly claims to be Christian but our flaccid pseudo-Christian population is governed by a satanic pagan power structure that exploits their naivety. Freedom cannot exist under devilish tyranny.
The confiscation of cash from vehicles stopped for any or no particular reason is pandemic. In some states the victims are predominantly Black but in others race is not a factor. In one county in Texas in a two year period 200 citizens were victims of confiscations. Fifty of the 200 were charged with drug possession but the remainder was never charged with a crime. In many cases the threat of being charged with a crime which would require lawyers and trips back to the area caused victims to leave the money and go free. Cash confiscations are common in many of our states.
In a small town in Northern Florida the city budget was almost entirely financed by speeding tickets issued to motorists traveling a main state highway that runs through the town. That municipal thievery has how been stopped but it continued for years.
There are times when a lawless, recalcitrant citizen must be subdued and taken into custody and there are times when such a procedure is not warranted; policepersons should know the difference.
We have allowed our police departments to become sources of revenue that is used by local politicians. Forfeiture laws and heavy fines are income streams rather than retribution for crimes. This is fraudulent; it perverts the duties of the police force and cultivates cynicism. Police are to be enforces of justice and should be filled with pride in that vocation.
The Black struggle for equality in a White society has now become a struggle for power. They have more than equal legal status but now as a minority population they seek power over the entire government by calling for the resignation of the entire leadership of Ferguson. Black riots have regularly resulted in concessions and as long as these concessions continue Black riots will continue. It is a dangerous situation when an errant press and media can create riots almost at will. The quest for power without reference to immutable justice is another form of tyranny.
American citizens are allowing manufactured guilt to be used as an excuse to create revolutionary chaos in our nation.
At the end of the “Atlantic” article TA-Nehisi Coates writes ”I do not favor lowering the standard of justice offered Officer Wilson. I favor raising the standard of justice offered to the rest of us.”
The immortal words uttered by Prince Hamlet as he contemplates death and suicide, applies for an entire society. The enormous gravity that permeates William Shakespeare’s tragic hero represents the same fate confronting the normal mortals, who make up the ranks of Americans. The rapid decline in intelligence and moral character has approached epidemic levels. The ROT which has seeped into the popular culture has become a metamorphosis Reign of Terror. The transformers from a heritage of principle, courage and honor have sunk to a level of Slouching Towards Gomorrah. Such a fate was feared by our Founding Fathers.
Such a band of brothers would be hung together today, for daring to defy the established order. This ageless conflict between those with imposing power and the subjects, who suffer from the rule of tyrannical madmen, never ends. Well before the era of the Bard of Strafford-upon-Avon, the playwrights of the original Greek theater operated as the model for an establishment governance.
From the venerable 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica volume 20 page 144 the pattern of human domination is illustrated.
“The success of the oracle led at last to the establishment of the rule that Herodotus declares to be almost universal in Greece, namely, that no leader of a colony would start without consulting Delphi. Doubtless in many cases the priesthood only gave encouragement to a pre-conceived project. But they were in a unique position for giving direct advice also, and they appear to have used their opportunities with great intelligence.
They could have for it was not by any means far-reaching conscious of no mission to preach Apollo, for his cult was an ancient heritage of the Hellenic stocks. Only the narrower duty devolved upon them of impressing upon the consultants felt the religious obligation of sending tithes or other offerings.
Nevertheless their opportunity of directing the religious ritual and organization of the public worships was great; for Plato’s view that all questions of detail in religion should be left to the decision of the god ” who sits on the omphalos ” was on the whole in accord with the usual practice of Greece. Such consultations would occur when the state was in some trouble, which would be likely to be imputed to some neglect of religion, and the question to the oracle would commonly be put in this way “to what god or goddess or hero shall we sacrifice”?
The oracle would then be inclined to suggest the name of some divine personage hitherto neglected, or of one whose rites who fallen into decay.
Again, Apollo would know the wishes of the other divinities, who were not in the habit of directly communicating with their worshippers; therefore questions about the sacred the goddesses at Eleusis would be naturally referred to land of him. From both these points of view we can understand why Delphi appears to have encouraged the tendency towards hero-worship which was becoming rife in Greece from the 7th century onwards.”
The lesson from placing submission in the hands of ruling elite goes back to antiquity. Usually that obedience was based upon physical threats of coercion, slavery or death. The cradle of Democracy interjected a cultural element into the mix that the priesthood class could intercede with the gods on behalf of a civil society of implied, free men.
The notion that citizens could vote on public issues, and confer consent was earth shattering. Making appeals to pagan deities is not unique. Access to “consultations” with the gods, followed a procedure that was strictly maintained by the prevailing order. The standard that saved the city-state required divine approval. Today regimes are protected by controlling mass allegiance through a cultural assault of rigid conformity to basic compliance of laws that is acceptable to the establishment authority.
None of this social dominance is healthy for a free society. Yet, those who give a superficial reading of Robert H. Bork’s book, risk missing the balance needed to protect individual common law rights.
“Slouching Towards Gomorrah is a penetrating, devastatingly insightful exposé of a country in crisis at the end of the millennium, where the rise of modern liberalism, which stresses the dual forces of radical egalitarianism (the equality of outcomes rather than opportunities) and radical individualism (the drastic reduction of limits to personal gratification), has undermined our culture, our intellect, and our morality.”
In order to promote legitimate individualism and personal freedom, the fundamental canons of natural rights must be the core criterion. Ethical conduct requires personal choices and conscious decisions for behavioral conduct.
Being part of the establishment means that acceptance of the system goes mostly unquestioned. Anti-establishment sentiment does not mean becoming a social misfit is the only path. There is no practical way to drop off the planet altogether and remain alive. Hamlet is correct in questioning his very existence, but few surviving participants in the daily grind of the rat race ever make time to contemplate their own place in the world.
Essentially, being Stuck on Stupid finds a delusive comfort and a false security in acquaintance to the status quo, even if that mode of interaction is wholly corrupt and destructive.
Until the masses make a commitment to be honest and honorable, no effective campaign can be waged against the establishment. Those who vigorously defend the actions of the establishment are lost. Seeking the guidance of the symbolic Delphi requires a total break with hero-worship of establishment proponents.
Radical egalitarianism is a cornerstone of the establishment, in their effort to become the Lord Master of the system. The madness that Hamlet experience drove him to express, “To die, to sleep-/No more“, is based upon his torture and fear that there might not be peace even in death. Likewise the torment of thinking social critics understands that current ruling institutions and authorities are rotten to the core.
Trust worthy traditional conservatism offers a cogent, proven and utilitarian approach to achieve a renaissance for Western Civilization. In order to plant the seeds of individual Liberty, a populist message and a spiritual re-awakening must be adopted.
Society as it is presently configured is doomed to a catastrophic upheaval. Now is the time to prepare for personal survival, because the governmental safety network systems are unsustainable.
After the collapse, as the substantive re-alignment struggle is fought out, each of us will need to answer the primary question: Will you obey the Fascist Police State elites or you will you overcome Hamlet’s fear of continual existence and resist the tyranny?
The saying often associated about the place one resides: “Where Life is Worth Living”, should apply to America. For most of its history this attitude was true. More people than ever are not so sure that the nation once revered deserves to survive.
A new Gallup poll indicates that “Americans continue to view government as their single greatest problem. While the economy and unemployment have given the government a run for its money over the last year, in recent months government has taken a clear lead for the ignominious title.”
The establishment most closely is associated with the government. However, the social culture ultimately accepts the system even when vocal activists are protesting. The reason is simple, fear of the unknown. Like Hamlet, death may not be relief in the end. Nevertheless, Abu Bakr’s quotation regretfully is all too true. “Cursed is the man who dies, but the evil done by him survives”.
How does one respond when the death of humanity comes as the cost of the survival of the establishment? The sickness that has become today’s political, social and economic environment is a wholly owned dividend from the establishment’s war on God.
Seeking the console of the Delphi to intercede with Apollo is like applying for a government grant to endure one more day of food rations. The dependency milieu is designed with a kill switch. Nothing is more philistine in a stance than to keep accepting that the establishment is a legitimate authority.
While there are few Plato’s among us, there are many despotic followers of his ideal Republic despotism. One can explain away that Plato was promoting his Philosopher King, but there is no excuse to execrate the long list of democratic leaders who work tirelessly to establish their kingdom here on earth.
For God’s sake! If not for your own; then seek righteousness for His. Remaining dumb and stupid is no defense for encouraging the establishment by providing willful assent. The notion that we can reform ourselves out of this dilemma is folly. Every day the situation deepens into a Shakespearian tragedy. It is too late to avoid the slide into Gomorrah because we are already in the pre Hellstone and brimfire danger zone.
People seldom learn from the past because they are living examples of denial. This experience is different from previous ages when life was short and often came to a violent end. Survivors understood the nature of tyranny. Now the soft kill culture does the dirty work, while most remain silent.
“In order to survive and preserve its leading role on the international stage, the US desperately needs to plunge Eurasia into chaos, (and) to cut economic ties between Europe and Asia-Pacific Region … Russia is the only (country) within this potential zone of instability that is capable of resistance. It is the only state that is ready to confront the Americans. Undermining Russia’s political will for resistance… is a vitally important task for America.”
-Nikolai Starikov, Western Financial System Is Driving It to War, Russia Insider
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”
-The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the original version of the Defense Planning Guidance, authored by Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992
The United States does not want a war with Russia, it simply feels that it has no choice. If the State Department hadn’t initiated a coup in Ukraine to topple the elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, then the US could not have inserted itself between Russia and the EU, thus, disrupting vital trade routes which were strengthening nations on both continents. The economic integration of Asia and Europe–including plans for high-speed rail from China (“The New Silk Road”) to the EU–poses a clear and present danger for the US whose share of global GDP continues to shrink and whose significance in the world economy continues to decline. For the United States to ignore this new rival (EU-Russia) would be the equivalent of throwing in the towel and accepting a future in which the US would face a gradual but persistent erosion of its power and influence in world affairs. No one in Washington is prepared to let that happen, which is why the US launched its proxy-war in Ukraine.
The US wants to separate the continents, “prevent the emergence of a new rival”, install a tollbooth between Europe and Asia, and establish itself as the guarantor of regional security. To that end, the US is rebuilding the Iron Curtain along a thousand mile stretch from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Tanks, armored vehicles and artillery are being sent to the region to reinforce a buffer zone around Europe in order to isolate Russia and to create a staging ground for future US aggression. Reports of heavy equipment and weapons deployment appear in the media on nearly a daily basis although the news is typically omitted in the US press. A quick review of some of the recent headlines will help readers to grasp the scale of the conflict that is cropping up below the radar:
“US, Bulgaria to hold Balkans military drills”, “NATO Begins Exercises In Black Sea”, “Army to send even more troops, tanks to Europe”, “Poland requests greater US military presence”, “U.S. Army sending armored convoy 1,100 miles through Europe”, “Over 120 US tanks, armored vehicles arrive in Latvia”, “US, Poland to Conduct Missile Exercise in March – Pentagon”
Get the picture? There’s a war going on, a war between the United States and Russia.
Notice how most of the headlines emphasize US involvement, not NATO. In other words, the provocations against Russia originate from Washington not Europe. This is an important point. The EU has supported US-led economic sanctions, but it’s not nearly as supportive of the military build up along the perimeter. That’s Washington’s idea and the cost is borne by the US alone. Naturally, moving tanks, armored vehicles and artillery around the world is an expensive project, but the US is more than willing to make the sacrifice if it helps to achieve its objectives.
And what are Washington’s objectives?
Interestingly, even political analysts on the far right seem to agree about that point. For example, check out this quote from STRATFOR CEO George Friedman who summed it up in a recent presentation he delivered at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs. He said:
“The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars–the First, the Second and Cold Wars–has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” … George Friedman at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, Time 1:40 to 1:57)
Bingo. Ukraine has nothing to do with sovereignty, democracy or (alleged) Russian aggression. That’s all propaganda. It’s about power. It’s about imperial expansion. It’s about spheres of influence. It’s about staving off irreversible economic decline. It’s all part of the smash-mouth, scorched earth, take-no-prisoners geopolitical world in which we live, not the fake Disneyworld created by the western media. The US State Department and CIA toppled the elected-government in Ukraine and ordered the new junta regime to launch a desperate war of annihilation against its own people in the East, because, well, because they felt they had no other option. Had Putin’s ambitious plan to create a free trade zone between Lisbon to Vladivostok gone forward, then where would that leave the United States? Out in the cold, that’s where. The US would become an isolated island of dwindling significance whose massive account deficits and ballooning national debt would pave the way for years of brutal restructuring, declining standards of living, runaway inflation and burgeoning social unrest. Does anyone really believe that Washington would let that to happen when it has a “brand-spanking” trillion dollar war machine at its disposal?
Heck, no. Besides, Washington believes it has a historic right to rule the world, which is what one would expect when the sense of entitlement and hubris reach their terminal phase. Now check out this clip from an article by economist Jack Rasmus at CounterPunch:
“Behind the sanctions is the USA objective of driving Russia out of the European economy. Europe was becoming too integrated and dependent on Russia. Not only its gas and raw materials, but trade relations and money capital flows were deepening on many fronts between Russia and Europe in general prior to the Ukraine crisis that has provided the cover for the introduction of the sanctions. Russia’s growing economic integration with Europe threatened the long term economic interests of US capitalists. Strategically, the US precipitated coup in the Ukraine can be viewed, therefore as a means by which to provoke Russian military intervention, i.e. a necessary event in order to deepen and expand economic sanctions that would ultimately sever the growing economic ties between Europe and Russia long term. That severance in turn would not only ensure US economic interests remain dominant in Europe, but would also open up new opportunities for profit making for US interests in Europe and Ukraine as well…
When the rules of the competition game between capitalists break down altogether, the result is war—i.e. the ultimate form of inter-capitalist competition.” (The Global Currency Wars, Jack Rasmus, CounterPunch)
See? Analysts on the right and left agree. Ukraine has nothing to do with sovereignty, democracy or Russian aggression. It’s plain-old cutthroat geopolitics, where the last man left standing, wins.
The United States cannot allow Russia reap the benefits of its own vast resources. Oh, no. It has to be chastised, it has to be bullied, it has to be sanctioned, isolated, threatened and intimidated. That’s how the system really works. The free market stuff is just horsecrap for the sheeple.
Russia is going to have to deal with chaotic, fratricidal wars on its borders and color-coded regime change turbulence in its capital. It will have to withstand reprisals from its trading partners, attacks on its currency and plots to eviscerate its (oil) revenues. The US will do everything in its power to poison the well, to demonize Putin, to turn Brussels against Moscow, and to sabotage the Russian economy.
Divide and conquer, that’s the ticket. Keep them at each others throats at all times. Sunni vs Shia, one ethnic Ukrainian vs the other, Russians vs Europeans. That’s Washington’s plan, and it’s a plan that never fails.
US powerbrokers are convinced that America’s economic slide can only be arrested by staking a claim in Central Asia, dismembering Russia, encircling China, and quashing all plans for an economically-integrated EU-Asia. Washington is determined to prevail in this existential conflict, to assert its hegemonic control over the two continents, and to preserve its position as the world’s only superpower.
Only Russia can stop the United States and we believe it will.
Yesterday’s Israeli election proved that Benjamin Netanyahu engineered a miraculously recovery from an imaginary ‘downfall.’ Netanyahu weathered the intense media campaign against him, both in Israel and internationally, and won despite the miniscule, yet noisy, Jewish international left that promised us that Bibi was about to be wiped out politically. This uniquely dangerous man scored an incredible political victory yesterday.
Israel is a true Jewish democracy. It has many problems but it genuinely represents the spirit and aspirations of the Israelis. In the Israeli Knesset in 2015, there is not a single Jewish party that cares for the Palestinians and their plight. There is not a single Jewish member who offers any plan for peace and reconciliation. Meretz, the only so called ‘left’ Jewish party that used to offer a vision of peace, has been reduced to a microscopic role and is primarily committed to LGBT matters.
In the Jewish democracy, the Arab Unity Party is the third biggest party in the Knesset. This is indeed great news. The so-called ‘anti’ Zionists must find this slightly embarrassing. While in the racist Zionists State, Arabs have become the third biggest political force in the parliament, in the ‘progressive’ Jewish pro Palestinian organisations such as JVP, JFJFP or IJAN, Goyim, let alone Arabs, are kept out of decision making circles.
Seemingly, racist Israel is slightly more advanced than its ‘progressive’ Jews only opponents.
We were told in the last few weeks that Netanyahu’s Congressional address was the last nail in his coffin. We read reports that suggested that the Israelis reacted negatively to his warmongering initiative. As usual, we were mislead. The Israelis, as shown by the election results, love Netanyahu and approved his foray into the US Congress. The Israelis love seeing their PM bowed to and cheered on by the American political elite as he persuades them to send their kids to die for Zion.
Those who oppose Israel, its Lobby and Jewish Power must be happy about Bibi’s political victory yesterday. I admit I am certainly delighted. It saves us a lot of time and delusional spins from Israel’s advocates, Hasbara merchants and the Jewish Left.
Last week we learned that the vast majority of British Jews support Bibi and his Likud party. Apparently, the Jewish State is no different. Israel is Bibi and Bibi is Israel.
Even a seasoned cynic sometimes gasps in disbelief. “President Putin misinterprets much of what the U.S. is doing or trying to do,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told a press conference in Geneva on March 2. “We are not involved in ‘numerous color revolutions’ as he asserts. In the case of Ukraine, such assumptions are also wrong. The United States support international law with respect to the sovereignty and integrity of other people.”
This is akin to Count Dracula asserting his strict adherence to a vegan diet and his principled respect for the integrity of blood banks worldwide.
Various quasi-NGOs funded by American taxpayers and funneled through organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and the National Democratic Institute, not to mention George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (partly funded by U.S. and other Western governments), have been actively engaged in dozens of “regime-change” operations for a decade and a half. Their work is conducted in disregard of international law and in violation of the sovereignty and integrity of the people whose governments are thus targeted.
The overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade (October 2000) provided the blueprint, in strict accordance with Gene Sharp’s manual. Widespread popular discontent was manipulated by the U.S./Soros funded and trained Otpor! network to bring to power a government subservient to Western political and economic interests. The moderately patriotic yet hapless new president, constitutional lawyer Vojislav Kostunica, was used as a battering ram to bring Milosevic down. Once that goal was achieved, Kostunica was promptly marginalized by Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic and his successors – Serbia’s two-term president Boris Tadic in particular – who turned the country into a pliant tool of foreign interests. Wholesale robbery of Serbia’s state and public assets promptly followed the 2000 coup, resulting in the Balkan country’s comprehensive de-industrialization. Official Belgrade was forced to accept Kosovo’s de facto “independence” in the name of the elusive goal of joining the European Union.
Georgia’s 2003 “Rose Revolution” was carried out by the Kmara (“Enough”) network, a carbon copy of Serbia’s “Otpor,” including the clenched fist logo. Its activists were trained and advised by the U.S.-affiliated Liberty Institute and funded by the Open Society Institute. It brought to power Mikhel Saakashvili, a corrupt “pro-Western” politician currently wanted by Georgia’s government on multiple criminal charges. The coup was largely financed by Soros’s network, which spent $42 million in the three months before the coup preparing the overthrow of the government of Eduard Shevardnadze. The most important geopolitical result was Georgia’s NATO candidacy, supported by Washington, which is currently stalled but which has the potential to be as perniciously destabilizing as the crisis in Ukraine.
Speaking in Tblisi in June 2005, Soros said: “I am very pleased and proud of the work of the Foundation in preparing Georgian society for what became a Rose Revolution, but the role of the Foundation and me personally has been greatly exaggerated.” The new government, as it happens, included Alexander Lomaia, former Secretary of the Georgian Security Council and minister of education and science, who at the time of the coup was Executive Director of the Open Society Georgia Foundation. David Darchiashvili, ex-chairman of the Committee for European Integration in the Georgian parliament, was also an executive director of the Foundation. As former Georgian foreign minister Salomé Zourabichvili wrote in 2008, “all the NGO’s which gravitate around the Soros Foundation undeniably carried the revolution… [A]fterwards, the Soros Foundation and the NGOs were integrated into power.” Interestingly, the U.S. Ambassador in Georgia at the time of the 2003 regime-change operation, Richard Miles, was the Ambassador in Belgrade at the time of Milosevic’s downfall three years earlier.
The march of history continued with the 2004 “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine – that grand rehearsal for the Maidan coup a decade later – and the 2005 “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon, which was given its name by then-U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula J. Dobriansky. Also in 2005 the “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan had as its chief foreign advisor Givi Targamadze, an official of Georgia’s aforementioned Liberty Institute, who at the time chaired Saakashvili’s parliamentary committee on defense and security.
In 2006 Congress passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act which provided taxpayer funding for groups opposed to the Iranian government, and then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns said the administration was “taking a page from the playbook” on Ukraine and Georgia. A year later the George W. Bush administration authorized a $400 million covert operation budget to foment unrest in Iran. In 2012 Seymor M. Hersh wrote that the U.S. has provided funding and training to the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, a militant group which had been listed by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization,
In 2012 President Obama authorized U.S. government agencies to support violent regime change in Syria. By early 2013 the Administration was helping the “moderate” rebels – i.e. jihadists with no overt links to al-Qaeda – to the tune of $250 million, and that figure has been at least doubled since. The result has been disastrous for the Syrian people (Christians in particular), and hugely detrimental to U.S. security interests in the region. The insurgency against Bashar al-Assad has directly contributed to the rise of ISIS, with no end to the latest war in sight.
Last month Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro gave a televised speech in which he alleged systematic U.S. involvement in destabilization attempts against his government. The U.S. Department of State called his claims “baseless” and “false.” “The United States does not support political transitions by non-constitutional means,” read the statement from Department spokesperson, Jen Psaki. Indeed. One of the leaders of the failed anti-Chavez coup d’etat in 2002, Rear Admiral Carlos Molina, has stated that he was acting with US support. Ditto the CIA-supported regime-change operation in Nicaragua in 2009.
As for the Maidan Revolution, crowned by “political transition by non-constitutional means” par excellence, Victoria Nuland readily admitted that its preparation cost the U.S. taxpayers some $5 billion over the preceding decade. The result is the most dangerous geopolitical crisis of the post-Cold War era, systematically engineered and conducted by the regime-changing exceptionalists in Washington D.C. who believe that they are exempt from historical forces and legal restraints that apply to merely mortal countries.
Former U.S. Ambassador in Moscow Michael McFaul boasted to The New York Times a week after taking duty in January 2012 that he would make his “pro-democracy” mark in Moscow “in a very, very aggressive way.” Some months earlier, McFaul declared that “even while working closely with Putin on matters of mutual interest, Western leaders must recommit to the objective of creating the conditions for a democratic leader to emerge in the long term.” This was a regime-change agenda expressed with brutal bluntness: we need to “de-Putinize” Russia, he declared. It would be interesting to see the U.S. reaction if a similar statement (“We need to to de-Obamanize America!”) were to be made by an incoming Russian ambassador in Washington.
In Russia the regime-change program did not work, however. First and foremost, there was no popular support: hundreds of “activists” demonstrating against Putin in 2012 could be turned into “thousands” in Western post-election media reports, but that was still far below the tens, let alone hundreds, of thousands needed to kick-start a regime-change op. Infuriatingly for the planners, Russia simultaneously enacted a law regulating foreign “NGO” activities which was patterned directly on the American Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which regulates activities of the agents of foreign governments in the United States. Enacted in the 1930’s to require disclosure of Americans working on behalf of Nazi Germany, and used to control Soviet agents thereafter, FARA requires full public disclosure of those same activities that the U.S. government had tried to fund in Russia. The Federal Election Campaign Act flatly prohibits foreign involvement in American elections – yet it was touted as legitimate when conducted in Russia by Washington’s protégés under the guise of promoting democracy.
The regime-change mania will go on and on. It is inseparable from the psychotic belief in one’s indispensability and exceptionalism. It is a form of self-defeating grandomania that can only stop with America’s long-overdue abandonment of the global hegemony experiment.
And yes, John Kerry is a liar.
The saga of continuous deployment and a garrison empire is a long and sad state of affairs. Using the trumped up fright that America’s enemies are geared up to bomb malls and sporting venues, builds a phony fear that the only response to combat the threat is to wage continuous foreign campaigns. What put such sophistry to rest are the facts that such uninterrupted carnage just feeds the fields of growing hostility towards America. If the War on Terror was winnable, why not start by stopping the War of Terror that is the center piece of aggressive projection of bellicose power.
The militarist over at Red States warns that Obama is gumming up the works. In the article, Obama’s AUMF is Actually a DUMF the horror that placing a limit on the use of expansionist support deeply offends the warmongers. Folks, their positions are not a fair or representative reflection of true and traditional conservative foreign policy.
“The AUMF proposed by Obama, on the other hand, explicitly repeals the 2002 AUMF and furthermore explicitly states that ground troops cannot be used, as they can be used (and have been used by Obama) under the 2002 AUMF. It furthermore contains an automatic three year expiration, which is not contained in the currently active AUMF.
In other words, this is not even fairly called an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. It’s actually a Deauthorization for the Use of Military Force. Republicans in Congress should start referring to it as the DUMF (pronounced DUMB-f) so that people will be reminded what sort of person would be convinced that Obama takes confronting the threat of ISIS seriously.”
In order to have a sound and constitutional approach to safeguarding the Republic, the first step is to be honest with ourselves. The preservation of the sole superpower mantra is far more dangerous than any suicide bomber. Yet, the internationalists will never be content until they manufacture or invent a new advocacy to keep the full spectrum dominance machine rolling along. Such a mind-set and way of thinking is psychotic.
For those who hope the Obama administration is actually operating on a more balanced level; don’t believe that spin for a minute. The essential reality is that there are only two positions in gauging foreign policy. The first is the bipartisan establishment agreement that “Politics Stops at the Water’s Edge”. Even the Council on Foreign Relations admits in the essay, American Foreign Policy Is Already Post-Partisan the following.
“Yet how deep is the partisan divide over the place of multilateralism in U.S. foreign policy? To explore this question, in the past year we sent a survey to foreign policy professionals: 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats, who had served in a mid-level or higher foreign policy position in the Clinton, Bush, or Obama administrations, or on Capitol Hill. The respondents included 23 Democrats and 20 Republicans.
The results of our study reveal that the parties are not as divided about multilateralism as the conventional wisdom suggests. First, strong majorities of both Republican and Democratic respondents said they believed that working closely with other nations serves U.S. interests and makes the country’s foreign policy more effective. Second, foreign policy leaders from both parties agreed that international economic institutions and free trade agreements are valuable, and that working with regional and global multilateral organizations such as NATO and the UN is important.”
Such a response is expected from the echo chamber for the New World Order.
The second perspective accepts the wisdom of the historic and guarded non-interventionism approach to foreign affairs. Based upon power politics exponents, who are in control of government agencies and influence institutions, their defiance for a reason and true national security, attacks such advocates for halting the unending cycle as domestic terrorists. The recent BATR RealPolitik Newsletter, Israel Owns Congress, illustrates a significant factor behind the driving pressure that exports violence from the Nefarious Warrior Organism. Yes this fitting description for the New World Order characterizes the essence of the establishment.
Daniel Larison writes in the American Conservative, Paul and the Right’s Ideological Enforcers.
“Michael Brendan Dougherty comments on the silly reaction of some “pro-Israel” hard-liners to Rand Paul’s insufficiently zealous applause for Netanyahu:
“And I understand the suspicion. If I ever exerted myself so frantically on behalf of a cause, if lobbying for it required investing so many millions of dollars, and if maintaining party discipline on it required “brutal” ad drops on congressional obscurities, I would worry that some of the response I sought was perfunctory and insincere. The sonnets you receive don’t sound as sweet. The applause seems forced. Almost like they are faking it.”
Unfortunately, this ludicrous ideological policing seems to work only too well. Paul’s response in the last two days has been to reaffirm how enthusiastically “pro-Israel” he really is. Even though the fixation on the intensity of his clapping at Tuesday’s disgraceful spectacle ought to have made clear that he will never be able to do or say (or clap) enough to satisfy his party’s hard-liners, he made sure to emphasize his “pro-Israel” bona fides by talking up his co-sponsorship of Corker’s Iran bill and the number of times (50) he has joined in standing ovations for Netanyahu. We can already hear the hard-liners’ response: “He gave only 50 standing ovations? He should have given at least 70.”
This goes to the heart of the establishment’s primacy principle, American adventurism benefits Israel First interests. The reason the United States is engulfed in perpetual war is to keep the power elites in control. The permanent war of terror has the domestic public as the target. Why is this so? Plainly speaking, the globalists who have completed their takeover of the apparatus of governance have eliminated even the semblance of the rule by law.
In the Ron Paul video from a GOP Presidential debate, Let Iran Have Nukes. No Sanctions, No War, you heard for the last time a common sense and prudent approach to counter the NeoCon and NewLib mantra of continual threat of war or actual combat.
Stopping the interventionism of the foreign policy establishment like in their Ukrainian coup d’état, would require a total repudiation of the entire power structure that perverts the body politic. The lawlessness, that is the staple of the Obama administration, just made a pivot in rhetoric from the “Mission Accomplished” absurdity under Bush.
All the time the same drum beat to a truly global conflict marches on because the fundamental axioms upon which, rest the internationalist system, is based has proven beyond any reasonable doubt, to be false and deadly.
We live under a reign of terror from our own illegitimate authorities. The domestic police state is a reflection of tactics used and perfected in Iraq. The creation of ISIL was achieved by western intelligence. The need for a new enemy becomes obvious when the old one turns out to be a phony menace.
If Obama would really sunset the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, it might be the only worthwhile initiative of his years in office. However, in order to judge the feasibility and sincerity of his intentions, one might need to access the private emails of the former Secretary of State. Fat chance! Dragging out the goods from the heroine of culture concealment brings back all the memories of the former Klinton era.
That’s the way the guardians of the establishment work. Brew up mind numbing scandals, while the existential global tragedies of designed world domination, are ignored. The ease upon whom the war of terror is sold to the public is dreadful.
Listing all the transgressions upon lawful restrains, imposed on the country since the 911 Wag the Dog scenarios, would take a book. How long will repeating the same strategy of failure continue to get favorable support? As long as confused conservatives accept that the bogyman is overseas and are not able to focus on the architects of treason at home, the NWO will just waltz its way to the symphony they compose.
The absence of the formerly vocal anti-war movement in the way the Viet Nam war galvanized is a great regret. Adopting a non-interventionist doctrine should not be a left-right dichotomy. It needs to become a unified and committed cause that each citizen will actively adopt.
The pathetic peer pressure used on a Rand Paul to become an Israel-First supporter needs to be condemned. If it was not for the internationalist and globalist lobby, our troops could and should be stationed on our own borders.
Perpetual war to justify a permanent war of terror will destroy all that was once unique about America. The fifth column and systemic treason that passes as “PC” policy, is the enemy. Waking up is not enough. The blowback coming must be against the establishment. In order for the nation to rise from the ashes of destruction, the public needs to defeat the reign of terror conducted in our name.
I just had a talk with a friend of mine who was all pissed off because he had purchased a Series EE savings bond for his little kid way back in 1998. “I paid $500 for it at the time and, at that time, the bank promised me that the bond would mature in ten years and then be worth $1,000.” So? Well? Did it? Is it?
“Eh — no,” sighed my friend. “When my kid cashed it in last month, she only got $850 back.” What? You mean after accumulating over 16 years of interest, the bond had only gained $250 in value? Even after all those promises of doubling its worth after just ten years? That’s whacked.
But, according to the Treasury Direct website, it is also legal. “Series EE bonds issued from May 1997 through April 2005 continue to earn market-based interest rates set at 90% of the average 5-year Treasury securities yields for the preceding six months. The new interest rate for these bonds, effective as the bonds enter semiannual interest periods from November 2014 through April 2015 is 1.49%. Market-based rates are updated each May 1 and November 1.”
What the freak does that mean?
It means that Series EE savings-bond-holders have been (and can continue to be) legally ripped off. Government agencies now under the happy control of the top 1% can legally make the rest of us little guys any promises they want — and then just take them back.
“Buying government savings bonds is practically like loaning the government interest-free money,” I told my friend. “But on the other hand, if you had bought $500 worth of gold back in 1998 instead of that bond, it would have cost you $296 an ounce — and an ounce and a half of gold would now be worth $1,808, a net gain of one thousand three hundred and seven dollars.”
However, if you had spent that $500 on baseball cards, you might be pretty much out of luck.
But what if, instead, you had purchased $500 worth of stock for your kid? If you had bought stock in mortgage companies like Countrywide, for instance, you would have kissed your $500 goodbye.
But if you had bought stock in pharmaceutical companies that produce products like mercury-laden vaccines, psychotropic drugs and male sex-enhancers, or bought stocks in weapons factories or bought stocks in oil companies or WalMart, you could have practically put your rugrat through college with your capital gains by now!
Or suppose you had invested that $500 in buying part-ownership in a Congressman — like the big boys on Wall Street, War Street and K Street do? Apparently you would have gotten an average of a 5000% return on your investment.
Or if, like your government in cahoots with its sleazy bankster friends, you had invested your $500 in loaning money to college students instead? Then you would have been able to collect 6% interest from said college students’ loans for decades to come — and owned their souls for the rest of their lives too!
But, no. You had faith in your government and bought savings bonds instead — never dreaming that your government would invest its resources in war and corporate welfare instead of in you.
However if it’s any consolation, you and your kid are not alone. China made that same mistake too.
Remember back when our founding fathers wisely designed our Constitution to include having three different branches of government? Legislative, executive and judicial? Well, just over 225 years later, America’s government still has three different branches — except now those three branches are Wall Street, War Street and K Street.
A Manhattan jury just awarded a $218.5 million verdict against the Palestinian Authority for damages done to Israelis with American citizenship by Palestinian suicide bombers. Do you know what this means? A new precedence has just been set. A new Pandora’s box has just been opened.
Now everyone affected by anything like this can now also use American courts to get recompense for damages done by acts of “terrorism” on American citizens abroad!
For instance, were any Chilean-Americans killed in the CIA coup against Allende in Chile? Their relatives can now sue Henry Kissinger — but of course they will have to stand in line behind the Cambodian-Americans killed by him.
And what about the bunches and groups of Palestinian-Americans, Yemeni-Americans, Iraqi-Americans, Syrian-Americans, Ukrainian-Americans, African-Americans, Grenada-Americans, Guatemalan-Americans, Haitian-Americans, etc. who have been either killed out in public for all to see by America’s overtly-evil war machine — or else killed on the sly by those covertly-evil CIA troublemakers at Langley?
Or, hell, what about all those dead American-Americans too for that matter? Does this mean that American soldiers killed or wounded in Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, Afghanistan, etc. can now sue the Department of Defense in American courts for “terrorism” too — as well as for fraud, creating dangerous conditions, willful negligence, breach of promise and entrapment as well?
Hey, Uncle War Street! See ya in court!
Common wisdom has China as the future model for the Globalist economy. Also, conventional thinking has the Western financial debt created money system as the backbone of the New World Order. The big question is, are both components of the same intentional plan? When China Has Announced Plans For A ‘World Currency’, the world is put on notice that a fundamental shift is about to take place.
“What you are about to see is rather startling, but it shouldn’t be a surprise. When it comes to economics and finance, the Chinese have always been playing chess while the western world has been playing checkers. Sadly, we have gotten to the point where checkmate is on the horizon.
The following comes from CNBC …
The tightly controlled Chinese yuan will eventually supersede the dollar as the top international reserve currency, according to a new poll of institutional investors.
The survey of 200 institutional investors – 100 headquartered in mainland China and 100 outside of it – published by State Street and the Economist Intelligence Unit on Thursday found 53 percent of investors think the renminbi will surpass the U.S. dollar as the world’s major reserve currency.
Optimism was higher within China, where 62 percent said they saw a redback world on the horizon, compared with 43 percent outside China.”
Before the celebration begins that the game is up for the Federal Reserve mastery from the days of the Bretton Woods Conference, look a little closer. While gold and its fixed price were instrumental to that monitory standard, the freeing from fixed rates has generated the madness of floating currency speculation that now dominates the financial markets.
The cunning and patient Chinese built their export economy on cheap priced goods into their importing customer economies. Saving is a noble objective in the East, while going into debt is the hallmark of Western practices. The Chinese have applied their huge balance of trade surpluses to buying up commodities. Most notable is gold.
The article, Could China actually have 30,000 tonnes of gold in reserves? Makes the strongest argument that China is poised to become the new superior currency is based upon the potential of establishing a convertible relationship between the renminbi and bullion.
“China has much more gold than it is allowing the world to see. As Alasdair Macleod, probably the world’s number one analyst of the gold market, wrote that between 1983 and 2002 China probably accumulated 25,000 tons of gold. Thus, its current gold holdings are probably north of 30,000 tons in contrast to the USA which has either sold or leased most of its gold.” Now this statement coming from one of the usual gold megabulls might be ignorable, but Hunt does not fall into this category and has a good track record of insights into China’s strategic initiatives as far as metals and minerals are concerned.”
Before the rush to the door to dump your U.S. Dollars for whatever store of wealth one believes will maintain its purchasing value, consider what the voice of the global financial establishment, the IMF says. Stating the outlook from the central Bankster’s perspective in, Will the Renminbi Rule?, the message is that paper money, burdened by debt, is still firmly in place.
“Given China’s size and growth prospects, it is widely seen as inevitable that the renminbi will eventually become a reserve currency. To gauge the likelihood and timing, it is necessary to consider the typical attributes of a reserve currency and evaluate China’s progress in each of these dimensions. The factors that generally affect a currency’s reserve status includes:
- Economic size
- Macroeconomic policies
- Flexible exchange rate
- Open capital account
- Financial market development
The IMF concludes:
“The renminbi is unlikely to become a prominent reserve currency—let alone challenge the dollar’s dominance—unless it can be freely converted and China adopts an open capital account.”
Now for anyone even remotely schooled in the manners and maturations of the financial elites, turning the other cheek to a pretender, is not in the lesson book.
Investment manager, Richard Harris offers in a report, Time to create new Chinese-Hong Kong dollar, an interesting possibility.
“The HK dollar itself is a dead unit having been pegged first to the pound and later to the US dollar, with the current rate fixed in 1983. The prevailing view about depegging is that it would be too dangerous. The unit only floated for a relatively short period from 1974-1983 and, I recall, without much confidence in its success.
The obvious answer is to combine the dead HK dollar with the embryonic CNH. This would be a completely independent, floating currency. The CNY would be used for current account transactions such as exports and imports, whilst the new “Chinese Dollar” (HKD/CNH combined) would cater for capital account financial transactions.”
Keeping paper money in place as the international medium of exchange is fundamental to the New World Order. While China may never implement an actual redemption of gold for their renminbi, there is a real possibility that some gold weighted backing for Chinese paper instruments could be introduced.
The U.S. Dollar maintains illusionary worth, only because the central bankers are all in with their dollar dominated derivatives. Moreover, the Chinese are very much dependent upon their exports to keep their economy going. Settlement in Federal Reserve notes is crucial for the American system to keep buying from overseas.
Just the mere threat of payment in the renminbi for all the Chinese goods that Walmart imports could be devastating. Allowing for a gradual transition into a semi-reserve renminbi status keeps the Bankster’s game going.
The prudent analysis suggests that the NWO created China’s emergence into an economic power through off-shoring domestic industries in their subject countries. Nonetheless, the international cabal is not about to starve their interest paying indebted nations by letting the Chinese accumulate even greater cash reserves.
Expect a downturn in China’s prospects, as soon as any ascendency for their currency begins gaining a reserve acceptance.