The Banality of Good pt.3 – Revising History

January 28, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Photo: Enno Rueter

Photo: Enno Rueter

 Revising History

By Clara S and Gilad Atzmon

Clara:   You are quoted as saying: “I think that Israel is far worse than Nazi Germany”.

Gilad: My comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany was limited to a discussion on collective accountability in democratic vs. authoritarian regimes. I argued that since Israel defines itself as the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ its barbarian policies reflect on the Israeli society as a whole, something that can’t be said about Nazi Germany. Once democracy is abolished, collective accountability is removed!

 Clara:   Obviously literature dealing with the question ‘what is it in German history that has led Germans into two disasters in the 20th century?’ could fill a lot of library shelves.

For years we were taught that World War I was the Germans’ fault alone, now we know that it was more complicated. And the collective accountability of the Germans of that time and consequently the accountability of Germany as a nation for everything that happened in World War II is still presented as fact in a host of films supporting the narrative of the unique German guilt and explaining it with Hitler’s and the Germans’ dangerous ideology and madness alone.

Now you argue that this narrative is not valid because Nazi Germany was not a democracy. 

Gilad:  This is true.

Clara:   I can see your point. While we have to accept the fact that unbelievable atrocities actually did happen and our parents were involved, we also have long discovered that Hitler was supported by a majority of the national elites. Therefore it is important to keep in mind that there were powerful interests behind the national-socialist project, not only those German people who happily cried ‘Heil Hitler’ and were indoctrinated by the Nazi education system.

Besides, Hitler kicked out the very people in his movement who took the word ‘socialist’ seriously, at an early stage of his ‘reign’.
And there’s another thing: the Germans 
couldn’t have sustained the war as long as they did without the help from foreign, especially US-American, bankers and industrialists. We have also found out that the western allies would have loved to see Germany destroy the Sowjetunion before being defeated herself. 

Gilad:  I must admit that the carefulness that I hear in your voice and the manner in which you describe an historical chapter that happened more than 70 years ago, suggests to me that instead of talking about the past, we better discuss the fear of talking about the past.  What are we afraid of? What are you afraid of? Who plants this fear in us and why? What method was used to plant this carefulness? And obviously who benefits from us being afraid to look back?

Clara:   Those are some really good questions to ask. Disturbing questions, too. One thing is that even though Nazi Germany was not a democracy, I wouldn’t want to let every German of the time off the hook. There is such a thing a personal responsibility. And a lot of Nazis did not take it. On the contrary – in Western Germany they were to be found in a lot of powerful positions and others went straight to the USA.

Gilad: I totally agree here. Rather than collective responsibility we are talking about personal accountability. This principle wasn’t really applied after the war, neither by West Germany, the USSR or the Americans.
Clara:   But I guess the big fear is that for a lot of people questioning the narrative means justifying Hitler and the Nazis, which means that, if we go on doing that, we will soon have a ‘4th Reich’. Never trust a German. Racist exceptionalism and ‘Weltherrschaft’ are part of their DNA.

And there are that kind of right-wing Germans, I do not want to be found ‘in bed’ with, who are revising history and demanding free speech with the aim of making Germany great again by expelling foreigners and burning their homes.

Gilad: I do understand what you are saying. I am not impressed at all by many so-called ‘revisionists’ who actually happen to be as dogmatic as their foes and actually prefer to dictate their own narratives. Therefore, I am not for ‘revisionists’, I am for revisionism. For history reinstating itself as a dynamic and elastic realm as opposed to a fixed dogma. Needless to mention that I reject all forms of bigotry and violence.

Clara:   Something which seems to frighten certain people. But I must admit that I felt quite offended when I was called a potential Nazi for demanding to take your ideas seriously and not just dismiss you as a dangerous ‘Holocaust denier’. 

Gilad: I guess that you are referring above to Rubikon’s Jens Wernicke and Elias Davidsonwho worked hard to defame me yet did little but exposing themselves for what they are for real. I sadly must point out that their kind of behaviour is exactly the type of Nazi authoritarianism we were set to oppose. It is pretty amusing to find out that the so called ‘anti Nazis’ perform some of the most problematic Nazi symptoms. But it is hardly surprising. The Anti Fascists are often operating as AFF-Anti Fascist Fascists. The same can be said on anti Zionists, most often they perform the AZZ tactics. They are nothing but Anti Zionist Zionists.  

Clara:   I don’t think that anti-Semitism is part of my DNA. I would like to understand what really made the Nazis great and investigate whether it is true that we are on the way to a new fascist regime and especially new pogroms against Jews, as some people seem to fear when they watch the rise of right-wing populist parties. I have the impression that, if there is a group of people in contemporary Germany, it is not the Jews but the Muslims. And this enemy has been systematically established in the media since 9/11.

Gilad: That is exactly part of my ‘affair’ with the Holocaust and with the past in general. I insist that history is the attempt to narrate the past as we move along. History is a revisionist adventure, and at the core ethical thinking for revising the past offers an opportunity to envisage a better future.  In the open I am against all history laws.  I oppose the Holocaust or any other chapter in the past becoming a religion, a dogma. Living in Europe for more than two decades I am really upset by the emergence of such history laws.

Clara:   You are talking about a Holocaust religion or dogma. What do you mean by that?

Gilad: It is a fixed narrative like that lost all elastic and dynamic qualities. It is there to sustain the primacy of Jewish suffering and European guilt. However, the problem is that this primacy has matured into a pretext for global conflicts with no end. Look at Palestine. Look at the Neocon wars: Syria, Iraq, Libya, Iran. Once again we do not think in ethical terms. We dismiss the universal appeal. My point is clear and simple. If the Holocaust is the new religion, then let me be an atheist.

Clara:   So would you argue that the ‘Holocaust religion’ is the origin of Israeli Pre TSD you talked about at the beginning of our conversation?

Gilad: … not at all. Pre TSD is embedded in the Jewish thinking. Here is an old Jewish joke for you:

A Jewish telegram: ‘Begin worrying, details will follow …’. And it is far from being a Jews only affair. Anglo America post 9/11 politics is similarly sustained by self inflicting terror – We are tormented by phantasmaic  prophecies and work hard to make these prophecies being fulfilled.

Clara:   We are walking on extremely thin ice here. Anyone who dares to touch the official Holocaust narrative is easily accused of being a Holocaust-denier, which is against the law not only in Germany. You obviously do not deny the Holocaust; as you have explained, you reject its function as justification of current policies and politics. Everyone who really reads your books or listens to your interviews can easily find that out. Besides, you have not been found guilty of such a crime by a German court.

Gilad: Not only I wasn’t found guilty, I have never been questioned by a single law enforcement authority worldwide about anything I have ever said or written. My activity is well within the boundaries of the law, in your country and every other country. My books are available world-wide including in Germany and Israel. However, I better mention it once again. I am not fearful of the past, including my own past being questioned or revised.

Clara:   Still, you are accused of ‘Holocaust denial’, a reproach which has been used to discredit journalists, i.e. KenFm, or a whole movement, i.e. ‘Friedenswinter’ (a German peace initiative started in 2014) and everyone who is in contact with those accused.

I think there are very powerful interests behind this. Promoting peaceful relationships with Russia, criticizing the wars Germany is supporting world-wide and from our territory, i.e. by allowing the US to operate their drones from the airbase Ramstein, provokes quite heavy negative reactions from those in power. There is a strong connection between revising the Holocaust history and questioning current German politics. Unfortunately those who try to split the critical movement have been quite successful.

Gilad: If they were successful, they wouldn’t react in panic as they do. They are in the wrong side of history and they know it. An adequate study of WWII within the historical context of English Speaking empire will reveal that those who burned Hamburg, flattened Dresden and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki have continued doing the same thing in Korea and Vietnam. They kept supporting Israel’s expansionist program, they brought total destruction on Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Iran seems to be next. An appropriate historical discussion will detect an institutional negligence of human life at the core of Anglo American politics.  The Holocaust together with German guilt are there to prevent us from witnessing the crimes that are committed in our names in front of our eyes. For the Americans and Brits it is much easier to build Holocaust museums instead of looking back at slavery or the crimes of the empire, especially because these crimes are far from being resolved yet.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk). 

Advertisements

Kick To The Left

January 11, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Labour Against the Whitchhunt has expelled a third of its associates.

Labour Against the Whitchhunt has expelled a third of its associates.

I am pretty satisfied these days. For the last decade my name has been continuously smeared by Jewish ethnic activists.  I have been called a ‘Nazi,’ a ‘Fascist’ and an ‘anti-Semite’ despite the fact that genuine Left groups and prominent humanists have vigorously supported me all along. Genuine Leftists, it seems, understand that if Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and decorates its F-35s with Jewish symbols, we are entitled to ask who are the Jews, what is Judaism, what is Jewishness and how all these terms relate to each other! Evidently these questions terrify some Jewish ethnic activists.

In December I delivered a speech at a Marxist NRhZ gathering at the Babylon Theatre in Berlin  despite the outraged protests of some German AZZs*.  Here in Britain, the comical Labour Against the Witchhunt  (LAW), a body that was formed to ‘tackle’ the current Zionist purge of the Labour Party, expelled a third of its supporters last Saturday for the ‘crime’ of being associated with Gilad Atzmon.  The notorious AZZ caricature Tony Greenstein reported yesterday that LAW voted to exclude Socialist Fight from participating in LAW.  Why?  “Led by Gerry Downing and Ian Donovan, Socialist Fight has a theory that the Jewish Question is still relevant today.”

Tony Greenstein and Jackie Walker, both suspended from the Labour Party for being ‘anti-Semitic’ despite identifying politically as ‘Jews,’ have formed their own Jewish led anti witchhunt group so they could execute their own witchhunt!

It appears that the ultra Zionist David Rich may as well be correct. We seem to have a ‘Jewish problem’ within the Left.  First, ardent Jewish Zionists conducted an intensive purge of the Labour Party that led to the expulsion and suspension of thousands of party members, including some iconic legends such as Ken Livingstone, who was suspended for telling the truth about Zionism’s collaboration with Nazism. On top of that, the bodies that claimed that they would tackle these problematic Labour expulsions are themselves self identified Jews and are even more tyrannical than the party they were set to critique.

Suspension from the Labour Party is a somewhat vague procedure, but the mass expulsion by LAW was inimical to the democratic and judicial processes. LAW’s actions fit rather neatly with Biblical excommunication or, more precisely, with Hebraic Herem culture. Socialist Fight has disclosed that on Friday evening, just a few hours before LAW’s scheduled meeting to decide upon the exclusion of Socialist Fight, tribal merchant Tony Greenstein informed Socialist Fight, on behalf of LAW, that the meeting was cancelled. Evidently, Greenstein’s grasp of democracy is cloned from the one practiced by the ‘only democracy in the Middle East.’ In the Jewish State, millions of Palestinians are not allowed to participate in the democratic process that determines their fate. In our kosher Labour Anti Witchhunt group, Greenstein inveigled to exclude Socialist Fight from participating in the political decision deciding their fate. The devastatingly simple conclusion is that within Kosher LAW, Socialist Fight are the Palestinians.

We wouldn’t anticipate ethical, democratic or principled behaviour from Tony Greenstein considering his embarrassing past. But why has Jackie Walker been a part of this travesty? Does the ex Momentum activist also adhere to these tyrannical, anti democratic, unethical procedures?

Jackie Walker was suspended from the Labour Party for insisting that the Holocaust should convey a universal message. She was brave to point at the prominence of Jews in the slave trade. However, the great Walker should come clean and tell us what is it about Socialist Fight that positions them beyond the pale. I have a feeling that I know the answer. Jackie operates politically ‘as a Jew’ (as well as Black). She is privileged, she can speak about Jews and slavery, she can universalise the Holocaust, but, for one reason or another,  she does not want to allow Goyim such as Ian Donovan and Gerry Downing to examine the Jewish question in dialectical Marxist terms. They should take their authentic socialist fight somewhere else.

Many years ago, when I came to terms with the gross duplicity at the core of the Jewish Anti Zionist agenda, I consulted with a very clever Jewish friend of mine who had studied the leftist narrative of the Jewish Diaspora for years. He told me, “Gilad, in the Jewish world you always kick to the Left!” Avigdor Lieberman kicks Bibi, Bibi strikes Herzog, Herzog slums Peace Now, Peace Now kicks the AZZs: JVP, Greenstein and Walker. Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein, are not inventing anything new, they are simply following the kosher protocol. They kick to the Left, they booted Socialist Fight thereby re-enacting the classic Herem ritual. Ian Donovan, Gerry Downing and their supporters are just ordinary Goyim (The Jews within Socialist Fight identity as socialists rather than ‘as Jews’). Downing and Donovan are not going to follow the kosher protocol. They won’t kick to the Left. Why? Because they are the Left. They may be the only Left that remains in this country.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk). 

*AZZ – Anti Zionist Zionist

Jens Wernicke –Another Jerusalemite to the list

Is Trump a Fascist?

November 30, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

great dictator.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Progressives routinely apply the terms ‘fascism’ and ‘Nazism’ to anything of which they disapprove.

And naturally, The Guardian’s Richard Wolffe marches into the same trap.  “Yet more proof: Donald Trump is a fascist sympathiser”  was the title of his article last night.

“It was true after the racist mob in Charlottesville three months ago. And it’s still true today: Donald J Trump quite literally sympathizes with fascists,” Wolffe writes. But what makes Britain First or American ultra Nationalists into ‘fascists’ is not obvious.

Evidently, Wolffe doesn’t like Jayda Fransen and Britain First. He is not alone. I am also not a fan. But is Britain First  ‘fascist’?  Do they believe in socialism within a state? Or the socialism of a people? Equality of one race? Does Britain First preach equality of any sort? Fascism is a secularist viewpoint that rejects religion, the Guardian may need to explain to us how Fransen and her ‘Christian Patrols’ fit within the term ‘Fascism?’ And what about authoritarianism, do we have good reason to believe that Fransen is a tyrannical character of any sort?

Wolffe’s observation that “Fransen sounds a lot like the president of the United States.” is correct as far as it goes. And the American President was unapologetic about retweeting Fransen’s videos. While the entire British cabinet expressed frustration over the presidential endorsement of a British fringe right wing group, Trump showed the finger to Theresa and her kingdom.

But what specifically is Fransen saying that bothers Wolffe and others? Fransen is a rabid Islamophobe. She openly hates Muslims and devotes her time to inciting hatred against Muslims and Islam. However, Fransen and Britain First do not hate all foreigners and immigrants. Wolffe may not readily admit it, but Fransen and Britain First function as an extension of Israel’s long arm. Britain First openly supports Israel. Britain First, like the British Defence League, often waves Israeli flags and rallies for the Jewish cause to the point that one can hardly tell who is more Juif; Theresa May or Jayda Fransen. The following statement Fransen made in Poland resembles the official Likud party mantra for the Goyim:

“There is a cancer moving through Europe and that is Islam. Our children are being bombed, our children are being groomed and our government does nothing … Evil will not prevail.”

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump was accused by his Jewish opponents of inciting antisemitsm.  Trump wooed his voters by pointing directly at Wall Street bankers, Soros and the Fed. Of course, a few days after his victory, Fox News informed us that Trump wasn’t anti Jewish at all, he was actually the ‘First Jewish President.’

Watch Jayda Fransen performing a “solidarity patrol” with the Jewish community

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJkQcCU6lpU.

Trump and Fransen are not ‘Fascists;’ they are manifestations of Zionist power. And they are not acting alone. Jeremy Corbyn quickly and rightfully denounced Trump for circulating Fransen’s hateful videos. But what exactly is Corbyn doing to prevent the ongoing Zionist purge of his party now that it has been reduced to a laughable Orwellian grotesque? And what about Theresa Je Suis Juif May, is she any better than Fransen? I would like to know how many Syrian refugees May’s government has taken in. Last but not least, why do The Guardian and Wolffe work so hard to conceal the fact that the so-called ‘fascist’ Britain First is acting as an Israeli tool cultivating hatred in our midst?

Trump is not a Fascist. He is a democratically elected right wing enthusiast.  Trump is not a  ‘national socialist,’ he is, in fact, a national ­uber capitalist. Trump was elected on a platform that pledged to combat immigration, build walls and seal American borders. Whether or not we are willing to admit it, Trump’s political agenda is indistinguishable from Jewish nationalism. The Alt Right model which Trump appears to support is inspired by the Zionist project. Not to see or accept this is nothing short of pathological denial.

If Wolffe and the Guardian are concerned about Trump and Fransen, they had better transcend the banality of name calling and try to understand what exactly they are up against. Britain has already proved that it is not entirely impressed with the multi cultural agenda. Brexit was a clear sign of British mass fatigue.

The West is growing nostalgic and calling people ‘fascists’ or ‘Nazis’ is not going to help, in fact it may prove to be counter effective.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk , Amazon.com and  here (gilad.co.uk). 

 

Divide and Conquer: Keep the Goyim Fighting Each Other

Posted on August 28, 2017

The old “divide and conquer” strategy seems to be very much in play now. If the American people are riled up and divided to the point that they are battling each other in the streets, who do you suppose that might benefit?

Another street battle royale took place in Berkeley over the weekend. The “red scare” that swept America back in the 1950s seems mild in comparison to what we’re experiencing today. We have a mainstream media apparatus, owned by a handful of corporations, deliberately whipping up public hysteria over “Nazis” and “white supremacists.” These media corporations are “blessed” with Jewish CEOs and top executives (for the most part), though of course anyone with the temerity to point that out automatically gets accused of being a “Nazi” or a “white supremacist.” And just as in the 1950s, when many Americans were charged with being “communists” who decidedly were not communists, so today many many of our fellow citizens are being tarred as “neo-Nazis” or “white supremacists” who emphatically are neither. Though again, as I say, the anger we’re seeing today far exceeds anything we saw back in the fifties.

It is an anger that also defies the bounds of logic. We are living in a time now when you can be accused of being a “white supremacist” even if you are not white. This is the fate that has befallen some of the people in the video below. What we see and hear in this video are the voices of sanity–the kind of voices that are direly needed right now:

Voices of sanity–to be sure! Though sadly, they seem to be struggling to stay afloat in a sea of insanity. The above video was uploaded on Saturday. The following video came to be uploaded on Sunday, and in it we see Joey Gibson, the guy wearing the “Patriot Prayer” t-shirt in the video above, attacked by stick-wielding Antifa screamers, this during yesterday’s violence on the streets of Berkeley.

This of course needs to stop before the country is torn completely apart. But we are part of a pyramid, with powerful elites at the top who stand to benefit from keeping those at the base of the structure at each other’s throats…and for this reason things getting worse…rather than better…seems the more likely prognosis.

The following is a report from the Washington Examiner on yesterday’s violence in Berkeley. The writer makes some of the same points about people being mislabeled as “white supremacists,” and he also provides an analysis on the performance of the Berkeley police, accusing them of “neglect of duty.”

***

Berkeley Proves Liberals are Enabling Antifa Violence

By Tom Rogan

Once again, the supposedly anti-fascist Antifa movement has reared its violent black-cloaked head.

On Sunday, Antifa supporters attacked a group of conservative protesters in Berkeley, California who, to all appearances, have nothing to do with the white nationalism or supremacism of the group that marched in Charlottesville earlier this month.

YouTube is filled with videos from the event showing peaceful gatherers being accosted by weapon-wielding Antifa thugs. One video posted by Mother Jones reporter, Shane Bauer, shows a mob attacking a man as he curls up on the ground. In another video posted by the journalist Ziva Branstetter, Antifa protesters are seen chasing down two conservative marchers. None of these victims were affiliated with white supremacist groups.

I have two takeaways.

First, Sunday’s events are yet more evidence of an unyielding truth: Antifa are violent fascists, not anti-fascists. American-Antifa followers bear no hesitancy in replicating European “black block” efforts to conceal their identities and carry sticks as weapons. Unfortunately, many on the Left seem to quietly celebrate this unpleasantness: note that Bauer’s video of the mob attack received thousands of Twitter likes.

That’s a big problem, because Antifa’s violence isn’t just localized criminality. It is a coordinated assault on freedom of speech and thus fundamentally incongruent with the U.S. Constitution.

My second takeaway is the decision, as the San Francisco Chronicle’s Lizzie Johnson reports, of Berkeley Police to deliberately allow Antifa to attack the permitted protesters. The police defended this neglect of duty stating, “We made a strategic decision to move our officers, we also want people to freely assemble.”

But let’s be clear, this is a pathetic excuse, and we’ve been seeing a lot of it lately. The first responsibility of the police is public protection, and free assembly does not exist where it is subjugated to the whim of a violent mob. It’s not fair to blame the police alone — Berkeley’s notoriously liberal city government also shares outsize blame here. As in Charlottesville, it seems likely that the Berkeley city government pressured the police not to take action. After all, in the run up to the conservative protest, the city printed 20,000 leaflets implicitly blurring these protesters with those of the alt-right. Those leaflets read“Berkeley stands united against hate.”

That casual ignorance speaks to the broader issue: a growing understanding from many on the Left that any peaceable assembly they disagree with is illegitimate and unworthy of constitutional protection. Such thinking is exemplified by Mr. Bauer, who, in addition to posting the video of the mob attack, posted this tweet.

Continued here

Stop Everything and Watch This: David Icke on Free Speech Destroyers

August 24, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

In the most calm and scholarly manner David Icke delves into the meaning of censorship, the reasoning behind it and who drives this dark force.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRxjUpktyMs

Trump’s Fascism versus Obama’s Fascism

by Eric Zuesse

August 20, 2017

Trump’s Fascism versus Obama’s Fascism

Barack Obama was the only U.S. President who at the United Nations defended nazism — racist fascism — and Holocaust-denial. It received almost no reporting by the press at the time (or subsequently). But his successor President Donald Trump could end up being removed from office because he said that racist fascists are just the same as are people who demonstrate publicly against them. Trump’s politically stupid (not to say callous) remark became viral, and apparently the press (which had ignored Obama’s defense of nazism at the U.N.) just won’t let go of Trump’s statement unless and until he becomes replaced by his even-more-far-right Vice President, Mike Pence.

Why is there this intense press-coverage of Trump’s support of racist fascism, when there wasn’t of Obama’s (which was actually far more meaningful)? The answer comes closer if we ponder first a different question: How could the Republican Party, which is right-wing at its core, condemn a Democratic Party President who goes out of his way at the U.N. to protect today’s nazis? That wouldn’t be politically practical for Republican politicians to complain about (a Democrat’s being too far to the right); so, they didn’t do it. Similarly, no Democrat will criticize a Republican for being too leftist. There may be a few exceptions, but that’s the general rule: Successful politicians don’t offend their base.

But that still doesn’t fully answer why the press ignored it when Obama defended nazism at the U.N. The rest of the answer comes when we recognize that America’s press gets its cues from the two political Parties. If the ‘opposition’ (and not just the President’s own Party) is hiding something egregious that a President is doing or has done (such as happened there with Obama, and with many other conservative policies that Obama executed), then the press will hide it, too. Republicans weren’t calling attention to Obama’s defense of nazism, because they’d then be offending some of their own supporters. (Democrats weren’t calling attention to it, because a Democrat was doing this, which didn’t fit the ‘progressive’ storyline.) And, if the ‘opposition’ isn’t pointing it out, then neither will the press. The matter will then just be ignored — which is what happened. This was thus bipartisan non-reporting, of what Obama did. There was a lot of that while Obama was President.

In other words: America’s press are tools of, and are led by, the same people who actually, deep down, control both of America’s political Parties — the billionaires. They control both politics, and also the press. Numerous social-science studies have shown that the wealthier a person is, the likelier that person is to be politically conservative — at least to the extent that political conservatism doesn’t threaten his or her particular business and financial interests. As America’s billionaires have come to control America’s politics, this country has been moving farther and farther to the right, except on the relatively few issues (such as immigration, gay rights, etc.) where their own economic interests are served better by a progressive position (or, at least, by a position that seems to most people to be progressive).

Trump’s problem here is that he’s too obviously playing to his Party’s base. Obama didn’t need to do that, because he had massive support from billionaires, and he was a much better liar than Trump, good enough to keep many progressive voters with him even after he had already shafted them in his actual policies. For example, when Obama dropped ‘the public option’ as soon as he became elected, he was excused for it because most Americans thought he was simply being practical and avoiding an ‘unnecessary’ conflict with the opposite Party in Congress. This view ignored that he gave up on it even as being a bargaining-chip to get concessions from congressional Republicans to drive new legislation to be more progressive. Obama had no interest in progressivism. Actually, Obama didn’t want to offend his mega-donors. He thus handed the task of drafting the Obamacare law to the conservative Democrat, and public-option opponent, Max Baucus, instead of to the progressive Democrat and public-option supporter, Ted Kennedy, who desperately wanted (and expected) to have the opportunity to draft it.

Both Trump and Obama (in their actions, if not also in their words) are proponents of what Benito Mussolini called “Corporationism” — big-corporate control of the government, which Mussolini more-commonly referred to as “fascism.” President Trump has been widely condemned both here in the U.S. and around the world (which his predecessor President Barack Obama never was), for his recent blatant statement equating the worst of fascists, which are racist fascists, as being comparable to the people who in Charlottesville Virginia had marched and demonstrated against racist fascists and who were violently attacked and one of them killed by racist fascists, against whom they had been protesting. Trump was equating anti-fascists with fascists, and he even equated racist fascists — ideological nazis — with the people who were protesting specifically against nazism. Apparently, the press won’t let go of it. They treat this event as if top-level U.S. nazism were unprecedented in today’s post-WW-II America — as if this nation were still anti-nazi (as it had been in FDR’s White House), and as if this incident with Trump says something only about Trump, and not also, and far more meaningfully, about today’s American government, including Trump’s own immediate predecessor-in-office, and also about America’s current press-institution, and about what it has become.

As this reporter had headlined on 24 November 2014, “U.S. Among Only 3 Countries at U.N. Officially Backing Nazism & Holocaust-Denial; Israel Parts Company from Them; Germany Abstains”. Obama and his friend and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power were unapologetic about having done that at the U.N., and Obama’s U.N. representative continued in that vein. As I headlined a few months later, on 21 June 2015, “America’s U.N. Ambassador Continues Standing Up for Nazis”. Both of those two news-articles were submitted to all of the U.S. and also to much of the European mainstream — and additionally to some of the ‘alt-news’ — international-news media, but each of the two articles was published only in around a half-dozen of only alternative-news sites. The ‘news’media (especially the mainstream ones) weren’t nearly as concerned about Obama’s blatantly racist-fascist, and specifically anti-Russian, actions, as they are concerned today, about the current U.S. President’s bending-over-backwards to retain his support from America’s racist-fascist or nazi voters, whom he apparently considers an essential part of his base. (Why else would he even say such a thing?)

Whereas Obama was imposing an actual nazi international campaign (via a violent anti-democratic coup, followed by an ethnic-cleansing campaign to cement it) in which his U.N. Ambassador played her necessary role, Trump was politically supporting an important portion of his voting-base, but not doing anything in actual policy-fact — at the U.N. or anywhere else — such as Obama had done. But the press focuses on Trump as if he were initiating the acceptability of nazism in the U.S. body-politic. Trump wasn’t.

Obama had done something truly remarkable: he was the first U.S. President, since the pre-Civil-War U.S. had ended and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln courageously led this nation clearly and explicitly away from its deeply racist past, to support publicly, and to carry out in policy a clearly racist policy-initiative, a blatant ethnic-cleansing military campaign. It aimed to remove from Ukraine’s voter-rolls the residents of the areas of Ukraine where from 75% to 90% of the voters had voted for the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom Obama in February 2014 had just overthrown by hiring racist-facist gunmen to drive out of power that man whom those people had so heavily voted for, in what now turned out to have been Ukraine’s final democratic nationwide election. Unless Obama eliminated those voters — ethnic Russians — the far-right politicians whom he had placed into power after the U.S. coup wouldn’t last through the first Ukrainian national election after the coup. Ethnic-cleansing was the only way to make Obama’s coup-regime stick; so, that’s what he wanted his Ukrainian stooges to do, and they tried their utmost to do it (and they’re still trying).

With all of the decades that have passed after World War II, not only Americans but also publics elsewhere, including publics in nations that America considers to be ‘allies’, such as Israel, seem to have lost any consciousness they might have had in the wake of Hitler’s defeat, about what racist fascism — what the ideology (and not just the German political party, where it had an initial capital letter) nazism — actually was, and what it meant. It wasn’t just anti-Semitic fascism that had been defeated in that war, but anti-Korean fascism, and anti-Chinese fascism, and anti-Russian fascism, and more forms of racist capitalistic dictatorship, the nazi ideology, which were defeated in WW II. During John F. Kennedy’s Presidency, the U.S. federal government very reluctantly started to deal with this country’s deepseated residual institutional racism against America’s Blacks; but, still, the ethnocentrism in America — even among Blacks and Jews — remained so pronounced, so that President Obama on 28 May 2014 could, without shame or any political embarrassment, tell the graduating class of future U.S. military leaders at West Point:

The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.

But the world is changing with accelerating speed. This presents opportunity, but also new dangers. We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm. Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.

It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

Now, this question isn’t new. At least since George Washington served as Commander-in-Chief, there have been those who warned against, foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing. Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.

A different view from interventionists from the left and right says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril; that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos.

He said that all nations other than the U.S. are “dispensable.” He said that the BRICS countries and “rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums,” and that “It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.” He said that “conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are … ours to solve.” He derided “self-described realists” who didn’t share his international idealism, of his own nation’s seeking out, instead of warning “against, foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing.” He said that “America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos,” and that George Washington was wrong.

He was saying that Hitler and Hirohito were right; that they had merely led the ‘wrong’ countries.

This man, who had just led the bloody coup and instigated the ethnic-cleansing campaign that forced two regions of the former Ukraine to secede from Ukraine and to seek instead Russia’s protection (and he then instituted sanctions against Russia for providing that protection to them), was there and then lecturing America’s future military leaders, to instruct them that they would have the right to invade “dispensable” countries, and to “apply force around the world,” in order to deal with the BRICS countries and “rising middle classes [that] compete with us, and governments [that] seek a greater say in global forums.” (He wanted none of that freedom for them.) He said that ignoring George Washington is “the ultimate safeguard against chaos,” and is somehow in accord with America’s values, even if not of George Washington’s values.

The ultimate insult was that this was coming from a man who considered himslef to be a Black — as if he were in the tradition of Martin Luther King, who had urged America to quit its invasion of Vietnam. Instead, Obama invaded and wrecked Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen.

Well, that wasn’t actually quite the ultimate insult: the ultimate insult was that Blacks continued to believe in him, and never turned against that nazi. They evidently keep what some of them call (as if it were a racial trait) ‘White man’s values’.

Values are not a racial trait, but stupidity and small-mindedness are the human norm everywhere, and no nation is ‘indispensable’ — far less, is any ‘the one indispensable nation’: not ancient Rome, not Germany, not Japan, not the U.S. — none, at all.

Trump’s foreign policies seem to be mainly aiming to out-do his predecessor’s. But, in no way is Trump yet the nazi that Obama proved himself to be. Trump could turn out to be that bad, if the people who are urging him to intensify America’s war against Russia and/or against Iran have their way. The “neoconservatives” (the foreign-policy ideology that’s sponsored by America’s billionaires of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties) seem still to be basically in control. Trump nonetheless could turn out to be the idealist that Obama, Hitler, and Hirohito, were, but there’s at least the possibility that he will instead turn out to be one of “the self-described realists” whom Obama had derided. Trump hasn’t yet exposed his true self, to the extent that Obama did during his eight years. But the ‘news’media are already calling Trump a “White racist.” It seems that the people who cheered-on Obama’s nazism (except when they said that Obama was being  ‘too cautious’ about it) don’t like Trump, at all.

But, are America’s billionaires really that eager to replace Trump by Pence? One might wonder how far this campaign will go.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

%d bloggers like this: