The Labour Party Now Admits that I am not ‘an antisemite’

January 22, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

This is how I interpret the email I just received from the Party ‘s general secretary:  Jennie Formby.

letter from Fromby.jpg

On 24 December 2018 I sent an email to the Labour party’s leaders, Jennie Formby, Ian Lavery and  Jeremy Corbyn and asked them to clarify their position after several media sources, including the BBC and The Guardian newspaper, quoted an anonymous  “spokesman” from the Labour party who described me as “a vile antisemite.”

Not a single British press outlet named the party’s alleged ‘spokesman,’ so I decided to ask the leaders to clarify their Party’s position. I wanted to know whether the ‘spokesman’ was expressing the views of the Party. I wondered whether it was a matter of policy for the Party to target, harass and slander private citizens.  I asked the Party leaders to explain how they could label me a “vile antisemite” or a promoter of ‘hate speech’ when I have never uttered, been charged with or even questioned about any hate (or other) crime ever.

In her answer General Secretary Formby, wrote,

“If you consider that any organisation has published defamatory material about you, then you must take the matter up with them.”

I interpret Ms Formby’s words to mean that the Labour Party has no responsibility for the slander tossed in my direction by an anonymous ‘Party’ spokesman.’ It is worth noticing that unlike the hundreds of Labour members who were suspended from and/or expelled by the Party and then ignored by their compromised Party’s leadership, I was lucky enough to get a reply from the top lady. The moral is simple: If you support Palestine as well as Corbyn yet want to be treated as a human being by Labour leaders, you would be better off ditching the party and becoming an ordinary citizen like me. 


Fighting Poverty with a Hate Map?

January 15, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon


By Eve Mykytyn

The name, ‘The Southern Poverty Law Center’ (SPLC) is misleading. The SPLC does little to alleviate poverty,  its own stated goals are: fighting hate, teaching tolerance and seeking justice. At the moment, the SPLC lists its top activity as attempting to remove confederate statues and symbols. This is consistent with the activity for which the SPLC is best known, its annual hate map in which it locates so-called ‘hate’ groups on a map of the United States. How is it that one of the best funded poverty law centers acts as an arbitrar of hate instead of as an advocate for the poor?

The term ‘Poverty Law’ usually refers to the more mundane practice of representing poor people who are often un or under represented. But the SPLC’s goals are more lofty, here’s how Mark Potok, a Senior Fellow at SPLC described his mission. “It’s not what most in the media think. Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes…Our criteria for a ‘hate group’… have nothing to do with criminality or violence or any kind of guess we’re making about ‘this group could be dangerous.’ It’s strictly ideological. I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them

Each year, the SPLC advertises over 900 hate groups on its hate map. Author Laird Wilcox says the SPLC “Has specialized [in] a highly developed and ritualized form of defamation … a way of harming and isolating people by denying their humanity and trying to convert them into something that deserves to be hated and eliminated. They accuse others of this but utilize their enormous resources to practice it on a mass scale themselves.”

To begin with, the SPLC uses a very loose definition of a hate group as “an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” They bolster this with the false claim that the FBI uses a similar definition of hate crime, “[A] criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.”  But the FBI’s words do not refer to practices or beliefs, they characterize an actual crime which may have been inspired by bias.

Without advocating hate or prejudice I find the SPLC’s categories hilarious. They are: Ku Klux KlanNeo-NaziWhite NationalistRacist SkinheadChristian IdentityNeo-ConfederateBlack SeparatistAnti-LGBTAnti-MuslimGeneral Hate  (Anti-ImmigrantHate MusicHolocaust Denial and Radical Traditional Catholicism) and Other Hate (a grab bag of ‘hateful’ ideologies). Query, if a neo-nazi gets a haircut will he become a racist skinhead or a neo-confederate?

One ‘hate’ group, Radical Traditional Catholicism, are excoriated for blaming Jews for the killing of Christ and “They also embrace extremely conservative social ideals with respect to women.”  Is this a hate group?  Ultra Orthodox Jews have some pretty vile thoughts about non Jews and also adhere to extremely conservative social ideals for women.  Why aren’t the Lubovitches, for instance, on the list?

Holocaust denial is the only hate group defined by simply questioning authority. SPLC claims such groups “only pretend to be interested in historical research.” Instead, even the claim that Jews may have died in ways other than the gas chambers form [hate groups] because they are used simply  “to rehabilitate the German Nazis’ image as part of a bid to make the ideology of national socialism more acceptable.”  A number of historians investigating World War II might find this assertion surprising.

“The SPLC’s list is wildly inflated,” said Mark Pitcavage, director of investigative research at the Anti-Defamation League. The National Socialist Movement, for example, was listed 49 times in the 2015 Hate Map, since the count included each of the NSM’s individual chapters. The SPLC also counts single individuals as a group or chapter. The result is a count totally at odds with Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics. Hate crimes plummeted 24% between 1998 and 2013, according to the FBI. Yet the SPLC claims the number of hate groups in the U.S. shot up by 75% during this same period.

The SPLC has so many categories of ‘hate’ and those categories are political as much as violent. So is there any actual harm from a listing on the hate map?

There was when Floyd Lee Corkins entered the Family Research Council intending to kill as many as possible because “he found us listed as a hate group on the SPLC website,” said executive vice president retired Gen. William Boykin. “We and others like us who are on this ‘hate map’ believe that this is very reckless behavior. … The only thing that we have in common is that we are all conservative organizations. …”

Gurnee IL is an unlikely location for a hate group. A prosperous suburb of 30,000, the town is careful with its reputation with tourists as it is home to Six Flags Great America amusement park, the Gurnee Mills indoor shopping mall and the water park, Great Wolf Lodge.

But the SPLC bestowed upon Gurnee the label that makes small-town officials sweat. Towns usually earn their reputations as harbors for hate groups in more public ways. They may be unlucky enough to be the place the Klan decides to march and someone later dies (Charlottesville) or be  home to the media-trolling Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka, Kansas). But for towns like Gurnee, designation as one of the 917 locales on SPLC’s Hate Map comes without warning or explanation.

When the town asked the self appointed cartographers of hate to remedy the listing they were told, “I know it is disturbing to find hate groups in your community but I don’t think that should be seen as a reflection of what I am sure is a wonderful community.” Sorry, but the map is only updated once a year. “Call back in January.” The town protested that its police had searched and failed to find a hate group in Gurnee. SPLC Intelligence Chief Heidi Beirich would not budge. “ Even though the police couldn’t locate them doesn’t mean they aren’t there.”

Given the low threshold for inclusion on the list, it is not surprising that other towns were included for questionable reasons. In 2004, Olathe, Colorado earned a white hood icon when a self-proclaimed “international imperial wizard” from Indiana told a Denver newspaper that a chapter in Olathe, “a little Klan klavern,” had asked him to come and speak. Neither he nor any of the town officials  could name any of the members. Olathe stayed on SPLC’s list for three years.

Amana, Iowa, was placed on the hate map when someone at the SPLC spotted a chat thread on the Daily Stormer. Someone with the screen name “Concerned Troll” proposed a neo-Nazi “book club” meeting in an Amana café. No one in Amana was able to confirm to the SPLC whether or not the meeting actually took place, but that was enough to earn the corn-carpeted state its only swastika.

But still, Beidich worries more about undercounting than over inclusion. She thinks the undercount groups hide in shadows. She does not explain why listing what are  ‘un’ hate groups, by her own criteria,  will cause hate groups to emerge from the shadows. In fact, it is not clear why we are not all better off if a ‘hate’ group stays hidden.

Israel SITREP: The Christ-hating Israelis are at it again

Remember this:

or, for that matter, this:

Well, our Israeli friends have done it again, check out this article by RT: (just ignore all the explaining away and other cop-outs in the text of the RT article).

‘McJesus’ statue sparks riot at museum in Israel as protesters call for removal of ‘offensive’ art

An art exhibit featuring a crucified Ronald McDonald caused chaos in the Israeli city of Haifa last week, after members of the country’s Arab Christian minority took offence at the depiction and protested outside the museum.Hundreds of Christian protesters called for the statue, titled ‘McJesus,’ to be removed from the museum, with Israeli police saying that some rioters even hurled a firebomb at the building and threw stones, shattering windows and injuring officers. Crowds were eventually dispersed with tear gas and stun grenades, according to the Associated Press.

Embedded video

The Wolf Report@thewolfreports

Christian Palestinians protesting in front of the Haifa Museum to the sculpture “McJesus” by Finnish artist Jani Leinonen, depicting Ronald McDonalds clown on the cross.

However, it seems the protesters missed the point of the exhibit, which was not intended to be an attack on Christianity, but instead meant as an artist’s statement on capitalism, corporate domination and how modern society and culture worship false gods. The exhibit also includes Barbie-doll boxes with Jesus and the Virgin Mary inside.

The sudden focus on the exhibit came as a surprise to Museum Director Nissim Tal, however, since the art in question had been on display for months already without issue. It is believed that photos of the controversial statue recently published on social media prompted the protests.

The work has also been shown in other countries without problems, although Israel’s Christians make up a tiny percentage of the population in a country which is already rife with ethnic and religious tensions.

Wadie Abu Nassar, an adviser to church leaders who have demanded the exhibit’s removal, told the AP it was necessary to understand that freedom of expression “is interpreted in different ways” in different societies. “If this work was directed against non-Christians, the world would be turned upside down,” he said.

The museum has refused to remove the artwork, saying that it must uphold freedom of expression and resist pressure. “If we take the art down, the next day we’ll have politicians demanding we take other things down and we’ll end up only with colorful pictures of flowers in the museum,” Tal said, adding: “We will be defending freedom of speech, freedom of art, and freedom of culture, and will not take it down.”

Israeli Culture Minister Miri Regev, who has earlier been accused of supporting censorship after pushing legislation commanding national “loyalty” in art, also called for the exhibit to be taken down, saying it was “disrespectful.”

The museum has hung a curtain over the entrance to the exhibit and put up a sign saying that it is not intended to offend, but that is the “maximum” it will do, its director added. Protesters, however, have refused to give up, with one reportedly camping outside the museum in a tent with a sign calling on artists to “respect religions.”

In another twist, the Finnish artist who produced the ‘McJesus’ statue, Jani Leinonen, also wants the work taken out of the Haifa museum, but not because he doesn’t want to offend. Leinonen said he supports the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which aims to pressure Israel to change its policies toward Palestinians.

Nadine Nashef@nanninenashef

The McJesus Saga keeps getting better and better. Apparently Finnish artist Jani Leinonen is a activist/supporter and wants his work taken out of the Haifa museum. He wasn’t aware it was being exhibited there. 😂


Bottom line is this: if it is anti-Christian, then even a BDS-supporting goy will get his 15 minutes of fame in the “only democracy in the Middle-East”.

These guys, and the al-Qaeda crazies, are the forces which the West chose to support in the Middle-East.


The Saker

Questioning Jewish Progressive Wisdom

November 02, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

 There is an element of truth in the above…

There is an element of truth in the above…

By Gilad Atzmon

Earlier this week the Jewish Forward reported on Monday’s counter-Trump demonstration in Pittsburgh.

“They came in their thousands, singing Jewish songs and folksy protest anthems … (they were) holding signs denouncing Donald Trump as ‘President Hate.’”

I think it is not a clever move for leftist Jewish groups to declare that Trump is to blame for the terror attack in Pittsburgh. In fact, some might see it as irresponsible, and a response that could easily provoke further harassment and violence.

Most disturbing to me about the Jewish progressives’ response to Trump’s visit was the blunt dishonesty reflected in the signs and announcements of the protestors and organisers.

According to the Forward one sign read,

“you know who else was a nationalist? Hitler.”

Hitler was indeed a nationalist but so was Churchill, Gandhi, Herzl and even the 52% of the Brits who voted for Brexit. Nationalism isn’t the problem: Racism is.  Accordingly, we tend to believe that it was racism that drove Hitler’s discriminatory ideology. But the ‘progressive’  Jewish groups who opposed Trump this week aren’t free of racism. They themselves are operating as racially exclusive political groups. I have said it many times before. I struggle to see a categorical difference between Aryans only and Jews only clubs. To me, both are equally racist.

“Speakers from Bend the Arc, the progressive Jewish group that organised the march, castigated Trump and what they saw as his complicity in the attack, allegedly perpetrated by an anti-Semite who shared Trump’s anti-refugee views.”

It is comforting to learn that  Jewish progressives support some refugees; do they also support the Palestinian refugees?

Israel has prevented the ethnically cleansed Palestinians from returning  to their land for more than 70 years.  The Jewish State’s record on refugees and asylum seekers is appalling. But it seems the progressive Jews at Bend the Arc have little to say about that. I searched Bend the Arc’s web site and didn’t find any denouncements of the Jewish State’s anti refugee policies.  Maybe in the Jewish progressive universe one rule applies to the Jewish State and another rule to the sea of Goyim.

Noticeably,  the Bend the Arc event was not the only protest in town: A previous rally event had been held nearby, organized by the leftist Jewish group IfNotNow in collaboration with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and other groups.

“We know Trump is responsible for violence in our city,” IfNotNow and DSA organizer Arielle Cohen told the Forward. “ Trump has been the enabler-in-chief.” I fail to see the evidence that supports Cohen’s strongly worded accusations. And I wonder whether the decision makers at IfNotNow and JVP grasp the danger they may inflict on their communities by making such provocative accusations.

It is interesting to contrast this reaction to that of the members of the African American congregation that was targeted in 2015 by Dylann Roof, a self-professed racist shooter, who killed 9 people who had invited him into their bible study. After the shooting, Mr. Roof was unrepentant but the reaction of the victims and their families contrasts sharply with the progressive reaction to the Pittsburg massacre.

At Mr. Roof’s bond hearing, the victim’s relatives spoke directly to Roof. “You took something very precious from me”  Nadine Collier, the daughter of Ethel Lance said. “But I forgive you. And have mercy on your soul.”

“I acknowledge that I am very angry,” said the sister of DePayne Middleton-Doctor. “But one thing that DePayne … taught me that we are the family that love built. We have no room for hating, so we have to forgive. I pray God on your soul.”

Each speaker offered Roof forgiveness and said they were praying for his soul, even as they described the pain of their losses. Not one speaker blamed political leaders or anti Black sentiment. They correctly saw Roof as the culprit, even as they compassionately prayed for him. There is much to admire in the congregation’s reaction. It was the opposite of inflammatory, intended to calm the situation.

If the goal is to unite America, to bridge the divide and calm things down, probably equating your president with Hitler and accusing him of the hate crimes of others is the worst possible path to choose.


Making a Massacre into a Lesson

22 July is among the most interesting films in recent years. It is a dramatisation of the 2011 attacks in Norway that were committed by lone terrorist Anders Behring Breivik against the government and a Workers’ Youth League Student summer camp. The title comes from the day Breivik murdered 77 people and injured hundreds more.

Paul Greengrass wrote, directed and produced the film and he presents a unique perspective on objectivism. Instead of the usual banal presentation of a killer as a psychotic character removed from any recognisable human path, we meet Breivik, a cold, calculating person who is fully aware of his actions. Motivated by a political call, he takes the lives of dozens. The film examines the logos behind the deadliest attack in Europe since World War II by giving us an intimate look into the mind of an ideological cold blooded mass murderer and exploring his political mantra.

In this profound effort at cinematic objectivism, Greengrass breaks out of the clichéd liberal universe that is limited to a regime of correctness and obscene name-calling. The film invites us to look closely at Breivik’s universe: to examine his logic, to face his lethal boldness, to be horrified by his inhumanity but also to accept that he could easily be our next door neighbour. In his introductory  meeting with his lawyer Geir Lippestad, the latter asks Breivik to  explain his actions. In the coldest possible manner, Breivik answers,

“I have started a war to take control of Norway and the West.”

Of the innocent kids that were massacred by him Breivik says,

“they were traitors, children of the elite, leaders of tomorrow…”

Later, facing a detective investigation, Breivik says it as he sees it.

“We want Islam out of Europe.”

Breivik never shows remorse. To the question ‘why kids?’ Breivik answers

“I wanted to hit them (the liberals, the elite, etc.) where it hurts the most.”

Breivik doesn’t feel sorry for his victims, he sees himself as a freedom fighter.  For him it is a war of life or death. He insists upon defending his actions in court despite the fact that his lawyer suggested that he might be able to use an ‘insanity defense’  to be institutionalised instead of imprisoned.

We live in a world in which mass shooting are daily news. They are not just an American symptom associated with the availability of ‘automatic weapons;’ political terror is at least as common.  Such killings mark a new development that must be related to a significant global cultural shift. This is not merely an anecdotal battle over the 2nd Amendment, it demands a profound study of the transition in our human conditions that has made mass killings everyday events. I believe the shift has something to do with people growing up in a universe with no prospect of a future. It has something to do with the reduction of the working class into a workless mass. It has a lot to do with the collapse of the family and the war against family values. It has a lot to do with the war against the church. It may also have something to do with the fact that our governments are wiping out countries and people in the name of immoral interventionism and Ziocon interests.  And of course, it has a lot to do with the internet and game culture. If people do not go to work, they must be kept busy, and this is done by the internet, computer games and free drugs.

22 July is a crucial document because Breivik is not alone. In fact, Breiviks have won many battles since  2011. They won the Brexit referendum, they won the election in the USA and Breivik’s mantra (as opposed to his actions) has transformed into a popular political stand that is winning ground in the West and for a reason.

To cure our society and to save the West is to roll back time to identify where we lost our ability to listen, to be compassionate, to care for each other and to understand the crucial role of the church and the family. Unfortunately, so-called liberals and the new left aren’t helpful in this goal. Instead, they separate us into self centred identitarian factions dominated by a strict Jerusalemite regime of correctness and righteousness. What we must do is to reinstate the Athenian ethos of true pluralism, governed by the search for truth, beauty, ethics and the universal.


في الذكرى الـ 48 لرحيله: لماذا تآمر آل سعود على عبد الناصر؟

رفعت سيد أحمد

رفعت سيد أحمد

كاتب ومفكر قومى من مصر. رئيس مركز يافا للدراسات والأبحاث القاهرة. دكتوراه فى فلسفة العلوم السياسية من جامعة القاهرة – 1987. صدر له ثلاثون مؤلفاً وموسوعة عن الإسلام السياسى والصراع العربى الصهيونى

في الذكرى الـ 48 لرحيله: لماذا تآمر آل سعود على عبد الناصر؟

27 أيلول 15:01

رغم تباعُد الزمن على رحيله المُبكر، رحل في 28/9/1970؛ فإن جمال عبد الناصر لايزال يُلهِم الملايين من أبناء العروبة بالثورة والتغيير ورفض التبعيّة للغرب ومقاومة العدو الصهيوني، ولاتزال عشرات الأسئلة تنطلق حول سياساته ومواقفه وبخاصة ضد الأنظمة الرجعية في زمانه والتي مازال بعضها يمارس نفس الأدوار والوظائف اليوم_2018_في تفكيك المنطقة وترسيخ قِيَم التبعية ، ولعلّ النظام المَلَكي السعودي يُعدّ أحد أهم الركائز لتلك الأنظمة والسياسات التي لم تفترق مواقفها سوى في الشكل عن زمن عبدالناصر، وهو ما يجعلنا في ذكرى رحيله الثامنة والأربعين نُعيد طرح السؤال التاريخي مُجدَّداً؛ لماذا كره آل سعود عبدالناصر وتآمروا عليه إلى درجة مشاركة الكيان الصهيوني في المؤامرات والتي وصلت إلى حد التخطيط للاغتيال الجسدي وليس فحسب الاغتيال المعنوي؟

التآمر السعودي على عبد الناصر عمل بالأساس على الاغتيال السياسي والمعنوي لعبد الناصر

التآمر السعودي على عبد الناصر عمل بالأساس على الاغتيال السياسي والمعنوي لعبد الناصر

وهل الكراهية كانت ضدّ عبدالناصر فقط أم أنها كانت ولاتزال ضدّ الشعب الذي أنجبه مهما ادّعى دجّالوا الإعلام والسياسة غير ذلك؟ حول هذا السؤال المهم دعونا نجيب.

يُحدّثنا تاريخ العلاقات المصرية السعودية ووثائقه، أن علاقة آل سعود بجمال عبد الناصر، لا تنفصل بأية حالٍ من الأحوال عن علاقتهم بمصر، وكراهيتهم لجمال عبد الناصر لا يمكن فصلها عن كراهيتهم التاريخية لمصر والتي تمثّل عقدة تاريخية ثابتة ودائمة لديهم منذ إسقاط الجيش المصري بقيادة إبراهيم باشا عام 1818م لدولة آل سعود الأولى في الدرعية ، وأَسْر أميرهم وسجنه في سجن القلعة، واستمرت الكراهية حتى اليوم2018م وإن اتّخذت أشكالاً مختلفة ومتطوّرة مع طبيعة الزمان ، لذلك نجدهم لا يتورّعون عن الرقص طرباً كلما ألمَّ بهذه البلاد شر، وهو عين ما جرى بعد هزيمة 1967 حين نقلت الأنباء أخباراً مؤكَّدة عن قيام الأسرة السعودية الحاكِمة بإقامة الاحتفالات وذبح الخِراف والرقص سعادة بهزيمة مصر في تلك الحرب العدوانية عليها، إذن لا يمكن بأية حال أن نفصل بين الأمرين: كراهية عبد الناصر وكراهية مصر، ذلك كان وسيظل ديدبان حكّام السعودية واستراتيجيتهم الثابتة نحو مصر في كافة العهود. وإن كانت كراهية عهد عبد الناصر هي الأشدّ بينهم جميعاً، وذلك للأسباب التالية:

أولاً: كان عبد الناصر بالنسبة لآل سعود أشرس عدو واجهوه طيلة حُكمهم منذ إنشاء المملكة عام 1932 وحتى وفاة عبد الناصر عام 1970، وذلك لما مثله من دورٍ قومي مؤثّر ضدّ عملاء أميركا التاريخيين في المنطقة، والذين تأتي دولة آل سعود في طليعتهم، ولما مثله من تهديد جدّي لأدوارهم في المنطقة وبخاصةٍ تجاه (اليمن وفلسطين والعراق)، ومن هنا انطلقت المؤامرات السعودية ضد عبد الناصر بدءاً بتوريطه في حرب اليمن بعد ثورتها في 26/9/1962، واستنزاف جيشه فيها ليسهل بعد ذلك هزيمته عام 1967، ومروراً بالمؤامرات الانقلابية ضدّه وضدّ مشاريعه الوحدوية (مثل مشروع الوحدة السورية المصرية (1959- 1962) ودفعهم الأموال لتجنيد العملاء بما في ذلك عملاء ومرتزقة بريطانيين وإسرائيليين لضرب عبد الناصر والتآمُر على مشاريعه القومية، وانتهاءً بما نُشِرَ عن قتلهم عبد الناصر جسدياً من خلال وضع السمّ له في عِلاج المفاصل الذي كان يعاني منه عبر أطباء لهم علاقة بالسعودية آنذاك (1970).

ثانياً: لقد كشفت وثائق المخابرات الأميركية والبريطانية والإسرائيلية التي نشرت حديثاً عن حقائق هامّة تتعلّق بدورٍ خطيرٍ قام به الملك فيصل بالتنسيق مع أميركا قبل حرب 1967 للتآمر على عبد الناصر وهزيمته، وكشفت عن اتصالات سرّية أجراها السعوديون بالإسرائيليين بهدف دعمهم مباشرة أو من خلال واشنطن لضرب عبد الناصر وتحجيم دوره القومي، وفرض الهزيمة المعنوية عليه بعد الهزيمة العسكرية عام 1967 وهو ما جرى فعلياً، إلا أن عبد الناصر حاول أن يقاوِم ويستردّ كرامة بلاده المهدورة ، واستطاع إعادة بناء القوات المسلّحة على أسُسٍ وطنيةٍ وعلميةٍ رفيعةٍ مكّنتها من شنّ حربِ الاستنزاف التي استمرت من 1967 حتى 1970، ثم مكّنتها لاحقاً من شنّ حربِ 1973 والانتصار فيها بعد أن اكتمل الاستعداد لها.

ثالثاً: إن التآمر السعودي على عبد الناصر ـ كما أظهرته الوثائق الغربية ـ وكما فضحته صحافة العدو الصهيوني ذاتهاـ ، عمل بالأساس على الاغتيال السياسي والمعنوي لعبد الناصر ، وامتد إلى محاولات المؤامرات المزعزعة للاستقرار الوطني العام ولشخص عبدالناصر أيضاً ، وفي هذا السياق قامت السعودية منذ 1952 وحتى 1970 بتنفيذ 11 محاولة تخريب ضد عبد الناصر ونظام حكمه، ورغم فشلها جميعاً إلا أنها تركت آثاراً سلبية على تطوّر العلاقات المصرية السعودية لم تندمل بعد.

رابعاً: إن العقدة النفسية والسياسية لدى آل سعود ضد عبد الناصر، والمصريين، والتي نسمّيها نحن ب(عقدة الدرعية ) نسبة لدور المصريين كما أشرنا في إسقاط أول دولة سعودية أسّست عام 1818 م ، ظلّت ملازِمة لهم ـحتى يومنا هذا، وهو ما يتبدّى واضحاً في طريقة تعاملهم المُهين مع العمالة المصرية في بلادهم، والذين يشربون (الذلّ) يومياً باسم نظام الكفيل المُخالِف للإسلام ولحقوق الإنسان في كافة المواثيق الدولية، وبتعمّد الحُكم السعودي خاصة مع مجيء الأمير المُتعجّل والمُتقلّب في قراراته وسياساته ؛ محمّد بن سلمان لصدارته، أن يهينوا مصر ودورها القومي، في كل مناسبة سياسية أو دينية، والشواهِد على ذلك عديدة، مُتناسين عن عَمْدٍ أفضال مصر عليهم، ليس فحسب سياسياً بل وشعبياً واجتماعياً منذ مئات السنين ، ومن منا لا يتذكّر (المحمل المصري) الذي كان يذهب إلى مكّة محمّلاً بالخيرات، وبكسوة الكعبة المشرّفة منذ عصر سلاطين المماليك والدولة العثمانية وعصر أسرة محمّد علي باشا حتى آخر احتفال بخروج المحمل عام 1962م، ومَن ينسى أفضال ملايين المصريين الذين ذهبوا إلى تلك البلاد ليُعمِّروها بعد أن كانت خراباً قبل وبعد طفرة النفط الذي غيّر القلوب والعقول معاً، وبعضهم استشهد وهو يُعمِّر تلك البلاد، والبعض الآخر استشهد تحت ضرب السياط (نظام الجَلْد) لأنه حاول أن يثور لكرامته وكرامة بلده أو يطالب بأدنى حقوقه، ومع ذلك يتناسى الحُكم السعودي هذا جميعه ولا يذكر إلا عقدة الدرعية.

 على أية حال.. إن كراهية آل سعود لعبد الناصر، والتي تمثّلت في عشرات المواقف والسياسات تؤكّد في جوهرها إننا إزاء قانون تاريخي ثابت ودائم في هذه المنطقة، قانون يقوم على مُعادلةٍ استراتيجية تقول (إذا قام أو صعد الدور المصري الاقليمي والدولي لابدّ وأن يتراجع وينكمش الدور السعودي، والعكس صحيح، إذا تراجع الدور المصري، تقدَّم الدور السعودي بكل مثالبه وتبعيّته لواشنطن وتل أبيب). بهذا المعنى نستطيع أن نفهم جوهر كراهيّتهم لعبد الناصر، ولمصر القوية، وترحيبهم بمصر الضعيفة المُتسوِّلة لحسنات محمّد بن سلمان.

حمى الله مصر، رحم الله عبد الناصر وجزاه خير الجزاء بما قدَّمه لأمّته من خيرٍ وجهاد.

Related Videos

Related Articles

The Putin-Trump Helsinki summit: the action is in the reaction

The Putin-Trump Helsinki summit: the action is in the reaction

July 26, 2018

[This article was written for the Unz Review]

Now that a little over a week has passed since the much awaited Putin-Trump summit in Helsinki took place, I have had the time to read many of the reactions and comments it generated.  I am coming to the paradoxical conclusion that this summit was both a non-event and a truly historical watershed moment. Let’s look at the event itself and then at its consequences.

The summit itself: a much-needed non-event

First, one has to welcome the fact that Putin and Trump spoke to each other, not so much because that fact by itself is great, but because it is an immensely dangerous situation when the leaders of the two military (and nuclear) superpowers do not talk to each other. Over the past couple of years, almost all contacts between Russian and US officials have been unilaterally severed, all by the US side, of course. The sole exception to this quasi-total silence was the ongoing contacts between Russian and US military and security/intelligence officials, which is a very good thing. However, this is also not enough because neither military nor security/intelligence officials are supposed to actually make policies and, therefore, when they are the only ones talking two things can happen: either a) these military and security/intelligence officials are severely limited in their authority to make decisions or b) military and security/intelligence officials are forced to take matters into their own hands and begin making policies in spite of their lack of authority to do so. Such a state of affairs in inherently dangerous (not to mention un-democratic). Still, the fact that the two Presidents and their advisers talked to each other is a much-needed development which hopefully will mark the return to a normal multi-level dialog between Russia and the USA.

But besides the fact that talking is by definition good what else did the summit achieve?

Absolutely nothing.  Nothing at all.

Oh sure, there were a number of general statements made about “positive discussions” and the like, and some vague references to various conflicts, but the truth is that nothing real and tangible was agreed upon.  Furthermore, and this is, I believe, absolutely crucial, there never was any chance of this summit achieving anything.  Why?  Because the Russians have concluded a long time ago that the US officials are “non-agreement capable” (недоговороспособны).  They are correct – the US has been non-agreement capable at least since Obama and Trump has only made things even worse: not only has the US now reneged on Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action(illegally – since this plan was endorsed by the UNSC), but Trump has even pathetically backtracked on the most important statement he made during the summit when he retroactively changed his “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be” into “I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia” (so much for 5D chess!).  If Trump can’t even stick to his own words, how could anybody expect the Russians to take anything he says seriously?!  Besides, ever since the many western verbal promises of not moving NATO east “by one inch eastward” the Russians know that western promises, assurances, and other guarantees are worthless, whether promised in a conversation or inked on paper. In truth, the Russians have been very blunt about their disgust with not only the western dishonesty but even about the basic lack of professionalism of their western counterparts, hence the comment by Putin about “it is difficult to have a dialogue with people who confuse Austria and Australia“.  It is quite obvious that the Russians agreed to the summit while knowing full well that nothing would, or even could, come out of it.  This is why they were already dumping US Treasuries even before meeting with Trump (a clear sign of how the Kremlin really feels about Trump and the USA).

So why did they agree to the meeting?

Because they correctly evaluated the consequences of this meeting.

The consequences of the summit: a unanimity of hatred and chaos

This is the proverbial case where the real “action is in the reaction” and, in this case, the reaction of the Neocon run US deep-state and its propaganda machine (the US corporate media) was nothing short of total and abject hysterics. I could list an immense number of quotes, statements and declarations accusing Trump of being a wimp, a traitor, a sellout, a Putin agent and all the rest. But I found the most powerful illustration of that hate-filled hysteria in a collection of cartoons from the western corporate media posted by Colonel Cassad on this page:

I won’t repost them here, but please do take the time to look at them and see for yourself what kind of message they hammer in. The message is brought from different angles and in different ways, but the overall unifying theme is this: Trump is infinitely evil, he sold out the USA to Putin-the-Devil, and everything the American people hold as sacred and most dear to their hearts is now in immense danger. I have always liked cartoons and the way they disrespect and ridicule the powers that be, but what we see today is not humor, or disrespect or even virulent criticism. What we see today is a hate campaign against both Trump and Russia the likes of which I think the world has never seen before: even in the early 20th century, including the pre-WWII years when there was plenty of hate thrown around, there never was such a unanimity of hatred as what we see today.  Furthermore, what is attacked is not just “Trump the man” or “Trump the politician” but very much so “Trump the President”.  Please compare the following two examples:

  1. The US wars after 9/11: many people had major reservations about the wars against Afghanistan, Iraq and the entire GWOT thing.  But most Americans seemed to agree with the “we support our troops” slogan.  The logic was something along the lines of “we don’t like these wars, but we do support our fighting men and women and the military institution as such”.  Thus, while a specific policy was criticized, this criticism was never applied to the institution which implement it: the US armed forces.
  2. Trump after Helsinki: keep in mind that Trump made no agreement of any kind with Putin, none.  And yet that policy of not making any agreements with Putin was hysterically lambasted as a sellout. This begs the question: what kind of policy would meet with the approval of the US deep state? Trump punching Putin in the nose maybe? This is utterly ridiculous, yet unlike in the case of the GWOT wars, there is no differentiation made whatsoever between Trump’s policy towards Putin and Trump as the President of the United States. There is even talk of impeachment, treason and “high crimes & misdemeanors” or of the “KGB” (dissolved 27 years ago but nevermind that) having a hand in the election of the US President.

What Trump is facing today is not a barrage of criticism but a very real lynch mob! And what is really frightening is that almost nobody dares to denounce that hysterical lynch mob for what it is. There are a few exceptions, of course, even in the media (I think of Tucker Carlson), but these voices are completely drowned out by the hate-filled shrieks of the vast majority of US politicians and journalists. Even such supposed supporters of President Trump like Trey Gowdy who has fully thrown his weight behind the “Russia tried to attack us” nonsense.  With friends like these…

What has been taking place after this the summit is an Orwellian “two minutes of hatred” but now stretched well into a two weeks of hatred. And I see no signs that this lynch mob is calming down. In fact, as of this morning, the levels of hysteria are only increasing.

By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again, then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as many times as needed.  This strategy is useless against a powerful and principled enemy, but it works miracles with a weak and spineless foe like Trump. This is particularly true of US politicians and journalists who have long become the accomplices of the deep state (especially after the 9/11 false flag and its cover-up) and who now cannot back down under any circumstances or treat President Trump as a normal, regular, President. The anti-Trump rhetoric has gone way too far and the USA has now reached what I believe is a point of no return.

The brewing constitutional crisis: the Neocons vs the “deplorables”

I believe that the USA is facing what could be the worst crisis in its history: the lawfully elected President is being openly delegitimized and that, in turn, delegitimizes the electoral process which brought him to power and, of course, it also excoriates the “deplorables” who dared vote for him: the majority of the American people.

The process which is taking place before our eyes splits the people of the USA into two main categories: first, the Neocons and those whom the US media has successfully brainwashed and, second, everybody else.  That second group, by the way, is very diverse and it includes not only bona fide Trump supporters (many of whom have also been zombified in their own way), but also paleo-conservatives, libertarians, antiwar activists, (real) progressives and many other groups.  I am also guessing that a lot of folks in the military are watching in horror as their armed forces and their country are being wrecked by the Neocons and their supporters.  Basically, those who felt “I want my country back” and who hoped that Trump would make that happen are now horrified by what is taking place.

I believe that what we are seeing is a massive and deliberate attack by the Neocons and their deep state against the political system and the people of the United States. Congress, especially, is now guilty of engaging on a de-factocoup against the Executive on so many levels that they are hard to count (and many of them are probably hidden from the public eye) including repeated attempts to prevent Trump from exercising his constitutional powers such as, for example, deciding on foreign policy issues. A perfect example of this can be found in Nancy Pelosi’s official statement about a possible invitation from Trump to Putin:

“The notion that President Trump would invite a tyrant to Washington is beyond belief. Putin’s ongoing attacks on our elections and on Western democracies and his illegal actions in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine deserve the fierce, unanimous condemnation of the international community, not a VIP ticket to our nation’s capital. President Trump’s frightened fawning over Putin is an embarrassment and a grave threat to our democracy. An invitation to address a Joint Meeting of Congress should be bipartisan and Speaker Ryan must immediately make clear that there is not – and never will be – an invitation for a thug like Putin to address the United States Congress.”

Another example of the same can be found in the unanimous 98-0 resolution by the US Senate expressing Congress’s opposition to the US government allowing Russia to question US officials.  Trump, of course, immediately caved in, even though he had originally declared “fantastic” the idea of actually abiding by the terms of an existing 1999 agreement on mutual assistance on criminal cases between the United States of America and Russia.  The White House “spokesperson”, Sarah Sanders, did even better and stated: (emphasis added)

“It is a proposal that was made in sincerity by President Putin, but President Trump disagrees with it. Hopefully, President Putin will have the 12 identified Russians come to the United States to prove their innocence or guilt

Talk about imperial megalomania!  The US will not allow the Russians to interrogate anybody, but it wants Putin to extradite Russian citizens.  Amazing…

As for Nancy Pelosi, her latest “tweet” today is anything but subtle.  It reads:

Every single day, I find myself asking: what do the Russians have on @realDonaldTrump personally, financially, & politically? The answer to that question is that only thing that explains his behavior & his refusal to stand up to Putin. #ABetterDeal.

Pretty clear, no?  “Trump is a traitor and we have to stop him”.

By now there is overwhelming evidence that a creeping Neocon coup has been in progress from the very first day of Trump’s presidency and that the Neocons are far from being satisfied with having broken Trump and taken over the de-facto power in the White House: they now apparently also want it de-jure too.  The real question is this: are there any forces inside the USA capable of stopping the Neocons from completely taking all the reins of power and, if yes, how could a patriotic reaction to this Neocon coup manifest itself?  I honestly don’t know, but my feeling is that we might soon have a “President Pence” in the Oval Office.  One way or another, a constitutional crisis is brewing.

What about the Russian interests in all this?

I have said it many times, Russia and the AngloZionist Empire (as opposed to the United States as a country) are at war, a war which is roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% “kinetic”. This is a very real war nonetheless and it is a war for survival simply because the Empire cannot allow any major country on the planet to be truly sovereign. Therefore, not only does the AngloZionist Empire represent an existential threat to Russia, Russia also represents an existential threat to the Empire. In this kind of conflict for survival there is no room for anything but a zero-sum game and whatever is good for Russia is bad for the USA and vice-versa. The Russians, including Putin, never wanted this zero-sum game, it was imposed upon them by the AngloZionists, but now that they have been forced into it, they will play it as hard as they can. It is therefore only logical to conclude that the massive systemic crises in which the Neocons and their crazy policies have plunged the USA are to the advantage of Russia. To be sure, the ideal scenario would be for Russia and the USA (as opposed to the AngloZionst Empire) to work together on the very long list of issues where they share common interests. But since the Neocons have seized power and are sacrificing the USA for the sake of their imperial designs, that is simply not going to happen, and the Russians understand that. Furthermore, since the USA constitutes the largest power component of the AngloZionist Empire, anything weakening the USA also thereby weakens the Empire and anything which weakens the Empire is beneficial for Russia (by the way, the logical corollary of this state of affairs is that the people of the USA and the people of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons – and that makes them de-facto allies).

It is not my purpose here to discuss when and how the Neocons came to power in the USA, so I will just say that the delusional policies followed by the various US administrations since at least 1993 (and, even more so, since 2001) have been disastrous for the United States and could be characterized as one long never-ending case of imperial hubris (to use the title of Michael Scheuer’s excellent 2004 book).  Here are some of the consequences of this:

  1. There is no longer such a thing as “US diplomacy” (long gone are the days of James Baker or even George Shultz!). All that the so-called “US diplomats” are doing is delivering ultimatums, threats, sanctions, human rights “scorecards”, lists of “terror-sponsoring countries”, etc. Even worse, any and all types of negotiations are now construed as signs of weakness or, worse, treason. The US politicians have convinced themselves that one should only negotiate with friends and allies, but the truth is that the USA has no friends or allies – only colonies, protectorates, puppet regimes and other comprador-run vassal states. To them, the USA gives orders, which is very different from negotiations which imply a search for a compromise between roughly equal parties.
  2. The US “intelligence community” has become a tool for petty political interests and competent analysts and foreign policy experts are clearly absent from the top levels of this community (Dmitri Orlov just wrote a good article about this issue here).  The long string of lost wars and foreign policy disasters are a direct result of this lack of even basic expertise.  What passes for “expertise” today is basically hate-filled hyperbole and warmongering hysterics, hence the inflation in the paranoid anti-Russian rhetoric.
  3. The US armed forces are only good at three things: wasting immense sums of money, destroying countries and alienating the rest of the planet. They are still the most expensive and bloated armed forces on the planet, but nobody fears them anymore (not even relatively small states, nevermind Russia or China). In technological terms, the Russians (and to a somewhat lesser degree the Chinese) have found asymmetrical answers to all the key force planning programs of the Pentagon and the former US superiority in the air, on land and on the seas is now a thing of the past. As for the US nuclear triad, it is still capable of accomplishing its mission, but it is useless as an instrument of foreign policy or to fight Russia or China (unless suicide is contemplated).

[Sidebar: this inability of the US military to achieve desired political goals might explain why, at least so far, the US has apparently given up on the notion of a Reconquista of Syria or why the Ukronazis have not dared to attack the Donbass.  Of course, this is too early to call and these zigs might be followed by many zags, especially in the context of the political crisis in the USA, but it appears that in the cases of the DPRK, Iran, Syria and the Ukraine there is much barking, but not much biting coming from the supposed sole “hyperpower” on the planet]

  1. The USA is now engaged in simultaneous conflicts not only with Iran or Russia but also with the EU and China. In fact, even relationships with vassal states such as Canada or France are now worse than ever before. Only the prostituted leaders of “new Europe”, to use Rumsfeld’s term, are still paying lip service to the notion of “American leadership”, and only if they get paid for it.
  2. The US “elites” and the various interest groups they represent have now clearly turned on each other which is a clear sign that the entire system is in a state of deep crisis: when things were going well, everybody could get what they wanted and no visible infighting was taking place.
  3. The Israel Lobby has now fully subordinated Congress, the White House, and the media to its narrow Likudnikagenda and, as a direct result of this, the USA has lost all their positions in the Middle-East and the chorus of those with enough courage to denounce this Zionist Occupation Government is slowly but steadily growing (at least on the Internet). Even US Jews are getting fed up with the now openly Israeli apartheid state (see here or here).
  4. By withdrawing from a long list of important international treaties and bodies (TPP, Kyoto Protocol, START, ABM, JCPOA. UNESCO, UN Human Rights Council, etc.) the United States has completely isolated themselves from the rest of the planet.  The ironic truth is that Russia has not been isolated in the least, but that the USA has isolated itself from the rest of the planet.

In contrast, the Russians are capitalizing on every single US mistake – be it the carrier-centric navy, the unconditional support for Israel or the simultaneous trade wars with China and the EU.  Much has been made of the recent revelation of new and revolutionary Russian weapon systems (see here and here) but there is much more to this than just the deployment of new military systems and technologies: Russia is benefiting from the lack of any real US foreign policies to advance her own interests in the Middle-East, of course, but also elsewhere.  Let’s just take the very latest example of a US self-inflicted PR disaster – the following “tweet” by Trump: (CAPS in the original)


This kind of infantile (does he not sound like a 6 year old?) and, frankly, rather demented attempts at scaring Iranians (of all people!) is guaranteed to have the exact opposite effect from the one presumably sought: the Iranian leaders might snicker in disgust, or have a good belly-laugh, but they are not going to be impressed. The so-called “allies” of the USA will be embarrassed in the extreme to be “led” by such a primitive individual, even if they don’t say so in public. As for the Russians, they will happily explore all the possibilities offered to them by such illiterate and self-defeating behavior.

Conclusion one: a useful summit for Russia

As a direct consequence of the Helsinki summit, the infighting of the US ruling classes has dramatically intensified.  Furthermore, faced with a barrage of hateful attacks Trump did what he always does: he tried to simultaneously appease his critics by caving in to their rhetoric while at the same time trying to appear “tough” – hence his latest “I am a tough guy with a big red button” antics against Iran (he did exactly the same thing towards the DPRK).  We will probably never find out what exactly Trump and Putin discussed during their private meeting, but one thing is sure: the fact that Trump sat one-on-one with Putin without any “supervision” from his deep-state mentors was good enough to create a total panic in the US ruling class resulting in even more wailing about collusion, impeachment, high crimes & misdemeanors and even treason.  Again, the goal is clear: Trump must be removed.

From the Russian point of view, it matters very little whether Trump is removed from office or not – the problem is not one of personalities, but one of the nature of the AngloZionist Empire.  The Russians simply don’t have the means to bring down the Empire, but the infighting of the US elites does and, if not, then at the very least the current crisis will further weaken the USA, hence the Russian willingness to participate in this summit even if by itself this summit brought absolutely no tangible results: the action was in the reaction.

Conclusion two: the Clinton gang’s actions can result in a real catastrophe for the USA

Trump’s main goal in meeting with Putin was probably to find out whether there was a way to split up the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership and to back the Israeli demands for Syria.  On the issue of China, Trump never had a chance since the USA has really nothing to offer to Russia (whereas China and Russia are now locked into a vital symbiotic relationship).  On Syria, the Russians and the Israelis are now negotiating the details of a deal which would give the Syrian government the control of the demarcation line with Israel (it is not a border in the legal sense) and Trump’s backing for Israel will make no difference.  As for Iran, the Russians will not back the US agenda either for many reasons ranging from basic self-interest to respect for international law.  So while Trump did the right thing in meeting with Putin, it was predictable at least under the current set of circumstances, that he would not walk away with tangible results.

For all his very real failings, Trump cannot be blamed for the current situation.  The real culprits are the Clinton gang and the Democratic Party which, by their completely irresponsible behavior, are creating a very dangerous crisis for the United States: the Neocons and the Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if the US political system by itself is also put at risk. Furthermore, the Neocons have now completely flipped around the presumption of innocence – both externally (Russian “attack” on the US elections) and internally (Trump’s “collusion” with Putin). As for Trump, whatever his good intentions might have been, he is weak and cannot fight the entire US deep state by himself. The Neocons and the US deep state are now on a collision course with Russia and the people of the United States and while Russia does have the means to protect herself from the Empire, it is unclear to me who, or what could stop the Neocons from further damaging the USA. Deep and systemic crises often result in new personalities entering the stage, but in the case of the US, it is now undeniable that the system cannot reform itself and that when a personality tries to reform it, the system strikes back with vicious power.

Depending on its context the word “catastrophe” can have any of the following meanings: any large and disastrous event of great significancea disaster beyond expectationsa dramatic event that initiates the resolution of the plot or a type of bifurcation, where a system shifts between two stable states. In the context of the political situation in the United States, all these definitions apply. Whether for better or for worse, the most likely outcome of the current crisis will be some type of political regime change.

The Saker

The Essential Saker II
%d bloggers like this: