When one studies history, all events seem to revolve around the applications and degenerations of war. Great feats of human understanding, realization and enlightenment barely register in the mental footnotes of the average person. War is what we remember, idealize and aggrandize, which is why war is the tool most often exploited by oligarchy to distract the masses while it centralizes power.
With the exception of a few revolutions, most wars are instigated and controlled by financial elites, manipulating governments on both sides of the game to produce a preconceived result. The rise of National Socialism in Germany, for instance, was largely funded by corporate entities based in the U.S., including Rockefeller giant Standard Oil, JPMorgan and even IBM, which built the collating machines specifically used to organize Nazi extermination camps, the same machines IBM representatives serviced on site at places like Auschwitz. As a public figure, Adolf Hitler was considered a joke by most people in German society, until, of course, the Nazi Party received incredible levels of corporate investment. This aid was most evident in what came to be known as the Keppler Fund created through the Keppler Circle, a group of interests with contacts largely based in the U.S.
George W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, used his position as director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation to launder money for the Third Reich throughout the war. After being exposed and charged for trading with the enemy, the case against Bush magically disappeared in a puff of smoke, and the Bush family went on to become one of the most powerful political forces in America.
Without the aid of international conglomerates and banks, the Third Reich would have never risen to power.
The rise of communism in Russia through the Bolshevik Revolution was no different. As outlined in Professor Antony Sutton’s book Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution with vast detail and irrefutable supporting evidence, it was globalist financiers that created the social petri dish in which the communist takeover flourished. The same financiers that aided the Nazis…
The two sides, National Socialism and communism, were essentially identical despotic governmental structures conjured by the same group of elites. These two sides, these two fraudulent ideologies, were then pitted against each other in an engineered conflict that we now call World War II, resulting in an estimated 48 million casualties globally and the ultimate formation of the United Nations, a precursor to world government.
Every major international crisis for the past century or more has ended with an even greater consolidation of world power into the hands of the few, and this is no accident.
When I discuss the concept of the false left/right paradigm with people, especially those in the liberty movement, I often see a light turn on, a moment of awareness in their faces. Many of us understand the con game because we live it day to day. We see past the superficial rhetoric of Republican and Democratic party leadership and take note of their numerous similarities, including foreign policy, domestic defense policy and economic policy. The voting records of the major players in both parties are almost identical. One is hard-pressed to find much difference in ideology between Bush and Barack Obama, for example; or Obama and John McCain; or Obama and Mitt Romney, for that matter.
When I suggest, however, that similar false paradigms are used between two apparently opposed nations, the light fades, and people are left dumbstruck. Despite the fact that globalist financiers shoveled capital into the U.S., British, German and Soviet military complexes all at the same time during World War II, many Americans do not want to believe that such a thing could be happening today.
In response, I present the crisis in Ukraine versus the crisis in Syria…
Ukraine Versus Syria
It seems as though much of the public has already forgotten that at the end of 2013, the U.S. came within a razor’s edge of economic disaster — not to mention the possibility of World War III. The war drums in Washington were thundering for “intervention” in Syria and the overthrow of Bashar Assad. The only thing that saved us, I believe, were the tireless efforts of the independent media in exposing the darker motives behind the Syrian insurgency and the bloodlust of the Obama Administration. The problem is that when the elites lose one avenue toward war and distraction, they have a tendency to simply create another. Eventually, the public is so overwhelmed by multiple trigger points and political powder kegs that they lose track of reality. I often call this the “scattergun effect.”
The crisis in the Ukraine is almost a carbon copy of the civil war in Syria, culminating in what I believe to be the exact same intent.
Money from globalist centers has been flowing into the Ukrainian opposition since at least 2004, when the Carnegie Foundation was caught filtering funds to anti-Russian political candidate Viktor Yushchenko, as well as to the groups who supported him.
The Ukrainian Supreme Court called for a runoff due to massive voter fraud and the rise of the pro-Western Orange Revolution, determining the winner to be Yushchenko over none other than Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych went on to win the 2010 elections, and the revolution returned to oust him this year.
It has been discovered that the current revolution has also been receiving funds from NATO and U.S. interests, not just from the State Department, but also from billionaires like Pierre Omidyar, the chairman of eBay and the new boss of journalist Glen Greenwald, the same journalist who is now famous for being the first to expose National Security Agency documents obtained by Edward Snowden.
Much of the monetary support from such financiers was being funneled to men like Oleh Rybachuk, the right-hand man to Yanukovych during the Orange Revolution and a favorite of neoconservatives and the State Department in the U.S.
The International Monetary Fund has also jumped at the chance to throw money at the new Ukrainian regime, which would prevent default of the country and allow the opposition movement to focus their attentions on Russia.
The revolution in Syria was also primarily driven by Western funds and arms transferred through training grounds like Benghazi, Libya. There is much evidence to suggest that theattack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was designed to possibly cover up the arming of Syrian rebels by the CIA, who had agents on the ground who still have not been allowed to testify in front of Congress.
After this conspiracy was exposed in the mainstream, globalist-controlled governments decided to openly supply money and weapons to the Syrian insurgency, instead of ending the subterfuge.
Some revolutions are quite real in their intent and motivations. But many either become co-opted by elites through financing, or they are created from thin air from the very beginning. Usually, the rebellions that are completely fabricated tend to lean toward extreme zealotry.
The Syrian insurgency is rife with, if not entirely dominated by, men associated with al-Qaida. Governments in the U.S. and Israel continue to support the insurgency despite their open affiliation with a group that is supposedly our greatest enemy. Syrian insurgents have been recorded committing numerous atrocities, including mass execution, the torture of civilians and even the cannibalism of human organs.
The revolution in Ukraine is run primarily by the Svoboda Party, a National Socialist (fascist) organization headed by Oleh Tyahnybok. Here is a photo of Tyahnybok giving a familiar salute:
So far, the opposition in Ukraine has been mostly careful in avoiding the same insane displays of random violence that plagued the Syrians’ public image. It is important to remember though that mainstream outlets like Reuters went far out of their way in attempts to humanize Syrian al-Qaida. Their methods were exposed only through the vigilance of the independent media. With the fascist Svoboda in power in the Ukraine, I believe it is only a matter of time before we see video reports of similar atrocities, giving Russia a perfect rationalization to use military force.
I am now thoroughly convinced that John McCain is a pasty ghoul of the highest order. He claims to be conservative yet supports almost every action of the Obama Administration. He is constantly defending anti-Constitutional actions by the Federal government, including the Enemy Belligerents Act, which was eventually melded into the National Defense Authorization Act; NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens; and even gun control.
And for some reason, the guy makes appearances like clockwork right before or during major overthrows of existing governments. McCain was in Libya during the coup against Moammar Gadhafi.
McCain showed up to essentially buy off the rebels in Tunisia.
McCain hung out with al-Qaida in Syria.
And, what a surprise, McCain met with the Ukrainian opposition movement just before the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych. Here is a photo of McCain giving a speech to the opposition with none other than Neo-Nazi Oleh Tyahnybok standing over his left shoulder.
Why McCain? I have no idea. All I know is, if this guy shows up in your country, take cover.
Russia In The Middle
The great danger in Syria was not necessarily the chance of war with Assad. Rather, it was the chance that a war with Assad would expand into a larger conflagration with Iran and Russia. Russia’s only naval facility in the Mideast is on the coast of Tartus in Syria, and Russia has long-standing economic and political ties to Syria and Iran. Any physical action by the West in the region would have elicited a response from Vladimir Putin. The mainstream argument claims that the threat of Russian intervention scared off Obama, but I believe the only reason war actions were not executed by the White House and the globalists was because they didn’t have even minimal support from the general public. For any war, you need at least a moderate percentage of the population to back your play.
In Ukraine, we find the globalists creating tensions between the West and the East yet again. Russia’s most vital naval base sits in Crimea, an autonomous state tethered to the Ukrainian mainland. Currently, Russia has flooded Crimea with troops in response to the regime change in Ukraine. The new Ukrainian government (backed by NATO) has called this an “invasion” and an act of war, while Western warmongers like McCain and Lindsay Graham spread the propaganda meme that Russia made such a move only because Putin believes the Obama Administration to be “weak.”
Clearly, the idea here is to engineer either high tensions or eventual war between Russia and the United States. Syria failed to produce the desired outcome, so the Ukraine was tapped instead.
Energy Markets And The Dollar At Risk
In Syria, any U.S. led military action would have resulted in the immediate closing of the Straight of Hormuz by Iran, threatening to obstruct up to 30% of global petroleum shipments. Foreign resentment could have easily led to the abandonment of the U.S. dollar as the petro-currency. Both China and Russia implied the possibility of an economic response to American intervention, though they did not officially go into specifics. In all likelihood, the dollar’s world reserve status would have been damaged irrevocably.
In the Ukraine, the chance of intervention has been countered with VERY specific threats from Russia, including a freeze on natural gas imports to the European Union through Gazprom, which supplies approximately 30% of the EU’s fuel. In 2009, a temporary Ukranian pipeline closure led to widespread shortages across Europe. While some in the mainstream claim that Russia’s influence over EU energy has “diminished” the fact is a loss of 30% of natural gas reserves for an extended period would inflate energy prices wildly and cripple the EU’s economy.
Another specific reaction given by Russia is the dumping of U.S. treasury bonds. Russia’s bond holdings may not seem like much leverage, except for the fact that China has now publicly backed Russian efforts in the Ukraine, just as they backed Russian opposition to U.S. activities in Syria. A dump of bonds by Russia would invariably be followed by a Chinese dump as well. In fact, China and Russia have been setting the stage for a global dollar decoupling since at least 2008. I have been warning for years that globalists and central bankers needed a “cover event”, a distraction or scapegoat imposing enough to provide a veil of chaos in which they could then destroy the greenback as the world reserve and usher in a global currency system. The Ukraine crisis offers yet another opportunity for this plan to unfold.
The False Paradigm And The Globalist Chessboard
So far, I have outlined what appears to be a correspondence of conspiracy between Syria and the Ukraine and how each event has the continued potential to trigger regional conflict, dollar collapse, or world war. But is this conspiracy one-sided? Are only the West and NATO being manipulated by globalists to box in Russia and provoke a conflict? And what do globalists have to gain by sparking such disaster?
As with every other catastrophic fabricated war, the goal is the erasure of sovereign identity while consolidating of economic, political and social power. It is not enough that global financiers dominate the banking industry and own most politicians; they want to transform the public psyche. They want US to ask THEM for global governance. This manufacture of consent is often achieved by pitting two controlled governments against each other and then, in the wake of the tragedy, calling for global unification. The argument is always presented that if we simply abandoned the concept of nation states and reform under a single world body, all war would “disappear.”
The question is whether Russia’s Putin is aware of the plan. Is he a part of it? Are we seeing repeat theater of a puppet Russia versus a puppet NATO like that witnessed during the Cold War?
What I do know is that Putin has, a number of times in the past, called for global control of the economy through the IMF and the institution of a new global currency using the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR).
Loans from the IMF are what saved Russia from debt default in the late 1990s. And Putin has recently called for consultations with the IMF concerning Crimea. Remember, this is the same IMF that is working to fund his opponents in Western Ukraine.
Bottom line, if you believe in national sovereignty and decentralization of power, Putin is NOT your buddy. Once again, we have the globalists injecting money into both sides of a conflict which could morph into something nightmarish. Putin wants global economic governance and consolidation under the IMF just as much as the supposedly “American-run” IMF wants consolidation. Global governance of finance and money creation ultimately means global governance of everything else.
Is a war being created through the false paradigm of East versus West in order to pave the road for global government? Are East/West tensions being exploited as a smokescreen for the final destruction of the dollar’s world reserve status? It is hard to say if the Ukraine will be the final trigger; however, the evidence suggests that if a conflict occurs, regardless of who “wins” such a scenario, the IMF comes out on top.
Imagine you are playing a game of chess by yourself. Which side wins at the end of that game: black or white? The answer is it doesn’t matter. You always win when you control both sides.
Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market
A few years ago I participated in a radio debate on “white privilege” with a certain man, whose name is unimportant, who had a Ph.D. in “ethnic studies.” At one point he introduced an argument by saying, “If whites are 80 percent of the population…,” which prompted me to interject and point out that whites (non-Hispanic) are now only 63 percent of America. Of course, you might think that someone with a doctorate in “ethnic studies” would know what the ethnic and racial composition of the country is.
While no one wants to be a real-life Cliff Clavin (of Cheers fame), mistaking trivia for intellectualism, facts matter because they’re small snippets of reality. They’re little pictures — and, as with a jigsaw puzzle — if you have enough of them, assembled properly, you can see the big picture. This is otherwise known as being in touch with reality.
This is why a certain trend in that liberal bastion called education is quite interesting. Educators will often say today, “We don’t just teach kids facts [uttered dripping with derision]; we teach them how to think.” This is quite convenient. After all, it’s easy to test knowledge of facts; thus, such measures can reveal modern education as a fraudulent enterprise. But “how to think” is a bit more nebulous, and, if you define the expression of feelings-derived folderol as reason, your students cannot fail.
Yet there is a deeper reason why liberals eschew facts: they refute fiction. And since leftist agendas have no basis in reality, exposure to snippets of it is deadly; for, just as one small pin can pop a balloon, one little fact can shatter a rationalization.
This brings us back to Dr. Ethnic Studies. His field of expertise isn’t about anything as old-fashioned as facts, but he can expound at length on oppression, white privilege, critical-race theory and “micro-aggressions.” These things, you see, are the stuff of sophisticated modern men. Never mind that they’re complete fiction.
But liberals are raised on fiction. Fiction about America’s nature and Western influence; fiction about the races and sexes (not to mention “genders”), and fiction about sex; fiction about history and culture; fiction about economics; fiction about religion. Heck, with how liberals claim old fairy tales are destructive, they’re raised with fiction about fiction. This brings us to another fiction: Barack Obama as educated man.
If we were to mention, again, that he thought “Austrian” was spoken in Austria, pronounced “corpsman” “corpse-man” (three times in one speech) or that he called the “transcontinental” railroad the “intercontinental” one (Amtrak to Bangkok, anyone?), we’d obviously have to be racists. After all, anyone can make a mistake. But it’s one thing to commit a Spoonerism and say “a scoop of boy trouts” or, like Dan Quayle, correct a spelling-bee participant based upon the antiquated word form “potatoe” (which The New York Times used as recently as 1988). But then there are those mistakes indicating that, just perhaps, you don’t really possess the knowledge base one might expect from an educated Western gentleman.
And a fact about Obama’s upbringing is that it was defined by fiction. Clergyman Hosea Ballou said, “Education commences at the mother’s knee…,” but not only was Obama’s mother’s knee not around all the time, but what an odd knee it was. Her father had given her his first name, Stanley, because he’d wanted a boy, and Stanley Ann Dunham’s personal development reflected that bizarre beginning. She attended Mercer Island High in Seattle, which had a wing known as “anarchy alley” that was infested with radical leftist teachers. It is said that Dunham “thrived” in that atmosphere, and she became a committed left-wing atheist herself. Then there was Obama’s mentor in Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis, a pornographic-novel writer and anti-white, card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA. And how radical were Obama’s leftist grandparents, with whom he lived in the AlohaState? Obama’s grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, was the one who chose Davis to be scrambler of young Barry’s brains.
The point is that there was no prominent person in the young Obama’s life who could or would expose him to reality. It was all anti-American, anti-Western isms and destructive schism. This brings us to Obama’s mind-numbingly ridiculous description of his 2008 campaign travels: “I’ve now been in 57 states; I think, one left to go.” Where does such a bizarre mistake come from? After all, that there are 50 states is drummed into every American child so that it just instinctively rolls off the tongue: 50 states, 50 states, 50 states….
That is, again, every “American child.”
It’s not that I don’t think Obama knew there are 50 states. Rather, he doesn’t have the intellectual foundation you’d expect of an educated Western man, and this includes a lack of the rote knowledge that, like an actor who has spoken a certain line in 500 rehearsals and performances, is expressed the same way every time. And this, by the way, has nothing to do with where anyone thinks Obama was born. He simply is not truly American in mind, heart and spirit.
But to fully grasp the nature of leftists’ ignorance, an understanding of their philosophical foundation is necessary. There is a certain experience many conservatives know very well: You debate a liberal, and he just seems immune to facts and reason. No matter how airtight your point, it rolls off him like water off a duck.
To explain this, let’s start with an analogy. Becoming proficient at golf involves gaining knowledge about the swing. And if you realize you’ve fallen victim to a misconception, improvement depends upon rejecting it and accepting the truth in question. But what if you were so bent on using your old swing — so attached to “hackerism” — that you simply would not accept that truth? A pustule on the face of the game you’d remain.
So it is in all of life. Everyone falls victim to certain misconceptions, and growing in knowledge and wisdom involves rejecting them when we’re blessed enough to discover refutative truths. But this can be difficult for two reasons. First, it may involve relinquishing ideas to which we’re strongly attached. This could be because they’re integral pieces of an incorrect jigsaw puzzle we’ve glommed onto, an example of which would be a committed atheist who insists there are no moral absolutes because he knows their existence implies God’s. Or it could be that an incorrect belief is embraced as a justification for a behavior (e.g., sexual perversion, heavy drinking) to which we’re attached. Or it could be both.
Second, pride can get in the way, as correcting oneself involves admitting error, often with respect to ideas we’ve spent an entire lifetime defending. It can be like giving up a cherished son.
And while most everyone exhibits to some degree this tendency to rationalize, leftists are defined by it. They are, to use a favored psycho-babble term, morally and philosophically “dysfunctional” people. They live lives of rationalization — which is when you lie to yourself, sell yourself on a fiction — and for this reason only intensify whatever dislocation from reality their upbringing, sometimes, might have wrought.
Their greatest act of self-delusion — their ultimate denial of reality and the one that facilitates all others — is their embrace of moral relativism, the idea that there are no moral absolutes. The appeal of this fiction is that it allows one to justify any behavior imaginable. After all, my sins are not sins if there’s no vice, only viewpoint. Who is to judge? Who is to say? There’s no black and white, only gray.
But once you unmoor yourself from objective moral reality, there is no limit to how immoral you can become. This is why Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov said that without God, “everything is permitted.” It’s why occultist Aleister Crowley insisted, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” And it explains leftists’ bizarre thinking. Did you ever wonder, for instance, how modern liberals can say something so preposterous as “The truth is no defense against a hate-speech charge”? It’s not hard to understand.
When a person who lives a sincere life finds that part of his ideology conflicts with the Truth, he alters his ideology. But what if you not only were attached to your ideology like a drunkard to drink, but didn’t acknowledge Truth’s existence? It is then that you, instead, rationalize away the Truth.
In fact, with his denial of Truth, the leftist places his ideology where Truth should be: the center of his life. This ideology, which just reflects his emotions, anyway, then takes on the role of God. It becomes the ultimate arbiter, the fiction that becomes “fact.” This is why Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels once said, “National Socialism is a religion. …My Party is my church….” Like him, today’s leftists have repeated a big lie to themselves so often that it has become the “truth.”
Interestingly, or maybe ominously, the Bible speaks of the end times in 2 Timothy 3 and writes of “men of depraved minds” who are “always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.” I don’t know if these are the last days, or just the last days of freedom, but our republic is now infested with millions of fiction voters who elected a fiction president based on fairy-tale promises. And it’s looking less and less like our story ends with “happily ever after.”
I happened to be present at the Oslo courthouse on Tuesday, April 17th, watching and listening to 22/7 terrorist Anders Behring Breivik’s 75 minute main prepared defense speech. A speech that the press and media were banned from broadcasting to the general public. These are my thoughts after following the story for almost nine months.
The first thing that has to be said, is that watching Breivik defend himself for 5 hours this Tuesday removed each and every doubt that he is indeed «legally sane», in the sense that he is absolutely fit to be punished by the Norwegian judicial system for his criminal terrorist acts. All «experts» who say otherwise are flat out lying. This is a sane, rational, logically stringent man of great wit, who happens to also have some pretty effed up ideological views that have made him become a mass murderer and a terrorist.
It should also be said right from the start of this article that there is little doubt that he carried out both the bombing in Oslo and the shooting at Utøya. What remains to be seen is whether he had accomplices and what parts of the misdeeds these people took part in. There were also some pretty amazing instances of police SNAFU – 27 according to one commentator, but a lot more if you look more closely. There’s a string of maybe 40 or 50 or 60 grave mistakes on behalf of the police, guards and government, making them unable to stop Breivik before the bombing of Oslo, stop him getting out of Oslo and to nearby Utøya, and to stop the shooting ASAP when Breivik amazingly managed to get himself transported over the sound to Utøya island, using the Labour Party’s own ferry.
So many instances of SNAFU, in fact, that the mathematical probability of them all occuring on the same day or relating to the same person, should tell you all you need to know. And of course, in the weeks and months after the terror, documents, tapes and other evidence started disappearing. As by invisible hands.
OK. So, returning to the terrorist’s defense speech on Tuesday, April 17th. Breivik started telling us how there’d been no real post-WW2 democracy in Norway, because «nationalists» like himself were not allowed free speech and democratic rights. This should tell us that he wanted there to be more democracy, and that Norwegian democracy should also include «ultra nationalists», a fair point that even I could agree on.
However, he messes it up by contradicting himself completely. He loves America, and especially a certain McCarthy, the postwar communist witchhunt general, and he regrets that McCarthyism didn’t go far enough and never succeeded in sending alleged «commie» American citizens to Soviet Russia. So, really, when it comes to a more real and including democracy with less political censorship, our terrorist is only in favour of it when it applies to his chums, and to his «nationalist» parties.
Apart from this ideologically induced blindness or logical breakdown, he argues convincingly that censoring a movement like his own for too long, eventually will make members of that movement resort to other means, even violence.
His speech more generally was aimed at reaching out to a slightly broader audience than his Manifesto and his earlier writing on Norwegian websites, or to «unite national conservatism, which I support, with national socialism and militant christendom», as he put it himself. So the strategy obviously is to appeal to a broader spectrum of racists, and to play down the Zionist issue, which divides Breivik, JDL, EDL, NDL and Knights Templar, on the one side, from other nationalists and nazis, on the other.
Breivik talks rather openly about the strategy of supporting and expanding «street extremism», like the JDL, EDL and NDL (Jewish, English and Norwegian Defense League, respectively), while at the same time building a network of single cell terror operatives, borrowing tactics from – yup – al-Qaida.
The reason for using terror cells consisting of only one man, says Breivik, is to avoid the eyes of anti-terror agencies. This way he only needed to meet with his comrades once or twice during a decade, if we choose to believe him, and I guess blogs, forums, RSS feeds, social media etc took care of the rest.
Breivik also tries to use the term «counter jihad» as much as possible, rather than «zionism», which is what he really supports, and he has succeeded in selling this bogus «counter jihad» term to the Norwegian mainstream media. To quote from the terrorist’s Manifesto:
«So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.»
So, then, this is what it came to in Norway: Where we could have had the press digging into and revealing the horrific lies of the 9/11 terror attacks ten years after the events, instead we got a snob from the West who bombed his own city using «al-Qaida tactics», and who shot fellow Norwegian kids taking part in a summer youth camp for young politicians and future administrators, because he believed the lies and racist conspiracy theories fed to him for ten years by every newspaper, radio and TV station in this nation and throughout the West. Malicious, racist lies about muslims behind every terrorist act from New York and Bali, through Madrid and London, to Mumbai and Stockholm.
The mythical snake – Midgardsormen – seems to be biting its own tail: False-flag terrorism over a long, sad decade goes unnoticed by the press, the journalists and the editors, and the inevitable end-product of these ten years of lies and cowardice and cover-up is our very own Nordic mass murderer and terrorist; Anders Behring Breivik.
Whether he had handlers or not we don’t know, and the press and the police for some reason don’t seem very eager to find out, he is now the shining example, or knight in shining armour, intended to inspire many, many followers in Scandinavia, Europe and America.
He will even be allowed internet access in jail, and thus to build, expand and strengthen his zionist terrorist networks, both on the streets and in the single-man sleeper cells.
Source: Torstein Viddal | 911TruthNorway
American Fascism did not start with World War II. Before Operation Paperclip, the codename under which the US intelligence and military services extricated scientists from Germany, during and after the final stages of the conflict, the annals of internal despotism were well established. With the open door policy for German engineering, the political ideology of state worship was bound to travel across the Atlantic.
The Pampas of Argentina or the backwaters of Paraguay were the preferred location for those who openly professed their reprehensible loyalty to the Führer principle. However, do not blame all those ex-Nazis for selecting the shores of the Americas for their new domicile, their seeds were planted long ago in the offices of Wall and Broad Streets. Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will saga shares more, than what one wants to admit, about the dark side of American History.
Do not be confused. National Socialism is an abhorrent notion to most Americans. Nevertheless, the political foundation of that false ideology is based upon pure Fascism forged in a marriage of the Corporate/State that produces this demented offspring. The systematic destruction of the essential purpose and motivation for the American Revolution is undeniable with any objective examination of the regretful legacy of domestic tyranny.
This record of monocracy is one of a criminal class, as opposed to the iron fist of a single man. If you belief this is an erroneous assessment, consider the following chronicle.
From the beginning of the Republic, the Federalists conspired for the illegal passage of their central government constitution in order to form a competing world empire with their British cousins. Their leader was Alexander Hamilton, who championed making individual states subservient to the original crony capitalists. When the Father of our Country, George Washington admonished about the dangers on entangling alliances, the world was warned that the drive towards independent liberty was compromised under this new Federal system.
When Andrew Jackson rallied frontier populism against the establishment elites of his era, you had an opportunity to restore some of the former glory of the Revolution of 1776. The conflict over the abolishment of the National Bank symbolizes the eternal struggle that continues to this very day.
The Manifest Destiny of the U.S.-Mexican War demonstrated just how far the country strayed from the fundamental concept of independence from England. The expansionistic campaign had more in common with the Crown than the Boston Tea Party.
The early 19th century fascists looked to their next defender Abraham Lincoln, the lawyer for the railroad corporatist cabal and the worst of all despotic presidents, to complete the task.
Mark Dankof cites Thomas DiLorenzo’s work in the article, Lincoln in Fort Sumter, False Flags, and The Empire’s Coming Crusade.
Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves.
Myth #2: Lincoln’s war “saved the Union.”
Myth #3: Lincoln championed equality and natural rights.
Myth #4: Lincoln was a defender of the Constitution.
Myth #5: Lincoln was a “great humanitarian” who had “malice toward none.”
Myth #6: War was necessary to end slavery.
The significance of the War of Northern Aggression is that the principle of independent sovereign states under the precepts of constitutional law died. With the prevention of secession, the liberty of a voluntary union was betrayed for the rule, under a loyalty oath, to an Amerikan Reich.
The next False Flag excuse was the Spanish-American War and the “Remember the Maine!” slogan that pushed the country into a “Pacific Imperium“. Those NeoCons, like Senator John McCain, who revere Theodore Roosevelt as a model for imperialist jingoism, draw their psychopathic lusts from the same bloodline as Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler.
World War I produced the infamous Woodrow Wilson internationalist treason. No longer will America be a society governed by elected representatives. The only coup to come out of his administration was won by the banksters. The fate of a proud people, sealed with the creation of the Federal Reserve, the establishment of the income tax and the permanent foreign military intervention abroad is the basis for the final destruction of the country and the horrors that befell our nation in the last century.
World War II inflicted the Franklin D. Roosevelt curse that guaranteed the imposition of socialism on the American people. How ironic that the Hitler bogyman’s regime, the scourge of Western Civilization and the reason for defending democracy, ultimately lead to similar collectivist policies, now adopted in the United States.
Just look to the ignominious involvement of Prescott Bush’s involvement with the funding of Adolph Hitler. Even FAUX news cannot hide the relationship in Bush’s Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler.
“Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp., a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by The Associated Press.”
So what can and should a “reasonable man” conclude from these examples from history? The essential lesson is that the pristine fairy tale of the federal government’s noble role as defender of righteousness, that politicians want to accept and often die for, is a fictional myth.
Power politics always serves the interests of the banking elites, who control the political process, own the financial capital and manipulate the media viewpoint of events. This reality is pure fascism. You live under this system, so grow up, and admit it . . . it is the lamentable truth.
Barry Soetoro, aka, Barack Hussein Obama fits the fascist mold to the tee. In the video, Obama and Holder taking on Arizona’s SB1070, the treachery of his administration is evident. The eradication of States Rights is standard policy coming out of this Federal governance regime. The separation ethnic dictates of the Nazi hooligans seem to contrast with the multicultural amnesty immigration ordinances that the Holder DoJ office fosters. However, if you look closely, both share a parallel distain for the rights of indigenous citizens.
The Third Reich wanted to export their undesirables, while the Fourth Reich wants to destroy the natural citizenry by importing unwanted illegals. A fair read of the State of Arizona SB 1070 Bill indicates that individual states are under attack from a federal tyranny in the same way that the German people were subjugated by the Swastika.
Ian Gurney offers this comparison.
“Now let’s take a quick look at Germany in the 1930′s and 40′s as the Nazis reared their ugly heads. Here was a country that was financially crippled with a massive budget deficit owing billions of dollars to the rest of the world. Just like the USA.
In the 1930′s Germany was a country where the burning of the Reichstag, engineered by Hitler and his henchmen, was used to create external enemies and to exert internal control over the German people. Hitler then used the media to lie, frighten and deceive the population, allowing a bunch of vicious, extreme, right wing megalomaniacs to gain power. Just like the USA.
In the 1930′s Hitler was surrounded by a group of unelected officials whose sole objective was to take control of Germany for their own ends and with the use of their military might, take control of the assets and prosperity of other, weaker countries. Just like the USA.
In 1939 Hitler embarked on a series of pre-emptive attacks on sovereign nations in the name of “freeing the people” of that country. Just like the USA.
In 1940 the German hierarchy started building special “camps” or detention centres in which to incarcerate and eventually execute those people considered to be “against” their regime. Just like the USA.”
The Fourth Reich did not originate with Operation Overcast, the initiate name for Operation Paperclip. The classic book Fourth Reich of the Rich, by Des Griffin deserves another read.
Mr. Griffin states,
“Some 150 years ago, in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln acknowledged the fact that “no foreign power or combination of foreign powers could by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.”At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up from among us, it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die of suicide.”
Are we committing national suicide? Webster’s Dictionary (1828) defines suicide as: “Self murder; the act of designedly destroying one’s own life.” For that to be true on a national scale, the decisions leading up to our national self-destruction would, of necessity, have to be made by those who govern the country Congress, or “the government.”
Much of the German population was captivated by Hitler. The “presstitute” Goebbels’ media holds out Obama as a shining example. His manners are a composition of every tyranny to grace the scorched earth of despotic government. Will the America public come to their senses and make war against this Amerikana version of the Fourth Reich? You need not look for the Boys from Brazil to find today’s Nazi’s. They do their business in New York City, run their international institutes from London and order their bombing from Washington, DC.
Sieg heil! to the New World Order is the modern definition of national suicide.
I consider myself to be a junior member of the Greatest Generation and I am truly pissed off that “Death Panel” legislators in Washington who are probably too young to have even served in Vietnam — let alone in World War II — can be monstrous enough to even consider shutting down Social Security’s lifeline to all the veterans who fought in that great war to keep the world safe from corporate control of government (as Mussolini once described National Socialism), and also drastically cut payments to women and children who bravely manned up the Home Front while our soldiers were away fighting Nazis.
Mine is also the last generation to have been raised without television.
And now folks on TV are telling us that, for the sake of balancing the federal budget, we must now give up the Social Security that we all worked so hard for, stop making a fuss, forget our proud legacy of service, die quietly and go peacefully into that great good night. Screw that.
My father fought the Nazis. My mother manned the Home Front. I helped plant our freaking victory garden, had my own personal ration book and collected scrap metal in my little red wagon all throughout World War II. We all put our shoulders to the wheel during World War II and then we worked our arses off for our Social Security benefits after that.
And now some generation raised on the Flintstones is now telling us that THEY are going to cut our Social Security? Screw that.
And now I’m spending at least two hours a day watching TV — and another eight hours a day on the internet. That’s ten or more hours a day that I used to spend HAVING A LIFE. And I bet most of you spend even more time watching TV than that. In fact, do any of you ever even turn the damn thing off?
And what has all this boob-tube-watching gotten us? Nothing. We’re losing our homes, we’re losing our jobs, we’re watching our grandchildren get forced into poverty by a system that wants us to become dumb and uneducated and in debt. Now young Americans are supposed to suffer under the burden of school-loan debt for the rest of their lives just for wanting to go to college and better themselves? When a college education doesn’t even matter any more anyway? Screw that too.
Just keep your dirty little corporatist hands off my Social Security, Washington DC.
I don’t know where all of you modern DC corporatists were during World War II. You probably weren’t even born yet. But if you cut Social Security, then you may find yourself right in the middle of the next war against National Socialism (aka corporatism) — even if the heroic survivors of World War II have to go out and start it ourselves.
I have spent the last ten years elaborating on Jewish national ideology and tribal politics. During my journey of grasping what Zionism and Israel stand for, I came to realize that it is actually the Jewish left — and Jewish Marxists in particular — that provide us with an adequate glimpse into contemporary Jewish identity, tribal supremacy, marginal politics and tribalism.
‘Jewish left’ is basically an oxymoron. It is a contradiction in terms, because ‘Jewishness’ is a tribal ideology, whilst ‘the left’ are traditionally understood as aspiring to universalism.
On the face of it, the ‘Jewish left’ is, at least categorically, no different from Israel or Zionism: after all, it is an attempt to form yet another ‘Jews only political club’. And as far as the Palestinian solidarity movement is concerned, its role is subject to a growing debate — For on the one hand, one can see the political benefit of pointing at a very few ‘good Jews’, and emphasizing that there are Jews who ‘oppose Zionism as Jews’. Yet on the other hand, however, accepting the legitimacy of such a racially orientated political affair, is in itself, an acceptance of yet another form, or manifestation of Zionism, for Zionism claims that Jews are primarily Jewish, and had better operate politically as Jews(1).
To a certain extent then, it is clear that Jewish anti Zionism, is, in itself, still just another form of Zionism.
‘Jewish dissidence’ has two main roles: First, it attempts to depict and bolster a positive image of Jews in general (2). Second, it is there to silence and obscure any attempts on the part of the outsider to grasp the meaning of Jewish identity and Jewish politics within the machinations of the Jewish state. It is also there to stop elements in this movement from elaborating on the crucial role of Jewish lobbying.
The Jewish Left is there then, to mute any possible criticism of Jewish politics within the wider Left movements. It is there to stop the Goyim from looking into Jewish affairs.
A decade ago I met the Kosher dissident brigade for the first time — As soon as I started to express criticism of Israel and Zionism — they started to bounce around me.
For a short while, I fitted nicely into their discourse : I was young and energetic. I was an award winning musician, as well as a promising writer. In their eyes I was a celebrity, or at least a good reason to celebrate. Their chief commissars reserved the best, and most expensive dining tables ahead of my Orient House’s Ensemble concerts. The five grass-root penniless activists, followed the trend and came to my free stage Jazz Combo afternoon concerts in the Barbican Centre’s Foyer. They all wanted to believe that I would follow their agenda, and become a commissar myself. They were also very quick to preach to me who were the ‘bad guys’, those who should be burnt in hell: Israel Shahak, Paul Eisen, Israel Shamir and Otto Weininger were just a few amongst the many baddies. As one may guess by now, it didn’t take me too long to admit to myself that there was more wisdom in a single sentence by Eisen, Weininger, Shahak or Shamir than in the entire work of the Jewish Left put together. I was quick to make it clear to my new ‘Red’ fans that it was not going to work : I was an ex-Israeli, and I no longer regarded myself as a Jew any more. I shared nothing with them and I did not believe in their agenda. Indeed, I had left Israel because I wanted to drift as far away as I could from any form of tribal politics.
Paddling in chicken soup has never been my thing.
Naturally, I bought myself at least a half a dozen enemies, and they were quick to run a campaign against me. They tried to silence me; they desperately ( and hopelessly ) tried to wreck my music career; they mounted pressure on political institutions, media outlets, and music venues. One of them even tried to drag me to court.
But they failed all the way through and they failed on every possible level. The more pressure they mounted, the more people read my writing. At a certain point, people around me were convinced that my detractors were actually running my PR campaign. Moreover, the relentless attempts to silence me could only prove my point. They were there to divert attention away from the crucial role of Jewish politics and Jewish identity politics.
I have asked myself often enough — how is it that they failed with me? But I guess that the same internet that successfully defeated Israeli Hasbara, has also defeated the Jewish left and its hegemony within the movement. In the wider scheme of things, it is totally obvious how marginal the Jewish Marxist discourse is. Its voice within the dissident movement is, in actuality, insignificant.
I guess also, that the fact that I am a popular Jazz artist didn’t make life easy for them — At the time those Jewish commissars labeled me as a racist and an anti Semite, I was touring around the world with two ex Israeli Jews, an Argentinean Jew, a Romanian Gipsy and a Palestinian Oud player. It just couldn’t work for them, and it didn’t.
But here is an interesting twist : In comparison with the contemporaneous Jewish Red terror, Zionism comes across as a relatively tolerant endeavour. In recent months I have been approached by every possible Israeli media outlet. In the summer, Ouvda, the leading Israeli investigative TV show asked repeatedly to join with me and my band on the road. They were interested to launch a debate, and to discuss my ideas in prime time. This week, The Israeli Second Channel approached me for a news item. Again, they were interested in my views. Yesterday, I discussed my views for an hour with Guy Elhanan on Israel’s ‘Kol ha-shalom’ (Voice of Peace).
For the most obvious of reasons, I am very cautious when dealing with the Israeli media. I choose my outlets very carefully. I usually tend to refuse. But, I also accept that as a person who cares about the prospect of peace I must keep an open channel with the Israeli public, and two weeks ago I agreed to be interviewed by Haaretz writer,Yaron Frid. This was my first published interview in Israel for more than a decade. I must admit that I was shocked to find out that not a single word of mine had been removed or censored. Haaretz let me say everything that the Kosher ‘Socialists’ had consistently tried to stop me from saying.
On my ‘self-hatred’ and Jewishness the Israeli paper Haaretz let me say :
“I am not a nice Jew, because I don’t want to be a Jew, because Jewish values don’t really turn me on and all this ‘Pour out Thy wrath on the nations’ stuff doesn’t impress me.”
It also let me question the entire Zionist ethos; the reality of plunder and deluded historicism : “Why do I live on lands that are not mine, the plundered lands of another people whose owners want to return to them but cannot? Why do I send my children to kill and be killed, after I myself was a soldier, too? Why do I believe all this bullshit about ‘because it’s the land of our forefathers’ and ‘our patrimony’ if I am not even religious?
And about Palestinians’ right of return, I said :
“The Israelis can put an end to the conflict in two fucking minutes. Netanyahu gets up tomorrow morning, returns to the Palestinians the lands that belong to them.”
They let me express how I would differentiate between, and define Israel and Palestine: “Palestine is the land and Israel is the state. It took me time to realize that Israel was never my home, but only a fantasy saturated in blood and sweat.”
About chosen-ness, de-Judification and Jewish identity I said, “for Netanyahu and the Israelis to do that (accept the Palestinian right of return), they have to undergo de-Judaization and accept the fact that they are like all peoples and are not the chosen people. So, in my analysis this is not a political, sociopolitical or socioeconomic issue but something basic that has to do with Jewish identity.”
And in the interview I compared Jewish left with National Socialism — And Haaretz’s editorial let it through: “The idea of left-wing Jews is fundamentally sickening. It contains an absolute internal contradiction. If you are leftists it doesn’t matter whether you’re Jewish or not, so on principle when you present yourselves as leftist Jews you are accepting the idea of national socialism. Nazism.”
Haaretz, as could be expected, challenged my opposition to Jewish politics : “Atzmon has been accused from every possible platform of disseminating vitriol against Jews. He, though, maintains that he ‘hates everyone in equal measure.’ He’s also been accused of self-hatred, but he is the first to admit this, and in comparison with Otto Weininger – the Austrian Jewish philosopher who converted to Christianity and of whom Hitler said, ‘There was one good Jew in Germany, and he killed himself’ – he is even proud. ‘Otto and I are good friends.’”
But clearly, at least Israelis can cope with Otto Weininger and his ideology. However — when I gave a talk about Otto Weininger in a London Marxist book shop five years ago (Bookmarks), a ‘synagogue’ of fourteen Jewish Marxists unsuccessfully tried to picket the event and to pressure the SWP into submission.
Guess what; they failed.
Haaretz challenged my take on the Holocaust; yet it printed my answer without changing a single word. “I am fighting against all the disgusting laws and persecutions of those so-called Holocaust deniers – a categorization I don’t accept. I think the Holocaust, like any historical episode, must be open to research, to examination, to discussion and debate.”
And Haaretz, evidently an Israeli Zionist paper, let me express my thoughts about Israeli mass murderers and their destiny. “It might be a good thing if the Nazi hunters hunt down [Shaul] Mofaz and [Ehud] Barak, for example, and not all kinds of 96-year-olds who are barely alive. It’s pathetic.”
It also let me tell Israelis that they are all to be blamed : “In Israel 94 percent of the nation supported Operation Cast Lead. On the one hand, you want to behave like a post-enlightenment state and talk to me about individualism, but on the other hand you surround yourselves with a wall and remain attached to a tribal identity.”
Yaron Frid ended his piece saying, “Israel lost Gilad,” and, “The score, for now: 1-0, Palestine leading.”
I was happy with the article. But I was also jealous. For here in Britain, we are still far from being free to explore these issues.
The message here is plain and simple — Haaretz, a Zionist paper, has let me discuss all those intellectual avenues that ‘the Kosher Socialists’ insist on blocking. A week before my Haaretz special, the Israeli paper featured Mavi Marmara hero Ken O’keefe. Again, Haaretz coverage was fairly balanced; certainly more balanced than BBC Panorama.
The moral is clear : As much as Zionism is repugnant and murderous — it is still way ahead of the Jewish Left , simply because it is still, in some regards at least, part of an ongoing and open discourse.
There is no doubt that amongst the most prolific enemies of Israel and Jewish identity, you will find Israelis and ex Israelis, such as Ilan Pappe, Gideon Levi, Amira Hass, Tali Fahima, Israel Shamir, Israel Shahak, Nurit Peled , Rami Elhanan Guy Elhanan, Jonathan Shapira, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Mordechai Vanunu, Uri Avneri, Shimon Tzabar, myself, and others.
We may not always agree with each other — but we let each other be.
Zionism was an attempt to bring about a new Jew: an ethical, productive and authentic being. But Zionism failed all the way through. Israel is a criminal state, and the Israelis are collectively complicit in relentless crimes against humanity. And yet, Zionism has also succeeded in erecting a solid school of eloquent and proud ‘self haters’. Israelis are taught to be outspoken and critical. Unlike the Diaspora Jewish left, that for some reason, operates as a thought-police, Israeli dissidence speaks out. Israelis are trained to celebrate their ‘symptoms’ — and this also applies in the case of dissidence.
Unlike Jewish Marxism that operates largely as a tribal PR campaign, Israeli dissidence is an ethical approach : You wouldn’t hear Israeli activists shouting ‘not in my name’. The Israelis mentioned above do accept that each Israeli crime is committed in their names. They also accept that activism is the crucial shift from guilt into responsibility. Hence, it is also far from surprising that on the ‘Jewish Boat to Gaza’ mission, the Israeli veteran AIF pilot Shapira and also Elahanan, both spoke about ethics and humanitarian issues, while the British Jew, Kuper, was apparently, judging from his words, perhaps more concerned with the amendment of the image of world Jewry.
Being an ex Israeli, I believe that the only thing I can do for Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, myself, my family, my neighbours and humanity — is to stand firm and speak my heart against all odds.
I also believe that we all know the truth.
We just need to be courageous enough to spit it out.
(1) As bizarre as it may sound to some, ‘Jews Against Zionists’ (JAZ) and ‘Jews for BDS’ (Boycott of Divestment of Israeli Goods) do affirm the Zionist mantra : They operate, primarily, as Jews. As much as it is impossible for uprooted Palestinians to settle in Israel and become a citizen with equal civil rights — it is also impossible for them to join any of the primarily Jewish groups for Palestine.
(2) Richard Kuper, the person behind ‘Irene-the Jewish Boat to Gaza’, was bold enough to admit it — “Our goal is to show that not all Jews support Israeli policies toward Palestinians,” he said. It is now an established fact that the Jewish boat carried hardly any humanitarian aid for the Gazans : its main mission, as far as Kuper was concerned, seems to have been to amend Jewish reputation.
A Realist Scenario…
The recent unpleasantness in eastern Mediterranean has unleashed a torrent of self-serving nonsense on both sides of the issue. In reality, it was a sordid affair. A bunch of nasty Jihadist types and their enablers who have taken over the government in Ankara devise a brilliant scenario for drawing Israel into a lose-lose situation. The Israelis play on cue, with their customary subtlety and sensitivity. Most of the rest of the world recoils in shock and horror. The elite class of the Western world is enjoying itself with a fresh focus for externalized self-hate, now that the Serbs are down and most Afrikaners out. (And needless to say, amidst the general brouhaha nobody takes notice of the jihadist murder of Roman Catholic bishop Luigi Padovese in Turkey…)
What is a man of the Right with no horse in this race to do? He needs to ask himself, “How does this business affect the survival prospects of my demographically, culturally and morally decrepit civilization?”
For all their differences of emphasis and substance in foreign-policy making, Western Europe and North America share objective interests in the Middle East that require broadly similar policy responses. Since the notion of interests and the policies that they engender are defined by the ideological framework in which they are embedded, let me open my ideological cards before proceeding.
Wilsonianism, Neoconservativism and Realism have dominated American thinking on world affairs for some decades now, with the last of the three barely able to keep a toehold inside the Beltway. Wilsonian paradigm (to which most Europeans subscribe even without being aware of that fact) is embodied in Obama, Pelosi and the Clintons here, Javier Solana and Tony Blair in Europe, and George Soros everywhere.
The neocons include Marxist intellectuals like Podhoretz, Kristol, or Muravchik, and policy gurus like Wolfowitz, Perle, and Feith. Their blanket depictions as redesigned Trotskyites need to be corrected. In several important respects the neoconservative world outlook has some striking similarities with Stalinism and German National Socialism. Today’s neoconservatives share with Stalin and Hitler an ideology of nationalist corporatism at home and internationalist imperialism.
Though differing in practice, both Wilsonianism and Neoconservatism derive their assumptions from 18th century rationalist utopianism. Both hold that peace and stability are the natural order of the world and that Man is improvable, that violence and barbarity are either socio-political pathologies or the fruits of flawed policies by “the West.”
Wilsonians find remedies in multilateralism, foreign aid, and efforts at nation-building, while neoconservatives rely on the use of military power to impose their peculiar brand of “benevolent global hegemony” on a supposedly grateful world. On the whole, while the neoconservative mindset is apocalyptic (which is totalitarian trait), rather than utopian (which characterizes the Wilsonians), both are conducive to making the world as we want it to be, rather than dealing with it as it is, which produces policies that are invariably flawed, and occasionally fatal.
It is realism that, unlike either utopian school, accepts the tragic human condition and immutable human nature, and places national interest, pragmatically defined and quantifiable, as the basis of world affairs. It accepts, in sorrow rather than anger, the reality of a world where might is right and violence the norm.
Given the realities of the region, it is clear that the Middle East is too important an issue to be ceded to the anxieties and obsessions of either Wilsonians or neocons.
The realist knows that our primary interests in the Middle East are not to defend human rights, or to promote democracy, or to build a Palestinian state, or to treat Israel as an existential American ally “with no space between us whatsoever.” Our interests are continued access to oil resources that demand regional stability and containment of the Jihadist menace — which entails countering the terrorist threat and stopping the immigrant invasion of the West. Only secondary interests include ameliorating the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and finding a solution that will leave both parties equally dissatisfied.
Peripheral interests lie in opening the region to trade, encouragement of more pluralist forms of governance, promotion of the rule of law, human rights, free enterprise, diversity, pluralism, tolerance, anti-discriminationism, multiculturalism, multiracialism, inclusivism, environmentalism, free abortion on demand, constitutionally guaranteed gay marriage, healthy diet and exercise, non-smoking, animal rights, prevention of global warming, etc, etc.
Secondary and peripheral must remain subordinate to the primary interests when policy outcomes come into conflict. Should we promote “democracy” even if its beneficiaries are Osama and Ahmadinejad? Should we seek “justice” for the Palestinians — however defined — at the cost of risking the disappearance of the state of Israel? No, heck no!
Even if an evenhanded and generous agreement were to be offered to the Arabs — including the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, an equitable sharing of natural resources, and a generous compensation package that would resolve the refugee problem — it would be unworkable in the long term — the notion of Israel’s legitimacy is simply unacceptable to traditional Islam.
The tragedy of the Israeli-Arab conflict is that a problem that may have been amenable, a few decades ago, to the conventional conflict-resolution approach has morphed into a civilizational and religious dispute beyond politics. Most principal actors now perceive it as a zero-sum game.
Before 1967, Arab nationalism had tended to be secular, socialist, and anti-Western. Its opposition to Israel also took a secular form: Israel was seen as a Western colony settled by Europeans and Americans in an Arab land. Europe and the United States created it both as a strategic outpost and as a means of getting rid of their Jewish populations.
Until roughly 1990, broader Arab trends also applied to the Palestinian political and intellectual mainstream. The opposition to Israel, in the occupied territories and in the diaspora, depended for support on pan-Arab sentiment, notably embodied in Egypt’s Nasser. Parallel with that sentiment, a nondenominational Palestinian identity was actively promoted. It was rooted in the myth of an idealized pre-1947 polity, and it amounted to a belated attempt to build a nation without a state and without much of the claimed land.
The great realignment came with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of its satellite regimes — notably in East Berlin, Bucharest, and Prague — that had provided help to various Palestinian factions when Moscow was reluctant to be seen as doing so itself. In the absence of the failed secular god, young Arabs turned to Allah in droves. The fall of the Berlin Wall was soon followed by the defeat of militant Islamists in Algeria and Egypt, forcing them to shift their focus from the internal to the external front.
The founder and leader of Hamas, the late Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, blended the nationalist slogans of the secularists’ pre-1990’s struggle against Israel with principles derived from the doctrines and values of Islam. The Islamic component in the equation, however, goes well beyond inspiring youngsters to sacrifice themselves and to hope for either victory or martyrdom: “Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed.”
From the orthodox Muslim point of view, there is nothing remarkable about such statements. They are derived from the Koran, and from the political tradition and social outlook of 13 centuries. Relinquishing any part of Palestine at the negotiating table is a disobedient act of blasphemy against Allah, and the alternative is the only right way (al-hal-wahid). As a modern Muslim commentator points out, “Such an outlook renders struggle a religious duty, not a nationalist or patriotic one.” The struggle against Israel is more than a “war of national liberation”: It is an act of worship for which God rewards a struggler in the form of victory in this life and eternity in the hereafter. Islamic groups have brought a qualitative change to the Middle Eastern discourse: no permanent peace is possible because it would be against Allah’s will to grant any piece of land once controlled by the faithful to non-Muslims.
A mirror image of this view, of metaphysical sophistry seeking to push its way into legitimate discourse, is the claim — embraced by many in the American evangelical movement — that the modern state of Israel is the embodiment of a biblical covenant: in other words, a Waqf under another name. Eretz Yisrael is the visible expression of the faithful God Who wills by covenant the permanence of the Jewish people (klal), whether Jews live in Israel or elsewhere. Israel “is the beginning of the flowering of messianic redemption” (resheet tzmihat geulateimu). The Jews have the right and the duty to settle the entire land, Eretz Ysrael: as per the book of Numbers, “the people that dwells alone, and that will not be counted among the Nations.”
The development of a Realist anti-jihadist strategy should go hand-in-hand with demystifying the relationship between America and Israel, redefining it in terms of mutual interests devoid of metaphysical or emotional mists. This would help Israel mature into a “normal” nation-state and help her to overcome the paradox that the state of Israel, instead of solving the perennial problem of Jewish insecurity, remains beset by it. Her real and eminently legitimate security concerns after 1948, and notably after 1967, were aggravated by the reemergence of an outlook predicated upon the premise of an inherently hostile world at large. America should grasp the causes of that insecurity from without — by scrutinizing the structure of the Middle Eastern conflict and the nature of the Islamic threat — rather than pander to its symptoms from within by the undissenting acceptance of whatever Israel does as her right to do, from U.S.S. Liberty 43 years ago to the Gaza flotilla today.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was on to something real when he declared, in December 1992, that his country’s “struggle against murderous Islamic terror is also meant to awaken the world, which is lying in slumber.” In the aftermath of the Gaza convoy we should be no less aware, however, that the problem of global Jihad — real and present as it is — can be used by Israel as a cover for actions that facilitate its expansion.
The common Western interest demands the destruction of global jihad in all its forms and the continued existence of the state of Israel, but both these imperatives are based on geopolitical and realpolitical, rather than emotional, moral, or scriptural grounds. Giving aid and comfort to the cynical plotters of the bloody flotilla farce is not a step in the right direction.
And Its Citizens By The Financial Elites…
Is the USA turning into a plutocratic, oligarchical or fascist nation? A growing body of evidence seems to suggest that the answer is affirmative. Especially this is likely the case while the country and its citizens continue to be plundered by greedy affluent lawmakers, banksters and entrepreneurs for personal gain. Meanwhile, it would be well for them and us to note Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s implicit warning that “we can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
Many people are raised with an orientation, indeed an imperative sense, that puts compassion and ethics — ones values and principles — as central to their dealings with others. This foundation becomes part of their identities and shapes the directions that their lives take.
One does not have to look only at charitable institutions to find this to be the case. One can see it in the teacher who works day after day against daunting odds to uplift materially disadvantaged children living in extreme slums. Further, the Girl Scouts, who devise a special project at a senior center, exemplify this mind set when they earnestly strive to bring joy to the elderly of whom many are on their last legs. Likewise, the social workers tirelessly toiling to help families whose homes have been foreclosed and the countless volunteers who gather supplies for victims of disasters typify this focus.
Therefore, one has to wonder about the morality of numerous U.S. government and business leaders, especially the ones who routinely put their own limitless self-gain above the needs of others. What sorts of people are these? Just how did their families and society in general fail them in matters of conscience?
In considering the answers, one often winds up incredulous and outraged by their actions. After all, what kinds of individuals lie about their underlying motives while they systematically destroy the people, the culture and the country of Iraq primarily in order to wrestle control of their oil for companies that favor American interests? What sort of individuals condone torture as their nation’s covert plan to help ensure that domination of the Middle East can be better assured? What sort of individuals publicly talk of service to society and change in which we can all believe while expanding resource wars in order to secure geo-political supremacy over regions rich in fossil fuels at a time during which scientific evidence inarguable points to the need to direct national focus on benign forms of energy?
Certainly, they are aware that this redirection of plans is a necessary precondition for future generations to not face a living hell on Earth due to climate change effects. Surely they must know that they have no moral or legal right to invade other lands for coveted war spoils regardless of the degree that they seem essential to have. Do they?
It is especially worthwhile to ponder the responses to these kinds of questions as one, also, considers that these same individuals, of whom many are U.S. Congressmen, annually allocate fifty-four percent of the federal budget to military related endeavors. Simultaneously, they are mandated to hand over nineteen percent further to the ongoing payment of interest on monies currently owed to maintain their present scale of funding for armed service, bailouts and other reckless ventures.
These circumstances leave a whopping twenty-seven percent left over for ALL other U.S. programs unless, of course, further loans beyond the ongoing intended ones are taken out, i.e., to purchase Swine Flu vaccines. With these additional costs in mind, one can anticipate that legislators will continue in arrangements to borrow staggering sums of money to sustain their disastrous spending patterns, as is mentioned in “The U.S. Federal Budget Pipeline: Where Do The Dollars Drain?” All the while that individual States, like California, and individuals continue to be devastated by the indirect consequences.
In a similar vein, one questions about the morality of people who keep supporting big business practices and amassing wealth for themselves  like modern duplicates of mad King Midas while an increasing number of their fellow Americans wind up jobless and homeless. Meanwhile, a backdrop like this leads Ramsey Clark to suggest, “But we’re not a democracy. It’s a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we’re a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy.”
Accordingly, U.S. employment positions continue to transfer to offshore sites to bolster a plan for maximum profits for the already grossly enriched at the expense of the populace at large. Analogously for companies on U.S. soil, cutbacks and closures have a similarly deleterious effect in terms of under and unemployment.
In relation, the public, obviously, cannot make lots of purchases while an inadequate supply of money is coming into households during which time store shelves are overstocked due to past practices wherein the market became saturated with far too many items for a wide variety of products. Consequently, the manufacture of goods grinds to an almost complete halt and the economy continues to tumble.
Yet no Works Progress Administration (WPA) and extended Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) programs are put in place to make up for the financial deficits that average people are experiencing even though the move could, indirectly, jumpstart spending. Further, the groups that stand to fabulously benefit from the status quo remaining as is continue to do so even as the masses flounder.
As Paul Kane points out in “Lawmakers Reveal Health-Care Investments” :
“The list of [lawmakers] who have personal investments in the corporations that will be affected by the [health-care] legislation — which President Obama has called this year’s highest domestic priority — includes Congress’s most powerful leaders and a bipartisan collection of lawmakers in key committee posts. Their total health-care holdings could be worth $27 million, because congressional financial disclosure forms released yesterday require reporting of only broad ranges of holdings rather than precise values of assets.”
“Health care is not the only industry that is both heavily regulated by Congress and heavily invested in by lawmakers. As The Washington Post reported Thursday, more than 20 members of the House leadership and the House Financial Services Committee hold investments in companies that received more than $200 billion in federal bailouts.”
“On the Senate banking committee, at least a half-dozen senators had significant investments in companies that benefited from the $700 billion bailout legislation that the panel helped draft last fall. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) reported $18,000 to $95,000 in investments in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bonds, and also that he sold at least $15,000 in Fannie ‘step-up’ bonds at the end of last year. The committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Miss.), reported holding $260,000 to $850,000 in money market and retirement accounts with Countrywide, Citigroup and Wachovia.”
Now contrast their bounty with these stark facts of which all were derived from Michael Moore’s investigations.  (One can agree with his overall perceptions or not. Either way, it does not change the basic actualities.)
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually reported that 54.5 million people were uninsured for at least part of the year. Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2006. Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200706.pdf”
“According to the most recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Office issued in January of this year , for the ten-year period, 2006 through 2016, the projected spending [for medical purposes] is $848 billion. “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017,” Congressional Budget Office, January 2007. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7731/01-24-BudgetOutlook.pdf”
“At one point, Moore notes where the U.S. ranks in terms of health care around the world. ‘The United States slipped to No. 37 in health care around the world, just slightly ahead of Slovenia,’ he said. That ranking is based on a 2000 report from the World Health Organization…”
Meanwhile, the health-care industry lobbyists are trying their utmost to guarantee that there are no major shifts in US medical policies. Why would they press for alternatives when it has proven to be such a boon for them and many legislators to keep everything the same? Therefore, they throw almost a million and a half dollars per day at the effort to shape Congressional opinion while sometimes bribing or threatening government officials in the process. 
Concurrently, let’s not forget that these tempted lawmakers are the very same ones who vote on war and black ops budgets for which, if they make certain choices, they’ll be lavishly compensated with money for their reelection campaigns, as well as receive stock option tips and other perks, such as highly lucrative job offers after they leave public office. All considered, what a boon such alluring plans en toto have been!
For example, “members of Congress invested nearly 196 million dollars of their own money in companies that receive hundreds of millions of dollars a day from Pentagon.” At the same time, the heads of companies that receive favorable legislation pertaining to subsidies and bailout cash do not make out poorly either. As such, the salaries for directors of certain organizations and their bonus payments are considerable and, for the ones who don’t get direct funding, they still make out well due to favorable deals made relative to resources (i.e., the petrol, minerals, metals, etc.) indirectly obtained through U.S. military assaults.
As such, they can do well for themselves even when they do not make out as well as the banking/oil Rockefeller family or the Rothschilds, with their respective holdings equaling roughly (US) $11 trillion and (U.S.) $100 trillion according to Gaylon Ross Sr., author of Who’s Who of the Global Elite.  Correspondingly, Bank of America chief Ken Lewis made a mere $24.8 million in 2007 while performance bonuses were lavishly paid out in this banksters’ paradise, one managed so poorly that it has taken in at least $25 billion in bailout funds. 
This sort of happening being more the norm than not, it is apparent that no importance has been attached to Abraham Lincoln’s counsel: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the Country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.”
With the beefed up surveillance of private citizens by operatives in assorted government agencies and the above sorts of disasters, some researchers are understandably questioning whether the U.S. is slipping towards a permanent plutocratic, oligarchical and/or fascist state. If so for the latter condition, the opinions of Naomi Wolf and Laurence Britt, as well as this following description from the Wikipedia anti-capitalism section,  might have an uncomfortable ring of familiarity.
“…Fascism protected the land-owning elites and is regarded as a reaction against the rising power of the working class…
“Adolf Hitler stated in Mein Kampf that ‘the attitude of the State towards capital would be comparatively simple and clear. Its only object would be to make sure that capital remained subservient to the State’. Hitler made a clear distinction between ‘capital which is purely the product of creative labour and … capital which is exclusively the result of financial speculation.’…
“Marxists argue that fascism is a form of state capitalism that emerges when laissez-faire capitalism is in crisis and in need of rescue by government intervention. Fascists have operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim has been to promote ‘superior’ individuals and weed out the weak. In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class. Lawrence Britt suggests that protection of corporate power is an essential part of fascism. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because ‘the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise… Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social.’
“Classical liberal economist Ludwig von Mises argued that fascism was collectivist and anti-capitalistic. According to Mises, fascism maintained an illusion of respecting private property, since individuals could not use their property how they wished because the government frequently enacted regulations (on behalf of government allies in the business sector) that were not in line with the functioning of a free market.
“Historian Robert Paxton contends that fascists’ anti-capitalism was highly selective; the socialism that the fascists wanted was National Socialism, which denied only foreign or enemy property rights (including that of internal enemies). They did, however, cherish national producers.”
One might add that they particularly cherish fiscal producers, wizards that magically pull a seemingly endless stream of money out of the air for their favorite recipients. As H. L. Birum, Sr., suggests, “The Federal Reserve Bank is nothing but a banking fraud and an unlawful crime against civilization. Why? Because they ‘create’ the money made out of nothing, and our Uncle Sap Government issues their ‘Federal Reserve Notes’ and stamps our Government approval with NO obligation whatever from these Federal Reserve Banks, Individual Banks or National Banks, etc.”
Moreover, one can easily supplement his views with those of John Adams: “Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.” (Can you imagine the comments that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and other founders of the nation would make were they to observe a number of contemporary Congressional activities in relation to banks and other organizations?)
At the same time, it’s not all that hard to conclude that, for some time, U.S. government policy has been one typically called “last man standing.” In other words, it is to throw the majority of federal funds into an effort to commandeer the last amounts of nonrenewable (and, in some cases, renewable, although depleting) critical material goods (through global resource battles, programs like NAFTA and so forth) with a sort of survival of the fittest (a modernized Social Darwinian derivative) model in mind.
As Henry Kissinger quipped, “Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy” and “control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” In other words, let’s use the troops to enforce hegemony everywhere!
With such a Machiavellian frame of reference for expert guidance, the majority of US federal funds, of course, will continue to be slated for such endeavors as broadening wars, interest payments on further borrowed money and ongoing bailouts. In a similar vein, the fittest do not include the looted American middle and poor classes. They are immaterial and, as such, are mostly ignored or, if in terribly dire straits, pushed out of homes to live in city streets (90,000 in L.A. alone), tent cities (updated Hoovervilles) and car parks if they are fortunate enough to still have a vehicle in which to live after their domiciles are foreclosed and their jobs are removed. (Meanwhile, such loss is simply another program to enhance the monetary advancement by the elites — the ones fittest to survive in the ever worsening environmental and financial downturns brought on by draconian economic growth policies.)
In the end, one has to ask whether practices that are aimed at government and business leaders mutually servicing each other represent the best interests of Americans and other peoples of the world. Assuming that this is not the case, great accountability must be demanded of these so-called leaders.
If they cannot be made to conform to reasonable moral codes of conduct, the USA will surely become a terrible place to be a citizen for the majority of people who find that, while conditions in their personal lives deteriorate, the wealthy elites make out just fine due to self-enriching agendas, like deficient public health-care programs, that put everyone else in jeopardy. Put another way, “we can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” – Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Emily Spence is an author living in Massachusetts. She has spent many years involved in human rights, environmental and social services efforts.
 Google Answers: average income of members of the u.s. congress (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=85943)
and The Congressional Millionaires Club (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11104.htm).
 Lawmakers Reveal Health-Care Investments (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061204075.html?sid=ST2009061204093).
 MichaelMoore.com : SiCKO : ‘SiCKO’ News : AP vs. THE … (http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=9990).
 Health-care industry spending over $1.4 million per day on lobbying (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html),
Ethics Panel Rebukes DeLay (washingtonpost.com) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63387-2004Sep30.html),
DownWithTyranny!: Has The Heath Care Industry Bribed Enough … (http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/03/has-heath-care-industry-bribed-enough.html),
Econbrowser: Fiscal Exposure and Medicare Part D (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/01/fiscal_exposure.html),
Lies, bribes and hidden costs – Salon.com (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/04/05/medicare/)
and Who tried to bribe Rep. Smith? – By Timothy Noah – Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2091787/).
 FINANCE: U.S. Lawmakers Invested in Iraq, Afghanistan Wars – … (ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41893).
 The True Evil Doers (http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2009/06/the_true_evil_d.html).
 Obama talks tough on CEO pay – Feb. 4, 2009 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/04/news/obama.exec.pay.fortune/index.htm),
Executive PayWatch Database (http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm),
Bank Of America To Get Billions More In Bailout … (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/14/bank-of-america-to-get-bi_n_158034.html),
BANK OF AMERICA HAS YET TO REPAY BAILOUT FUNDS TO TARP – New … (http://www.nypost.com/seven/06182009/business/bailout_bonus_at_bofa_174854.htm)
and BofA receives another $20 billion from U.S. bailout fund – … (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/16/news/companies/bofa_new_bailout/index.htm).
 Naomi Wolf: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps | World news | … (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment),
George W Bush and the 14 points of fascism – Project for the … (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm”>http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm”>http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm),
and Anti-capitalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-capitalism).
With 2008 just concluded, today’s column will be my analysis of the best and worst of the year just spent. First, the best: my wife, Connie, and our family. As the Constitution Party candidate for President, I logged more than 30,000 miles and visited more than 30 states. I traveled most of those miles alone–as costs prohibited my wife from traveling with me–and most flights were flown in the coach cabin. In fact, my wife and I were apart more last year than the previous 34 years of married life combined. Needless to say, I am not cut out to be a traveling salesman. The time away from home was extremely difficult.
I am grateful to God for giving me the outstanding family I have. Connie is amazing! And our three grown children (Sarah, Chris, and Tim) and their spouses (Allan, Jana, and Jennifer) are absolutely the greatest. Each one of them is a champion-patriot in his or her own right. They love God; they love freedom; they love their parents and each other; they are independent thinkers and courageous Christians. We are as close a family as one will ever find. They are my best and closest friends.
Those faithful members of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida who prayed for me, stood by me, and supported me during a grueling campaign certainly make it to my “best” list for 2008. When I first announced the invitation and opportunity that had been afforded me to become an Independent candidate for President to my church family, several families walked out the back door. Some of these folks were “friends” for many years. Fortunately, however, the vast majority of my church family remained steadfast and unmovable. Try to imagine a church anywhere else in America that would stand by and support a pastor, as he takes a “sabbatical” to run for President. Most churches today will not even tolerate a pastor who dares to take a stand for anything controversial. The faithful stalwarts at Crossroad Church make my “best” list.
Actually, there were many highlights of 2008. The many friends and supporters I met around the country have to make my “best” list, for sure. The many LDS folks who supported me in Utah and surrounding states were a real highlight. People such as Frank Fluckiger, Scott Bradley and Matt Moody, to name a few.
The great folks who hosted Connie and I in Spokane, Washington, (yes, Connie was able to make this trip with me) make it to my “best” list. I am talking about Bob Peck and his entire team. They were terrific.
The guys out in California, who helped provide the VIP tour of America’s busiest immigration port near San Diego for me, also make my “best” list for 2008. In addition to the legal border crossing at San Ysidro, they also took me out into the California desert in 110-degree heat to take a firsthand look at the real border. However bad you may think our illegal immigration problem is, it is ten times worse than that. I was able to meet with Border Patrol agents and Border Patrol Auxiliary personnel, as well. It was a real education. Thanks are especially due to retired Air Force Master Sergeant (and retired Deputy Sheriff) Larry Breazeale.
Perhaps the most fascinating man I got to know last year was retired Air Force Brigadier General Charles Jones. What an amazing man! We have become fast friends. Getting to know the general was one of the “best” events of 2008, for sure.
From an organizational perspective, Thom Holmes, out there in Oklahoma, was probably the most indispensable and valuable asset to my campaign last year. He kept my travel and hotel itinerary intact for me. He was on top of every detail. I could not have done it without him. Of course, Darrell Castle was a terrific running mate and a first class gentleman. Joe Sanger in Michigan, and Lowell and Bethany Patterson in New Jersey were also able and indispensable associates.
Lou Dobbs makes my “best” list for 2008, as well. He was the one major television talk show host who was willing to have me as a guest on his program. It is not surprising that Lou Dobbs was about the only notable television talk show host during 2008 who was willing to confront the truth regarding a host of issues: from the North American Union, to illegal immigration, to Ramos and Compean, to the criminal international bankers. Thanks, Lou.
Close to the top of my “best” list is Congressman Ron Paul. What a terrific champion for freedom and constitutional government he is! I was able to get to know Ron quite well during the campaign, and was both humbled and honored when he publicly endorsed my candidacy. Thank you, Ron. You are the best man we have on Capitol Hill.
South Carolina senatorial candidate, Bob Conley, also makes my “best” list of 2008. Here was a guy who was willing to take on the neocon senator, Lindsey Graham. Had he had the support of the so-called conservative Christians, he would have won. But most conservative Christians are so myopic and uninformed today that they cannot think outside the box. And because Bob ran as a Democrat, they would not support him. What a shame! Bob was as solid a constitutionalist patriot as one will ever find. You did us all proud, Bob.
In the print media, Bob Dill, who publishes the Times Examiner in Greenville, South Carolina, makes it to my “best” list, as well. Bob represents the shrinking number of courageous publishers who know what’s going on and are not afraid to print the truth.
Speaking of South Carolina, Dorchester County Sheriff Ray Nash also makes it to my “best” list for 2008. I first met Ray on the campaign trail in the Palmetto State and then invited him to be our guest speaker for our God and Country Day on Election Sunday, November 4. He brought a magnificent address. I was so impressed with his presentation that we made copies and sent them to every elected official in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties in Florida. You can view Sheriff Nash’s video presentation at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Sheriff-Nash.html .
The opportunity I had to speak at the 50th Anniversary of the John Birch Society in Appleton, Wisconsin also makes my “best” list for 2008. John McManus and Art Thompson were gracious hosts and have become good friends. The Birch Society is one of the bright spots in America today. No organization has been more unduly criticized as the John Birch Society. And yet, their commitment to liberty and constitutional government has never waned. My hat is off to them.
The New American magazine is still the finest news publication in America. Year in and year out, TNA is the best.
Speaking at the Indianapolis Baptist Temple (IBT) in Indianapolis, Indiana also needs to be included in my “best” list of 2008. It was a pleasure to be with Dr. Greg Dixon, his son, Pastor Greg Dixon, and Dr. Don Boys again. The IBT has gone through more tribulation than most churches can possibly imagine (at least those in America), and they are still going strong. What a great congregation of dedicated and determined believers! They remind me of courageous Christians from yesteryear. I was honored to speak before them.
Internet publishers such as Paul Walter make my “best” list, too. Paul publishes News With Views. He and people such as Jim Rudd at Covenant News have carried my columns for years. These are men who also know what’s going on and are not afraid to print the truth. Thanks, guys.
Other web sites that were especially beneficial to patriots in 2008 were World Net Daily, VDARE, Freedom’s Phoenix, Renew America, and Gary Shumway’s Red Pills. In Pensacola, my friend, Mike West, at Gulf1, was the man who first got me thinking about publishing a column such as this. Thanks for the idea, Mike.
Without these (and other) great Internet news sites, the American people, for the most part, would not have convenient access to the truth. Most of the major media and major “conservative” radio talk shows today are little more than lackeys for New World Order Republicans, and are therefore worthless to the cause of liberty.
In addition to the mainstream media, and worthless talk show hosts such as Sean Hannity, I must include the majority of so-called leaders within the Religious Right as making my “worst” list for 2008. I include James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Tony Perkins on this list.
For all intents and purposes, the Religious Right has become nothing more than a gaggle of glorified hacks for the Republican Party. They have sacrificed virtually every principle worth defending. For the sake of sitting at the king’s table, or not losing financial support from brain-dead contributors, these men have sold the cause of freedom and constitutional government down the river. Their mindless support for John McCain was inexcusable and embarrassing! In so doing, they have lost all credibility.
Also making my “worst” list in 2008 are the many pastors and church members around the country who continued to support one of the worst Presidents in American history: George W. Bush. This man has taken America to the precipice of financial ruin; he has created the foundation for a police state; he has trampled the Constitution and Bill of Rights like no President since Abraham Lincoln; he has used our bravest and best for his sinister plans of interventionist adventurism; he has set the wheels of global government and national socialism in motion, as has no other President (I’m sure Barack Obama will do more than his share to augment socialism in the United States, but remember, it is George W. Bush that has laid the foundation for the acceptance of national socialism). I’m not sure that America will ever truly recover from his Presidency. Yet, a majority of conservative pastors and church members continue to idolize George Bush. What an embarrassment!
Both the Democrat and Republican Parties make my “worst” list for 2008. In one year, both major parties nominated two men, neither of whom was constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States. Now, that’s quite a feat!
The Council on Foreign Relations, international bankers, and other global elitists also make my “worst” list for 2008. When will the people of America awaken to the reality that our worst enemies are not “liberals” and “leftists,” as much as they are the global elitists who control the Federal Reserve and other internationalist entities that are committed to dismantling America’s independence and sovereignty?
Notable deaths that contributed to the down side of 2008 include veteran radio broadcaster George Putnam. I wrote a column eulogizing George shortly after his death in September. Read it at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080923.html
Other folks I hated to see leave us were Bob Jeter, cornerback from the championship teams of the 1960s Green Bay Packers; Ivan Dixon, from the old Hogan’s Heroes TV sitcom; famed actor and NRA president Charlton Heston; Eddy Arnold, the great country-western singer; Dick Martin, from the old Rowan and Martin TV comedy show; the hilarious Harvey Korman; the great freedom fighter, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; the never-equaled voice of “In a world” announcer, Don LaFontaine; “Cool Hand Luke” Paul Newman; and actor Van Johnson, who starred in over 100 movies, and I don’t think I ever saw a bad one.
Finally, my beloved Green Bay Packers make my “worst” list for 2008 for shoving Brett Favre out the door for what was certainly his last NFL season. As a result, the Pack went from a 13-3 playoff team to a 6-10 stay-home-and-watch team. Favre should have finished his hall of fame career in Green Bay. That he didn’t is a shame.
There you have it: my best and worst of 2008. I trust that all of us will truly have a Happy New Year!
Although the show was propaganda produced by leftist Norman Lear, no one could accuse “All in the Family” of not being funny. Its protagonist, blue-collar bigot Archie Bunker, is one of those legendary television characters, and one of his uproarious lines is apropos here. It was uttered during a scene in which his daughter, Gloria, passionately asked him, “Daddy, did you know that 65 percent of the people murdered in the last ten years were killed by handguns?” The curmudgeonly patriarch’s reply was classic: “Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed outta’ windas’?”
While what follows isn’t the conclusion Lear wanted us to draw, the truth is that many Americans would feel better. People tend to fixate on the boogeyman of their ideology, and they often don’t trouble much about evil when it’s not committed in his name.
We see examples of this phenomenon today, and this brings me to a couple of questions of my own. Can tyranny be visited in the name of only one particular lie? And would it make you feel any better if millions were oppressed or murdered to promote a fashionable lie? The truth is, sadly, millions would feel better.
Archie’s characteristic fault, bigotry, is today a very unfashionable lie. It’s also a very exaggerated one. Up until just recently, millions of Americans were absolutely certain a black man could never be elected president. I had pointed out on numerous occasions, both at private gatherings and in print (here, here and here, for instance), that America is the least “racist” country on Earth and that a black person could very easily ascend to the White House. So, before we proceed, let’s make something crystal clear.
I and my philosophical soul mates were right, and the other side was wrong.
Completely, irrefutably, unambiguously wrong.
How they could be so wrong? The answer is, they’re in the grip of a false ideology that is emotionally pleasing to them. And the cool regions of the head are easily trumped by the raging fires of the heart.
People have always been raised with certain dogmas. In our time, the three r’s of education are revisionism, relativism, and racism, and we are instilled with the notion that the last thing is the end-all and be-all, the source of all our woes. In fact, the modern version of that old biblical admonition would have to be “Racism is the root of all evil.”
This is evident in our culture. In textbooks and documentaries we are bombarded with gratuitous treatments of slavery and discrimination in America (not elsewhere, where the former is extant and the latter generally far worse), and the media report every detectable bigoted word uttered or racial act committed by white people, no matter how statistically rare it might be, for the purposes of portraying our nation as ridden with racism and in need of “the fix” (this is partially why we’ve been fixed like a dog). Then there is the matter of how communism is viewed kindly relative to National Socialism (which partially explains why “big C” communism is again on the rise). We are outraged that 11 million were killed because of a racial agenda, as we should be, yet it seems that it would make modern man’s inner little girl feel better if they had been exterminated in the name of an atheistic/economic one. After all, while the communists killed about ten times as many – 100 million worldwide during the 20th century – its defenders are never lowered to where they belong, the nadir of pariah status occupied by a neo-Nazi. But, of course, godlessness and economic egalitarianism are all the rage in these enlightened times.
Many will justify such bias, claiming that the demon of discrimination cannot be exorcised without constant prayer to the god of government; there must be a bit of over-compensation in much that same way that a crooked wire cannot be made right unless it’s bent beyond straight in the other direction. But it is also true that if you keep bending it in the fashionable direction, it becomes more crooked than it was before. The yoke of tyranny isn’t less burdensome just because it’s born of an unfashionable lie’s opposite.
This is why it’s so dangerous when we deceive ourselves about a problem. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis’ in The Screwtape Letters, the demon bent on civilization’s demise reasons that he must convince people to exaggerate their faults. Thus, we dark angels must tell the militarist that he is too pacifistic and the pacifist that he is too militaristic. In light of this, consider that certain forces in our thoroughly politically-correct society, where cultural affirmative action carries the day, continually tell us that we’re too racist.
When you understand this phenomenon whereby man swings from one extreme to the other and consider what we regard to be our greatest mistakes of the past, it becomes clear why we are in our current social state and what dangers may lie on the horizon. I will elaborate.
Barack Obama’s infamous ex-pastor, friend and confidant, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, subscribes to “Black Liberation Theology.” He expressed one of its tenets during a fiery sermon, saying:
“Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people.”
Such rhetoric is tolerated by much of society. But not by those, such as authentic Christians, who understand that Jesus should not be reduced to a racial symbol. After all, such a characterization is as ridiculous as claiming Jesus was a member of the Nordic race and did battle with Jews.
Oh, by the way, the latter was claimed – by the National Socialists – in 1930s Germany. It was called “positive Christianity,” and it was tolerated by much of society. But not by people, such as authentic Christians, who understood that Jesus should not be reduced to a racial symbol.
As for citizens who disagreed with National Socialist doctrine, they were often silenced; I suppose it was very unfashionable to claim that your Aryan race didn’t enjoy superiority. We have risen beyond this today, of course. So much so, in fact, that we have speech codes in colleges and corporations and hate-speech laws in many countries which ensure that people who disagree with the doctrine of racial equivalency along every conceivable dimension will often be silenced. It’s a totally different thing.
The National Socialists (and many others) were wrong not just because they believed in differences among groups that didn’t exist, but, far more significantly, because they also assumed that a group’s worth was determined by its characteristic abilities and overall intelligence. They didn’t understand that everyone is deserving of dignity because he is a child of God; this is an easy mistake to make when your ideology becomes your god and its tenets your truth. This is why it may be comforting to certain people that our faith is so strong.
And something happens when your agenda and its truth supplant God, the Truth. When its tenets conflict with the Truth, instead of discarding the former, you rationalize away the latter. Thus, when fleet-footed Jesse Owens prevailed in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin and Joe Louis pummeled German Max Schmeling in their second heavyweight bout, it did nothing to disabuse the National Socialists of their ideas. The doctrine that they occupied the highest rung of a racial hierarchy determined by genetics could not be questioned.
We’re not like that at all. Instead, we’re diligent enough to ostracize people such as Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder and renowned scientists William Shockley and James Watson for suggesting that some group differences could have a genetic basis. The doctrine of comprehensive absolute genetic racial equivalency cannot be questioned.
In reality, the balanced view of the matter is very simple: While there are differences among groups, there are also differences within groups. The latter is why we must judge everyone as an individual, and the former is why we must judge every individual group as an individual group.
The National Socialists had a problem with this, as they were bent on believing that a person’s group identity is destiny; it was a doctrine that justified discrimination. We’re not like that at all. We insist that a group’s group identity is meaningless. Ashkenazi Jews have the highest I.Q. of any group, blacks tolerate heat better and tend to be more muscular, and I’m sure every group possesses genetically-based advantages of some kind. Yet this mustn’t be acknowledged, as it contradicts our doctrine that performance differences among groups must be attributed to discrimination.
The National Socialists were also gung-ho nationalistic; it helped greatly to rally Josef Six-pack. We’re not like that at all. In fact, we go so far as to criticize flag-wavers and, as Bill Ayers and Ward Churchill can attest, preach anti-Americanism in academia, the media and Hollywood. We have moved beyond tribal loyalties. We are internationalists.
Yes, we are nothing like those racial dogmatists of bygone days. We can truthfully say, as writer Ace Walker once pointed out, “We’re not National Socialists, you bloody fool. We’re international socialists!”
Another characteristic of the National Socialists is that before they gained the power to impose their agenda through the law, they did so through the lawless; they used brown-shirted thugs to intimidate and silence opposition.
We’re not like that at all.
Our mobs don’t wear brown shirts. They just storm stages (Columbia and other attacks on traditionalists at colleges), intimidate voters, steal conservative newspapers, attack conservative students and vandalize their homes, and force-feed students politically-correct ideas in academia.
Then there are the aspirations, which are sometimes expressed by readers of left-wing news sites. For instance, at a very popular site I came across a post to the effect of (I’m paraphrasing):
“Racists should be beaten and then put in re-education camps until their thinking is changed.”
This was not an uncommon sentiment at this site and was unchallenged by the other respondents.
To place this in perspective, remember that things such as condemning Islamist beliefs, speaking frankly about crime statistics, criticizing Obama and even opposing welfare have been labeled racist. Why, even Bill Clinton, the former and now completely white “first black president,” was labeled a racist during the primary campaign. “Racist” has become synonymous with “bad guy,” and bad guy has come to mean “someone who disagrees with our doctrine.” And, you see, the remedy for doctrinal incorrectness is a re-education camp.
So we exhibit that dreaded pattern, that tendency to go from one extreme to another. No matter how far we bend that wire, we’re continually told we’re too racist. We’re ever on the watch for closet National Socialists, inheritors of a philosophy whose adherents murdered millions under the banner of racial superiority. But what will be the result of an ever-intensifying obsession to enforce a racial-equivalency doctrine whose adherents see enemies around every corner?
Well, whatever. I’m sure modern man’s inner little girl will feel better as long as people are only pushed out of windows.
Selwyn Duke is a regular columnist for Novakeo.com
Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan’s magazine The American Conservative and he writes regularly for The New American and Christian Music Perspective.
He can be reached at: SelwynDuke@optonline.net
[Triple stands for: (1) ice sheets; (2) global economy; (3) trust in governments.]
Recent reports of enhanced methane (CH4) leaks off the eastern Siberian coast (about 100 times the background level of about 1780 parts per billion CH4) and off Svalbard (Norway) have been overshadowed in the media by the collapse of the global credit bubble.
At the root of both is a common thread, deregulation, including open-ended permits to pollute the atmosphere and the oceans, little-regulated financial systems and economic globalization, representing failure by governments to protect the life and welfare of their hapless populations.
None can come as a surprise.
For some time now, climate scientists warned that melting of subpolar permafrost and warming of the Arctic Sea (up to 4 degrees C during 2005–2008 relative to the 1951–1980) are likely to result in the dissociation of methane hydrates and the release of this powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere (methane: 62 times the infrared warming effect of CO2 over 20 years and 21 times over 100 years).
The amount of carbon stored in Arctic sediments and permafrost is estimated as 500–2500 Gigaton Carbon (GtC), as compared with the world’s total fossil fuel reserves estimated as 5000 GtC. Compare with the 700 GtC of the atmosphere, which regulate CO2 levels in the range of 180–300 parts per million and land temperatures in a range of about – 50 to + 50 degrees C, which allowed the evolution of warm blooded mammals.
The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has already added some 305 GtC to the atmosphere together with land clearing and animal-emitted methane. This raised CO2 levels to 387 ppm CO2 to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO2 levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres.
There is little evidence for a extinction at 3 Ma. However, by crossing above a CO2 level of 400 ppm the atmosphere is moving into uncharted territory. At this stage, enhanced methane leaks threaten climate events, such as the massive methane release and fauna extinction of55 million years ago, which was marked by rise of CO2 to near-1000 ppm.
There is little evidence in Garnauts Final Report that this possibility was taken seriously into account. Nor do the consequences of metres-scale sea level rise for a civilization hinged along deltas, low river valleys and coastlines appear to prevent governments and business from “business as usual” behavior.
The $700 billion donated by the US Congress to save corrupt financial dealers are required for fast-tracked conversion from polluting to clean energy utilities and vehicles. The trillions of dollars spent since WWII on bombing peasant populations in their fields in the name of democracy and freedom are needed for replanting deforested regions of the Earth.
The people need leaders who will place the life and future of humans and other species ahead of the three-years election cycle, oneswho will rise above the power game of vested interests and be prepared to lead civilization our of the morass in which it finds itself.
In Australia, Dietrich Bonhoeffer* is a “household” name since our PM, Kevin Rudd, is a great admirer of him. Leaders, who have the example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in mind, need to act accordingly.
Words in the absence of timely follow up in actions, as is exemplified by Bonhoeffer’s efforts, can never be sufficient onto themselves. As such, their meaning is of likely negligible consequence and worth when any admiration, itself, leads to no constructive ends.
‘Dietrich Bonhoeffer was born on February 4, 1906, in Breslau, Germany. He studied in student [days] in Tubingen, Berlin, and at Union Theological Seminary in New York. He became a college professor, a noted writer on theology, poet, musician and a Lutheran pastor. Although he was safe in London at the outbreak of the war, he returned to Germany to resist Nazism. Bonhoeffer’s theologically rooted opposition to National Socialism first made him a leader, along with Martin Niemueller and Karl Barth, in the Confessing Church (bekennende Kirche), and an advocate on behalf of the Jews. His leadership in the anti-Nazi Confessing Church and his participation in the Abwehr resistance circle make his works a unique source for understanding the interaction of religion, politics, and culture among those few Christians who actively opposed National Socialism.
Bonhoeffer was condemned for his involvement in “Operation 7,” a rescue mission that had helped a small group of Jews over the German border and into Switzerland. He had also been involved in planning an unsuccessful assassination attempt on the life of Adolf Hitler. His participation in the murder plot conflicted with Bonhoeffer’s position as a pacifist. He explained: “If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can’t, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.” He was hanged in the concentration camp at Flossenbürg on April 9, 1945, at the age of 39, one month before the end of the war. He was one of four members of his immediate family to die at the hands of the Nazi regime for their participation in the small Protestant resistance movement. The letters [that] he wrote during these final two years of his life were posthumously published by his student and friend, Eberhard Bethge, as “Letters and Papers from Prison.”‘ (This above biographic note was derived from: http://www.salsa.net/peace/faces/bonhoeffer.html.)
Dr. Andrew Glikson is a guest columnist for Novakeo.com
Dr. Andrew Glikson is a Earth and paleo-climate research scientist at Australian National University. He spends much of his free time invested in efforts to address climate change issues in a timely fashion and can be contacted at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Modern Liberalism is the dominant paradigm in the US, and it plays a major role in Europe, in post-Soviet Russia and elsewhere. This line is preached by the powerful world-wide mass media syndicate whose elements are ostensibly independent yet they transmit the identical message James Petras has called The Tyranny of Liberalism. A “liberal tyranny” may strike some as oxymoronic if not a contradiction in terms since Liberalism likes to represent itself as the neutral ground of freedom rather than as an ideology and as an arbiter of religious pluralism and freedom rather than an anti-religious ideology. Liberalism is the ideology than denies that it is such a thing; ask a liberal and he will tell you he is against the dominance of any ideology or of any religion.
In our attempt to pierce this protective colouring we shall apply some ideas of the late German thinker Carl Schmitt who learned of liberalism the hard way. After Germany was subdued and conquered in 1945, Carl Schmitt lived for a while in the Soviet and the American occupation zones, which were later converted into the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. On the basis of his comparative experience in the occupation, Carl Schmitt noticed that American Liberalism is a militant ideology less prone to compromise than Soviet Communism. The Americans demanded that Schmitt give proof of belief in Liberal Democracy, while the Russians never asked him to swear an oath upon the Communist Manifesto. This personal experience led Schmitt to conclude that the Modern American Liberalism is not an ideology-free live-and-let-live paradigm, but a positive ideology, and an ideology even more dangerous than the Communism he greatly disliked. Schmitt saw the traditional balance of power threatened by the new triumphant Anglo-American air and sea global imperium based on an aggressive ideology. For this reason he welcomed the Cold War, as he thought the USSR the only force capable of containing the American ideological drive.
In recent years with the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, many others have come to share Schmitt’s realization that Liberalism is an aggressive global ideology calling for certain principles to be implemented world-wide by force of arms. These principles can be described either in positive or negative terms: a restaurant guest and an oyster would describe the arrival of Chablis and lemon in different ways. Much depends on whether you eat or you are eaten. Let’s have a look at the menu from a dual perspective.
- Human rights OR denial of Collective Rights.
- Minority Rights OR denial of Majority Rights.
- Non-governmental ownership of media OR exclusive right of Capital to form public opinion.
- Women rights and protection OR dissolution of family.
- Homosexual unions OR denial of the sanctity of marriage
- Antiracism OR denial of “the need for roots” in Weil’s terms.
- Economic self-reliance, OR ban on social mutual help (in theological terms agape and charity)
- Separation of Church and State OR freedom for anti-Christian propaganda and a ban on Christian mission in the public sphere.
- Public elections of government («democracy»), limited by voters’ conformity to the liberal paradigm, OR denial of authentic self-determination.
Carl Schmitt postulated an important assumption: every ideology is a crypto-religious doctrine, or in his words, «all of the most pregnant concepts of modern doctrine are secularized theological concepts». Let us compare Communism and Liberalism in the light of this insight.
Though it originated in the West, Communism first arose in the society formed by the Russian Orthodox Church, and it had many features one would expect to find in a secularised Orthodoxy. Poets felt it well, and Alexander Blok sang of Christ “with the blood-red flag, invulnerable to bullets, fleeting foot above the blizzard, in a white crown of roses” leading his Twelve Red Guards. In the late Soviet days, the Russians proclaimed the Christian principle “Man is to Man a Friend, Comrade and Brother.” The Russian Communists despised material comforts as had their Orthodox predecessors, and placed their sobornost (Catholicity, or togetherness-in-the-Church) and solidarity above all other virtues.
Solidarity and Catholicity are features shared by ideologies Liberalism is hostile to. Last week, Yehuda Bauer, the Yad Vashem Memorial director, the High Priest of the Holocaust cult, in a speech given to counterbalance the Tehran Conference, said:
“There are great differences between National Socialism, Soviet Communism, and radical Islam, but there are also some important parallels. All three are or were religious or quasi-religious movements. Unquestioning, quasi-religious belief in Nazi ideology was central to the existence and policies of the regime, and it was Nazi ideology that was the central factor that produced the Holocaust; Marxist-Leninism was the quasi-religious dogma that everyone in the Stalinist empire had to swear by. The same applies to radical Islam.” 
This is undoubtedly true, or, in the light of Carl Schmitt’s words, rather a truism: if it is an ideology, it has theological underpinnings. We shall notice that Bauer did not mention one important ideology, contemporary with the three and at war with them. Just recently, some fifty years ago, Marxists-Leninists, National Socialists and Liberals sorted out their differences on the battlefields of Europe. Why does the Liberal Bauer give a pass to Liberalism?
Beyond being coy, Bauer’s significant omission has an important theological message: Liberalism’s claim to transcendence. A liberal places liberalism above “ordinary” religions and ideologies; on a higher plane than any religious or ideological construct. The adepts of any ideology other than Liberalism are “totalitarians” or “fanatics”, in the eyes of a Liberal. This arrogant attitude of the only possessors of truth reminds us of the Judaic narrative of the Old Testament, where the devotees of One God are exalted to a level above the “pagans”. Theoretically, this attitude of superiority was inherited by the three great religions of our oikouménè, of Eastern and Western Christianity and of Islam as well; but it wasn’t internalised. An Orthodox Christian did not consider himself a cut above Muslims and Catholics. However, modern Judaism (widely divergent from Biblical Judaism in other respects) preserved this unpleasant claim to superiority of its predecessor.
Bauer’s reluctance to name the religious component of Liberalism provides us with a clue pointing to something he might wish to conceal. But here is an additional hint. As Bauer continues to seek parallels in the three indicted movements, he positions their common antagonist:
“All three target Jews as their main, or immediate, enemy: the Nazis murdered them; the Soviets planned, in 1952, to deport all Soviet Jews to Siberia, with the obvious intention that most of them should die. The genocidal message of radical Islam to the Jews is loud and clear.”
If Bauer believes his claim about the Nazis is as true as his assertion about Soviets and Muslims, his place was at the head of Tehran Conference as the chief H-denier. If he does not believe his own claim, he is a liar and a defamer. The story of “Soviets planning to deport Jews” is an Israeli fabrication as false as a three-dollar bill and thoroughly debunked, too. If Stalin and Hitler had read Bauer’s talk in 1940, they wouldn’t have gone to war. But what is important for us is that Bauer construes every modern movement based on solidarity, catholicity and community as “anti-Jewish”, while Liberalism is as Jewish as gefilte fish.
What indeed is Liberalism? Some scholars follow Weber and describe Liberalism as secularised Protestantism. Others pay attention to its anti-religious anti-Church tendency and see Liberalism as secularised Satanism. The late Alexander Panarin considered it a form of idolatry based on the “heathen Myth of de-contextualised Goods and their de-socialised Consumers”.
Armed with Schmitt’s thesis and Bauer’s testimony, we may conclude: the “liberal democracy and human rights” doctrine carried by the US marines across the Tigris and the Oxus is a form of secularised Judaism. Considering the predominance of Jews in mass media and especially among the media lords, it is only natural that the ideology they promote is so close to Jewish heart. Its adepts retain classic Jewish attitudes; and the “uniqueness of Israel” is a tenet of this “non-religious” school, whether in the form of the “unique” Holocaust, or a “unique” attachment to Palestine, or a “unique” love of freedom and diversity. Indeed, while mosques burn in the Netherlands and churches are ruined in Israel, no emotions are stirred up in comparison to those set in motion when graffiti is written on a synagogue wall. The US grades its allies by their attitude towards Jews. The Holocaust Temple [“Museum”] stands next to the White House. Support of the Jewish state is a sine qua non for American politicians. Bauer describes the horror of possible Nazi victory in such telling words: “There would be no Jews, because they would all be annihilated. This would end history as such”. In other words, history in Bauer’s eyes is about Jews. No Jews – no history. The rest of mankind are just sheep devoid of memory and futurity.
Secularised Judaism feels no aversion to Judaism, and this is the only religion protected within the dominant Liberal discourse. When some Russians tried to apply the Instigation of Hatred Law to Judaic anti-Christian diatribes, they were condemned not only by Jewish bodies, but by the White House and by the European Community as well. This week, a Lubavitch rabbi demanded that the Christmas trees be removed from Seattle Airport until a menorah was installed. The airport removed the trees, disclaiming its expertise in “cultural anthropology.” New York city schools won’t allow mention of Christmas but celebrate Hanukkah, Ramadan, and the silly Kwanza because they are all multicultural whereas Christmas is not. (Vdare.com is a good source for the war against Christmas strenuously denied by the media.) Every reference to Christ is fought off by the network of Human Rights bodies, ADL, ACLU and other PC enforcers, who never object to Jewish religious symbols.
When Secularised Orthodoxy, that is Russian Communism, conquered lands, they shared their faith and their resources with the conquered. Indeed, Soviet Russia was a net supplier to its “satellites”, and spent a fortune supporting Cuba, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and the Baltic states. After 1991, the ex-Soviet states remained owners of great industrial enterprises and energy complexes they thoroughly lacked before their integration within the Soviet Commonwealth. One of the more successful propaganda slogans of the USSR’s liberal destroyers was “enough of feeding foreigners”.
Secularised Judaism conquers lands in order to rob and destroy them. For forty years of Jewish rule in Palestine, not a single building was constructed by the authorities, but thousands were demolished. Although thoroughly secularised, the Jewish state embodies the paranoid Jewish fear and loathing of the stranger, while the Cabal policies of the Pentagon are another manifestation of this same fear and loathing on a global scale. The Secular Judaic Jihad in Iraq turned the fertile Mesopotamia into a wasteland. Countries that have been fully subdued by the Liberals – Haiti, Malawi – are the poorest of all.
Hold on here! you’ll say. What a load of trash! Judaism is one of the great monotheistic religions; Judaists believe in the same God we Christians and Muslims believe. Judaists are our comrades in the common struggle against godless subversion. Judaism has nothing in common with the anti-spiritual, materialistic, anti-religious cult of globalisation, neo-liberalism, consumerism, alienation, denial of roots, destruction of family and of nature. It’s the other way around: Judaism postulates the priority of spirit, the sanctity of family, the preservation of nature; Judaic communities are well known for their solidarity and mutual support, for tradition and for the togetherness of people united-in-God.
This is strong objection; and apparently it shatters our identification of Liberalism as Secular Judaism. But only apparently; for this objection is based on faulty premise. Judaism (like the Roman God Janus) has two faces; one facing the Jews, and other facing the Goyim, non-Jews. It makes two opposing sets of demands to Jews and to Goyim. This is the difference between Judaism on one hand, and Christianity, Islam, Buddhism on the other hand. These great faiths place no demands on non-adept except for the call to become one. The only thing the Church wants from a non-Christian is to become Christian. Judaism does not want to transform a goy into a Jew. It is almost impossible, almost forbidden, certainly disproved of. But Judaism places definite demands on a non-Jew who has the misfortune to be under its rule. He should not imitate a Jew, and thus the goy is forbidden to have a religion, he may not celebrate his own religious feasts, he may not help his brethren; he should be an economic animal. Secularised Judaism tends to be Judaism for Goyim, for Judaism-for-Jews has its sacral core.
Moreover, all the liberal ideas we described fit Judaism-for-Goyim.
- Denial of Group Rights. In Judaism, Goyim have no group rights. Jews are entitled to participate in the society as a group, but non-Jews should play as individuals, an attitude of “You have individual rights, we have group rights”. Communal property of goyim is considered as abandoned. In the Jewish state, Jews freely take over the lands belonging to Palestinians as a group; it is only about confiscation of private Palestinian lands that discussion is permitted. In Liberal Secularised Judaism, workers’ solidarity should be broken, trade unions must be dismantled, but rich men’s solidarity is permitted. Privatisation is such a denial of group rights: if an asset does not belong to a private rich person, it is up for grabs.
- Minority rights and denial of majority rights. In Judaism, a non-Jewish majority has no rights; certainly not over Jews, and this is fully inherited by Liberalism. In the Russia of 1991-1993, the victory of Liberalism over Communism was achieved through the media de-legitimisation of the Majority: the Russian people were called the “Aggressive and obedient majority” as opposed to the Enlightened Minority of Jewish oligarchs. An enlightened discourse in the West usually contains a hidden reference to John Stuart Mill, Madison, Alexis de Tocqueville and to the fear of the majority’s tyranny.
- Private (as opposed to public) ownership of media, or the exclusive right of rich men to form public opinion. A publicly-owned paper is usually contrasted with “free media”, as if a newspaper belonging to a rich Jew is somehow more free than one that belongs to a state, to a church, or to a trade union.
- Women’s rights and Homosexual rights. Judaism does not recognise the goy’s family. This is fully inherited by liberalism: liberals do not believe in the non-privileged man’s family and want to dismantle it.
- Antiracism for a Jew is a tool in his natural struggle against the indigenous population; in the liberal paradigm, antiracism allows for the importation of a cheaper labour force, to undermine trade unions and to operate world-wide in a race to the bottom for wages.
- Judaism considers welfare a unique feature of Judaic community, while the goyim are not allowed such prerogatives as agape for mutual aide and protection. Liberals are actively undoing welfare, unless it serves to support their companies and corporations or as a government policy to foster support for immigrants and demographic upheaval as an ad hoc measure to undermine national communities and to racialize politics.
- Freedom of anti-Christian propaganda. Liberalism does not fight Judaism, but carries on a relentless struggle against Christianity. In liberal America, judges condemn the Catholic Church for its teachings, ban Christmas trees and usher a new expurgated Bible.
- Democracy. In the liberal paradigm, if you do not agree with the liberal ideas, your voice is not counted; a defence against the Tyranny of Majority is activated. If you agree, it does not matter for whom you vote, as the result will the same. They call Israel “a democracy”, though the majority of its goyim have no right to vote, and those who can vote are kept out of power by invoking the “Jewish majority”. The democratic victories of Hamas in Palestine, and of Lukashenko in Belarus were considered illegal; in Serbia, they repeated the elections until they obtained the sought-after result.
- Thus we come to a conclusion: modern American liberalism is secularised Judaism for Gentiles, and not freedom from religious pressure, as its proponents claim.
Why have the US and Britain succumbed to this strange ideology? A probable answer to this can be found in British history. Recent studies by Dr Mark Thomas, UCLA claim that in 5th-7th century, pre-Christian Saxon tribes conquered Britain and established an “apartheid society” of 10,000 invaders in the midst of 2 million natives. They eventually outbred the natives: “An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage. They also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised. As a result, Britain has a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language,” writes Thomas.
Thus, some of the British population have an inbuilt genetic memory of a successful evolutionary strategy connected with apartheid and with application of “Judaic” principles. The Jews have no copyright on being nasty; and the quaint British meddling with the Lost Tribes myth has more to do with Saxons than with Israelites. As long as Britain was Catholic and Christian, this tendency was kept in check; but along came the Reformation, with its wholesale import of Judaic ideas of the Old Testament, followed by the import of their Talmudic reading from the Netherlands during the Orange Revolution. The Catholic religious muzzle came off, and the enclosures devoured traditional England. In this great bout of privatisation, the landlords partitioned, privatised and fenced off the commons. Like their Judaic predecessors, they disregarded the group rights of native underprivileged classes, of “the goyim” of the New Order. They applied their strategy in Ireland and Wales, and later in North America and Australia, and caused the extinction of millions of natives. Many Britons, Americans and Australians have the memory of the successful strategy; this makes them prone to philo-Judaic policies and to quasi-Judaic measures.
Certainly, colonisation and ruling military caste formation did not occur only in Britain. There is the Aryan Conquest in the Indian tradition, or Frank rule in France. The French solved the problem by the National Razor of Dr Guillotin in the Big Terror of 1793, where the idea of blue-blooded aristocracy was loudly voiced by the middle-class revolutionaries. Even today the Polish nobles claim that they are descendants of non-Slavic Sarmats, as opposed to ordinary Poles who are Slavs. This “Sarmat” claim of the Polish nobility (which entails contempt for an ordinary Pole as an alien) was an important reason why Poland tolerated and nurtured the biggest Jewish community ever to exist on earth.
Wherever it gains the upper hand, the Liberal Secular Judaic doctrine creates enormous gaps between the upper and lower castes. Indeed, in the US, 60 million Americans live on $7 a day, while a happy few have billions they can’t possibly spend. This represents a very successful evolutionary strategy for the ruling minority. It is so successful, that eventually the ruled majority may have to apply drastic measures to moderate its success. But its full extinction is not to be desired: brought down-to-size, cured of its exclusivist claim, offered a small niche, Liberalism can be useful in any solidarist society like a ventilation shaft in a warm room. We just should not allow to freeze us out.
Israel Shamir is a regular columnist for Novakeo.com
A native of Novosibirsk, Siberia, a grandson of a professor of mathematics and a descendant of a Rabbi from Tiberias, Palestine, he studied at the prestigious School of the Academy of Sciences, and read Math and Law at Novosibirsk University. In 1969, he moved to Israel, served as paratrooper in the army and fought in the 1973 war. After his military service he resumed his study of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but abandoned the legal profession in pursuit of a career as a journalist and writer. He got his first taste of journalism with Israel Radio, and later went freelance. His varied assignments included covering Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the last stages of the war in South East Asia. In 1975, Shamir joined the BBC and moved to London. In 1977-79 he wrote for the Israeli daily Maariv and other papers from Japan. While in Tokyo, he wrote Travels with My Son, his first book, and translated a number of Japanese classics.
Email at: email@example.com
Sieg Heil Baby
I’ve always found it somewhat impenetrable when confronted by neocons and their determination to bring the world to a final cataclysmic event between good and evil, that’s not the dense part, the pitifully thick part is when they invoke God into their discussion concerning His attribute’s and word in some sort of feeble way to justify their violent tendencies towards principalities that they regard as evil. They never use scripture to back up their views or policies, all they seem to say is that we are the good guys and God is all for it. Which only serve’s to point out to anyone who is knowledgeable about God’s word is that these people have demonized minds where the Word of God contradicts just about everything they say and do. They use exactly the same jingoisms and tired cliches about fighting evil as militant Islam does and see no human inconsistency in this reality because God is really on their side.
Therefore if God is on their side everything the neocons do is a righteous act and needs not fall into elucidation other than blameless validation to their lies, murders, fabrications, and thievery. They show absolute contempt for God and His Word, which is par for the course with the neocon; they hold their allegiances to the god of forces – Daniel 11:38, where armed conflict is most desired and glorified.
The neoconservatives work to increase the power of the state by subverting constitutional restraints with restrictive illegitimate laws and with aggressive expansionism abroad while spinning an alternate view for the masses that it is all for their benefit and security. After conditioning societies into a state of fear they mobilize the citizenry to support their vision of perpetual war and sacrifice, and label all those that are opposed to their murderous complexes as treasonous or cowardly.
Of course there is never any veracity in their juvenile accusations; it’s nothing more than the meanderings of Nietzsche die hards in the finest tradition of National Socialism. They create the conditions for war and then demand that you send your sons to die for their glory because they regard themselves as indispensable to the cause and will not risk their untimely death. Unfortunately they presently hold the reigns of power in the United States and the result is the demise of the republic and the rule of legitimate law.
Neoconservatives are megalomaniacs, and one manifestation of their megalomania is armed conflict, and like their national socialist predecessors they will manufacture threats against other evil entities so that their aggressive policy of pre-emption can be implemented and dominate. Domination is what the neocon is really working for; they work to dominate the citizenry and every aspect of their lives by constructing massive highly intrusive centralized governments in concurrence with their corporate prostitutes in the mass media where they endeavor to condition the simpletons with statistical propaganda to accept their contradictions and distortions as gospel truth. They work to turn a free society into an oppressive militaristic one, to turn citizens into warriors to fight perceived evils while signing contracts in their comfortable board rooms for the illicit acquisition of the newly liberated booty, you make the sacrifice and they reap the monetary benefits, what a sweet deal baby.
Neocons, also known as Straussians, labor to dominate the wealth of the world through coercion and by violent invasions. It’s the strong dominating the weak, the Darwinian evolutionary concept of the big bully where open warfare is regarded as a natural evolutionary process so that the superior (good) is separated from the chaff (evil), to tear down the decrepit old for a new greater sophisticated society. I’ve always believed that National Socialism or Neo-conservatism in its purist form could be found in the devilish concepts of Darwin.
History is rife with similar parallels where nations fall victim to intellectual nihilism and morph into highly authoritative militaristic entities whose sole purpose is to extend its power by force and augment the wealth of the oligarchy. They destroy so they can restructure the vanquished with their diabolical vision of a new virtuous society that is perceived as less threatening to their ideology and policies. It is hardly ever the case that there was a legitimate threat to the masses involved. Athens, Rome, Germany, is but a few historical instances where one can draw similarities to what is happening presently to the United States under neocon direction.
So, on the road we go to the apocalyptic dreams of the neoconservatives, the ultimate expression and destiny for these men and women of violence, death and plunder. A final messianic epic conflagration that can serve to bring these people to the point of a ecstatic climactic lather in which the mere idea of one final battle between their good and everyone else should be enough for them to go out and light up a cigarette. To be sure, they will be in the background making certain that you do the dying like the good honorable citizen warrior that you should be.
I am obviously referring to the war of the Apocalypse in which the Straussians consistently try to project as a human battle between good and evil which is of course scripturally inaccurate. As we know the truth does not matter to the Straussians even when dealing with the revelations from the God of Truth. The Straussians openly admit that it is necessary to lie and deceive the public to further their agenda, that it is an elitist prerogative to circumvent the rule of law when those laws restrict their movement. They serve the father of lies who was a murderer and a thief from the beginning. John 8:44.
In the final eschatological battle between the nations of the world in the valleys of Jehoshaphat and Megiddo we see that the western forces of the antichrist is at war with the kings of the east. This human episode in Armageddon is indeed a battle between the various demonic elements functioning in the world whose purposes is to destroy humanity. We see that in this stage of Armageddon it is a battle between the forces of evil, the Word of God clearly reveals this to be the case.
Scripture gives the description of a â€œGreat Tribulation” that is coming to the earth. Jesus in His â€œOlivet Discourse” spoke on the Mount of Olives on the Tuesday evening before His execution, said – “then there will be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be, and except those days be shortened, there should no flesh be saved, but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened” – Matt 24:21. In the old testament, in Jer 30:4-7; it is described as the time of Jacob’s trouble”. The tribulation is also known as Daniel’s Seventieth Week. Dan 9: 24-27. The tribulation is the scroll in Revelations opened by Jesus Christ and revealed to John. This scroll consists of seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven vials; it is the judgment of Israel and the world.
The tribulation can be broken down into two time frames, the first three and a half years – it is a time of relative peace on the earth, and the second period of three and a half years in which scripture calls the “Great Tribulation”, it is all out war, and so great is this conflagration that Christ comes to stop it before every living thing on earth is destroyed. The Tribulation begins with a peace covenant between Israel and her enemies which was negotiated by none other than the “son of perdition“, the antichrist. Dan 12:11 Matt 24:15 Mark 13:14. After forty two months the peace covenant with Israel will be broken by an invasion from the north and south and will initiate the great tribulation and the campaigns of Armageddon. Ezekiel 38-39.
The last major battle of Armageddon will be fought at the valley of Megiddo. From Megiddo the battle will spread out over the entire land of Palestine. According to scripture the battle will stretch from the valley of Megiddo in the north of Palestine, through the valley of Jehoshaphat, near Jerusalem, and down to Edom at the extreme southern part of Palestine. The campaigns of Armageddon will be world wide and will eventually lead to the final climactic battle in Megiddo.
In that final battle we see two massive armies opposing each other – the western armies of the antichrist and the armies of the Asiatic powers. Before the battle can commence there appears an event in the heavens, the sign of the Son of Man – Matt 24:30, what this sign is, is not revealed, but its effect is; it causes the armies to turn from their hostility toward each other and unite to wage war against the return of the Prince of Peace.
The apostle John writes – “and I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him that sat on the horse, and against His army” Rev 19:19. “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice He judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on His head are many crowns. He has a name written on Him that no one knows but He Himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and His name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following Him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On His robe and on His thigh He has written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.” Rev 19:11-16.
It is at this position that the armies of the beast and the east are destroyed by the Lord bringing an end to the worst period in human history called the tribulation and Armageddon. Rev 19:21. It is accurate to conclude that only at this point could the war of Armageddon be considered a battle between good and evil.
A Lesson From History
If history is to serve mankind in any positive way, we must collectively endeavor to learn from it, especially from past mistakes in socio-political behavior. There is a dangerous development within this countries political landscape concerning the convergence of interests between many in the Christian Right and the Bush government, specifically with Bush’s cabal of Israel first fanatics described as neocons or mainstream conservatives. This unholy alliance between Christian evangelical dispensationalists, charismatics, and the “liberals in drag” of the Republican Party can be best described as an apostasy for the church and the whoring of its fundamental principles. This vile degenerative union can find in history a familiar parallel of what will be the inevitable maturation and outcome when God’s Kingdom which at present is spiritual and not of this world is converged with human government. We need not look further than Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s to find a similar dimensional parallel.
First, we must look at the societal conditions of Germany and where German Christians were politically and socially. We also need to ask ourselves and look at what were the conditions which was post World War I Germany that allowed for the great deception which was National Socialism. What were the conditions in the German Christian community that gave birth to a yearning for a political and national savior that would reestablish the Christian conservative traditions and national greatness which was the old Reich?
Most of us know that the majority of the leaders of the Nazis including Adolf Hitler were not Christians at all, but that does not really matter here because, then, like today, truth was something in an alternate reality. What was real to Germans at that time was the relative perception of a Christian political savior that promised them everything they wanted to here. The Nazis had an extraordinary religious component to them and that the Christian community was in such a state that they willfully accepted this hideous delusion. They wanted to believe, and no amount of truth would alter their perception.
Ultra liberalism permeated German society on all levels; everything that conservatives and Christians regarded as perverse was glorified in post World War I Germany. Sexual promiscuity, sodomy, and feminism were the order of the day. In the media, any deviancy was magnified and glorified and declared normal behavior. Sound familiar? Prostitution and pornography was rampant and regarded as “daring” where violent rape of young girls and boys was “exiting” and an object of lusting. All of it was sensationalized by the German elites in the media, social and cultural circles. Of course all of the overt decadence was anathema to the conservatives and Christians of Germany; they rightfully saw this as cancerous and detrimental to their country and society. They saw the political left of Germany as cultural murderer’s that needed to be stopped at any cost, even making alliances with the devil was deemed necessary in order to establish an opposition and deterrence to the liberal-socialist-communistic scum that was destroying the moral fabric of the nation. German Christians and conservatives rightfully concluded that it was a deliberate social and political policy by Germany’s liberal intelligentsia to destroy the vestiges of cultural identity and the national pride of the nation. Indeed, that is the essence of liberalism and all its variants today as it was then in Germany.
There is nothing new in organized religion getting politically involved with the political and economic elites of a country. It happens over and over again throughout history, and it always morphs, for any country in question, into a very aggressive and belligerent establishment and government. And whenever organized religion chose to get involved with the elites of the nation, it was always in the accepted premise that it was doing so to save the moral fabric of the society in question. German Christians and conservatives decided that they needed to save the nation and the only party that was singing their tune was the National Socialist German Workers Party. Never mind that the Nazis were really politically leftist, what mattered most was the Nazis were saying what they desperately needed to here, and that was enough to allow themselves to be deceived and manipulated by clever homicidal hypocrites. That is what is happening to a lesser extent today in this country to the religious right who are allowing themselves to be manipulated by so called mainstream conservatives (neoconservatives) who are nothing more than closet liberals singing the right tune in the ears of the deceived religious right.
But how could that be? How can good people many which are very intelligent people be manipulated this way? The answer can be found in apostasy – a falling away from the true faith in order to save something, to compromise essential beliefs which always results in delusion and hypocrisy. To make things worse, they believe what they are doing is scriptural and under God’s sanction. Men never do more evil than when under the influence of religious/political conviction. Does one think that the German Christians and conservatives were any less moral or upright in good standing religiously and morally? Of course not! The condition that was Germany of the 1920s and early 1930′s was horrible to say the least. Glorified decadence, economic turmoil was ripping away at the moral fabric of the society, and the traditional foundations which was keeping the culture together were quickly slipping into the cesspool of anarchy, something had to be done!
Weather one heads towards the abyss in leaps or in small steps the end is inevitably still the same. German Christians and conservatives knowingly and deliberately aligned themselves with what they thought to be their political and cultural savior who promised to return them to the Christian traditions which once was Germany. They wanted to believe to the point of willful blindness.
February 16, 1933, we read: “Today Christians, stand at the head of Germany, I pledge that I never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity, We want to fill our culture again with Christian spirit, We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press – in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years.” – Adolf Hitler.
We all know that Hitler and his gang brought liberal excess to new heights, the Nazis were the quintessence of immorality – sodomites and pedophiles they were, but in the end that did not matter, what he said was more influential and important than what he did. Author and correspondent William Shirer who was in Germany in 1933 wrote of Hitler: “Today, as far as the vast majority of his fellow countrymen are concerned, he has reached a pinnacle never before achieved by a German ruler. He has become even before his death a myth, a legend, almost a God.”
The deception was complete, established by an intense Christian component and an enthusiastic community which wanted to believe despite its obvious fallaciousness. This delusion was further cemented by the miraculous economic turnaround and the reemergence of a prideful nation under the Nazis. For conservatives it was further proof of the righteousness of Hitler and his bunch of twerps. Listen to these two quotes and ask yourselves does it ominously sound familiar? “We pray our Lord that He would continue to bless us in our battle for freedom” – “And we will pray the Lord God for that, the salvation of the nation” Adolf Hitler 1940-1941.
Today we see the continued associations between the so called Christian right and the Republican Party and it is progressively becoming stronger as we speak. Like their Christian German brothers before them they are willingly being deceived by the oligarch and are trying to whore God’s Kingdom with that of the “god of this world.” They are doing it in the name of defending Israel and in the name of saving this country from liberal immorality. These evangelicals, who demand that this country disregard its own vital interests to defend that of Israel’s, at all costs, are deluded in their politics and most significantly in their theology. This nation’s survival does not rest on the policy of unconditional support for the state of Israel but rather its very survival is predicated towards a national repentance for its rebellion towards God and His word.
Neither is the eternal destiny of Christian believers predicated on how we relate to the state of Israel, its exclusively and completely relative to God’s grace and to the work done by His Son on the cross with the shedding of His blood. Technology won’t save us, the policy of “preemptive strike” which is nothing short of naked aggression and the complete thrashing of all “just war” principles will definitely not protect and save this nation. God did not bless this nation and its founding fathers so it could in the future go abroad to find monsters to slay and in the process of this grotesque self-deception become the very monster they seek to destroy. The United States was not established so it can become Israel’s protectorate that is the sole responsibility of God and Israel.
The ultimate heresy of bringing into human government a religious attitude and perspective will not save this country it will guarantee its destruction. It is no different when Christians create politically religious states then it is for Muslims. Both are equally perverse and suicidal. In God’s word it simply states: “My kingdom is not from this world; if my kingdom were from this world; my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” John 18:36