The American Strategy for the End of the World

Darko Lazar

30-12-2017 | 08:51

If Donald Trump’s recently unveiled National Security Strategy (NSS) is a barometer for what to expect in the New Year, states in the Middle East should not be hedging their bets on peace and stability.

Donald Trump

The 68-page document, which lays out in clear detail how the Trump administration plans to treat the world, also dispels any notion of America turning inwards.

On the contrary, President Trump – in sharp contrast to his days as a contender for the White House – is hailing interventionist policies, promising an uncompromising dissemination of American ‘values’, threatening traditional geopolitical rivals (Russia and China), while indirectly declaring war on conventional ‘rogue’ states (Iran and North Korea).

The NSS document vows that the US “will seek areas of cooperation with competitors from a position of strength, foremost by ensuring our military power is second to none and fully integrated with our allies and all of our instruments of power.”

This text is as much about defining Trump’s foreign policy agenda during his tenure at the White House, as it is a skeleton of the US national strategy for the 21st century.

It very openly stipulates that the western empire, which refuses to accept the collapse of the unipolar order, is in the process of planning perhaps its final global thump, designed to bring the world back under its ‘messianic’ flag.

And explaining Washington’s refusal to come to terms with the fact that the international community has new contenders for the post of ‘number one’ is a reasonably straightforward task.

In simple terms, US social, economic and political stability is wholly contingent upon American military adventurism across the globe. It is also the most basic axiom on which modern western societies are built.

This geopolitical doctrine made the US a dominant power throughout much of the 20th century, and is one that many in Washington still believe works.

Donald Trump, as an individual, becomes a figure of little significance. One can argue, with a great deal of conviction, that the US president is a largely marginal character in the big picture.

“The scourge of the world”

It remains to be seen how the newly published NSS document will translate into action on the ground, but whatever happens, it is clear that Washington’s strategy has nothing to do with making the world a more peaceful or stable place.

The language used, which Russia’s President Vladimir Putin labeled as “offensive” and “aggressive”, essentially paints a bullseye on the backs of American adversaries, promising to create the necessary geopolitical conditions to pull the trigger.

The already highly combustible Middle East region is once again in the eye of the storm, and Iran is singled out as the greatest obstacle to American strategic objectives there.

The NSS clearly designates the Islamic Republic as a ‘threat’ to the US, describing the country that acted as the driving force in the battle against Daesh as a sponsor of terrorism and the “scourge of the world”.

According to the Director of the ANSWER Coalition, Brian Becker, “this represents a sharp shift, especially given the fact that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) – the so-called Iran nuclear arms deal – could have been a precursor to a new thaw in relations between the United States and Iran in the Middle East. But this is a sharp reversal of any sort of possibility for that.”

That reversal could very well trigger a wider confrontation, involving both regional and global powers, and driven exclusively by the US desire to dominate the highly strategic Middle East – an objective that can be considered far from realistic without an obedient leadership in Tehran.

A program for ‘confronting’ Iran appears to have hatched in the lead-up to the publication of the NSS document, when representatives of the major “Israeli” and American intelligence and defense hierarchies held a “secret” meeting at the White House on December 12.

A report aired on “Israel’s” Channel 10 claimed that Tel Aviv and Washington have formulated a joint strategy, setting up four separate teams to undermine Iran.

The four areas of interest include Iran’s alliance with Hezbollah and Damascus, as well as its ballistic missile and nuclear energy programs.

Bringing a sword to the world

Perhaps not surprisingly, Washington’s strategic document triggered a process of regrouping and realignment among the world’s key players.

The conclusion is simple: Pax Americana cannot be realized unless a new brand of geopolitical confrontation takes place in the not-too-distant future. No one knows this better than the Iranians, the Russians and all the other ‘offenders’.

In short, the US strategy seeks to ‘bring a sword to the world’ -establishing some sort of new Cold War model that would once and for all ensure “the end of history” in a fully Americanized world.

Of course, the danger is that any attempt at imposing “the end of history” through waging ceaseless wars and conducting nuclear maneuvers could very well be, at the same time, taunting the end of civilization as we know it.


Source: Al-Ahed

Related News


Truth In Your Face

December 22, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon


German Speaking website Muslim-Market interviewed me this week about the current debate around my recent appearance at the NRhZ ceremony.  We spoke about History, the Holocaust, Israel, Jewishness… all those things Germans prefer to shove under the carpet.

MM: Mr. Atzmon, there has been a lot of nonsense written about you in the western media because of your critical positions on Israel. We would like to use this interview to understand your opinion and to correct the false reports. It is said, for example, that you are relativizing Hitler’s crimes against the Jews. Is that true?

Atzmon: I will be as clear as I can. To start with, I am subject to slander and defamation because I extended my critique of Israel beyond the boundaries of mere political criticism or denunciation of ‘Zionism.’

I realised that since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State we better find out what the ‘J word’ stands for: Who are the Jews? What is Judaism and what is Jewishness? While Israeli Jews have a relatively good understanding of these 3 concepts and how they relate to one another and to Zionism, to Israeli politics and to Israeli existence, the Jewish Diaspora and Jewish Left in particular prefer to keep these notions blurred and confusing. This is the primary reason for the campaign against me. I moved the discourse beyond the banal Zionism vs. ‘anti’ rant. Those who follow my work understand that digging into Jewishness, the ideology at the core of choseness, of which Zionism is just one symptom, provides many answers. Further, if I am correct, it may suggest that the solidarity movement was led astray for decades and didn’t achieve a thing for good reason. I should also mention that in my work I have never criticised Jews as people, or as a race, biology or ethnicity. I also refrain from dealing with Judaism (the religion). I restrict myself to criticism of ideology, politics and culture.

MM: … and what about the Holocaust?

Atzmon: My position in regard to the Holocaust is very clear. I argue that history is the attempt to narrate the past as we move along. As such, it must remain an open dynamic discourse that is open to change and revision. I contend that history is essentially, a revisionist adventure. I am therefore against all history laws (Nakba, Armenian Genocide, Holocaust etc.) Like many other scholars, I see that the Holocaust has been reduced to a religion. It is dogma. It lost its universal reflective qualities, it is not about an ethical message anymore. And if the Holocaust is the new religion, all I ask is to be an atheist.

To address your question. The notion of ‘Holocaust relativization’ is in itself a meaningless or absurd notion. History is a relative adventure. We grasp the past by, for example, equating Hitler with Stalin. We examine the difference between the ethnic cleansing committed by the 3rd Reich and that in Palestine by Israel.

Hence the demand to stop thinking about the past in relative terms is in itself a religious dogmatic demand for blind adherence. I won’t surrender to such a ludicrous rule and no one else should.

MM: You once said that you are proud to be a self-hating Jew. Why don’t you just convert to another religion as you have already changed your citizenship?

Atzmon: To start with, I do not discuss my personal religious affairs in public. But I can assure you that I have not been a Jew for many years. I am not the type of a person who could easily join any organised religion. But I enjoy following Jesus’ ecumenical lesson in my own way. I learned to love my neighbours, and to seek truth and peace. This is my personal Jihad.

MM: There are quite a number of Jews, including those in Israel, who resist the policy of occupation. For example, we had the honor of interviewing peace activist Prof. Nurit Peled-Elhanan. Your criticism of Israeli society is portrayed as completely undifferentiated in the media. Is your view really that sweeping?

Atzmon: I don’t agree with that portrayal. I have a lot of respect for some Israeli dissident voices such as Shlomo Sand, Gideon Levy, Uri Avnery, Nurit Peled, Yoav Shamir, Israel Shamir, Israel Shahak and others. I refer to their work occasionally. I was the first one, outside of Israel, to review Sholomo Sand’s ‘The Invention of the Jewish People.’ As I mentioned above, I do not criticise people or religion. I deal with ideology, politics and culture.

MM: As an Israeli army soldier you were in Lebanon and saw Palestinian refugee camps. What influence did this experience have on your development?

Atzmon: It was Lebanon 1982 that made it clear to me that I shared little with my people and would have to drift away sooner or later. It was in Lebanon, upon seeing the refugee camps that I grasped the extent of the ethnic cleansing that took place in Palestine in 48. While In Lebanon, I realised that me dwelling in a Jewish State on someone else’s land was crossing an ethical red line. You have to understand that back in 82 no one in Israel spoke about the Nakba. Then and there, I saw first hand how duplicitous the Israeli project was.

MM: A few days ago, Israeli soldiers shot and killed a severely handicapped man whose legs had been amputated. What is the effect of such cruel acts by their own army on the population of Israel?

Atzmon: As far as I can tell, the effect is minimal, and this is exactly where my research begins. How is it possible that people who have suffered so much throughout their history can inflict so much pain on others? How is it that the oppressed becomes the oppressor? How is it possible that just 3 years after the liberation of Auschwitz the newly born Jewish State ethnically cleansed Palestine?

MM: After all that has happened, can you imagine a day that Jews, Christians and Muslims will live together in peace in Jerusalem?

Atzmon: This is history for you. The European Jewish past is an endless chain of disasters. In the Muslim world, on the other hand, Jews enjoyed their life and prospered. It is more than possible that culturally and ideologically equating Arab Jews with Ashkenazi Jews could provide all the answers we need, but this is exactly the type of research we are prevented from conducting.

MM: Let’s discuss the event in Berlin a few days ago, which some had tried to prevent. What was your impression of the event and were you able to convey your message?

Atzmon: I thought the event was incredible. It was well attended. You could breathe the spirit of resistance. The crowd was mixed. Many youngsters. I was shocked by the support I received.

MM: What is the motivation for your nerve-wracking and multi-sacrifice commitment to justice and peace in Palestine? We ask this question to encourage others who sooner or later give up in the face of the apparent superiority of the Zionist state.

Atzmon: It is way beyond Palestine by now. It is Syria, Libya, Iraq, and it extends to Greece and Portugal, and then Britain the USA and beyond. By now we are all Palestinians. We are all oppressed by that which we are not even allowed to articulate.

I am living on this planet and like others, I want to be emancipated. I guess that the ferociousness of the animosity against me suggests that some people out there are really afraid of my message. Considering that I am not a political figure nor am I an activist, I take it to mean that they must be afraid of my thoughts. This is worrying but it is also a compliment.

MM: What are your next projects, can we expect another book?

Atzmon: I never know what’s next. But I can tell you, it could be many things, except boring.

MM: Mr. Atzmon, we thank you for the interview.

German original:



Gilad Atzmon ist 1963 in Jerusalem in eine jüdische Familie geboren. Sein Großvater war Mitglied in der zionistischen Terrororganisation Irgun. Er soll großen Einfluss auf die gesamte Familie gehabt haben. Nach seiner Schulausbildung begann Atzmon seinen Wehrdienst in der israelischen Armee. Als im Juni 1982 die israelische Armee im Libanon einmarschiert ist, empfand er großen Unmut. Als Mitglied im Musikkorps der israelischen Luftwaffe (IAFO) musste er im Sommer 1984 an einer Konzertreise bei den israelischen Truppen im Libanon teilnehmen. Er sah das israelische Gefängnis Ansar im Südlibanon und traf Tausende gefangener Palästinenser, die unter unmenschlichen Bedingungen eingesperrt waren. Diese Erfahrungen prägten seine späteren Aktivitäten im Einsatz für Frieden.

Gilad Atzmon verließ Israel und lebt seit 1993 in Großbritannien. Da sein Musikstudium ihm nicht genügte, obwohl er zu den weltbesten Jazzmusikern aufgestiegen war (er spielt Saxophon, Klarinette und andere Holzblasinstrumente), studierte er Philosophie an der Universität von Essex. Im Jahr 2002 wurde er britischer Staatsbürger. Im gleichen Jahr erschien sein erster Roman: A guide to the perplexed. Er griff den Titel einer berühmten, auf Arabisch abgefassten Schrift des jüdischen Philosophen Moses Maimonides auf: Anleitung für Zweifelnde. Sein Roman wurde in 18 Sprachen übersetzt. Der Roman versetzt den Leser in das Jahr 2052 und blickt zurück auf den Untergang des Staates Israel. Sein zweiter Roman My one and only love gilt ebenfalls als  scharfe Abrechnung mit der Kultur und Politik Israels.

Im Jahr 2011 wurde sein Buch The wandering who? A study of Jewish identity politics veröffentlicht. Gemäß Atzmon ist ein jüdischer Staat „grundsätzlich unfähig, die Region in eine Aussöhnung zu führen“, solange nicht aus der jüdischen Identität „alle Spuren ideologischen Überlegenheitsdenkens getilgt werden“. Seine klare antizionistische Haltung hat zu extremer Feindschaft aus Kreisen der Israel-Lobby geführt, die ihn nicht nur inhaltlich, sondern auch persönlich angreifen. Das Buch wurde in zwölf Sprachen übersetzt und erschien in Deutschland beim Zambon-Verlag.

Gilad Atzmon ist verheiratet, hat zwei Kinder und lebt mit seiner Familie in London.

Das Interview wurde in englischer Sprache geführt. Um mögliche Schwächen der Übersetzung zu vermeiden, wird das englische Original im unteren Teil hinzugefügt.

MM: Sehr geehrter Herr Atzmon, in den westlichen Medien wird sehr viel Unsinn über Sie verbreitet, weil Sie Israel gegenüber sehr kritisch sind. Wir wollen gerne dieses Interview dazu nutzen, Ihre authentische Meinung zu verstehen und die Falschmeldungen zu korrigieren. So heißt es z.B., dass Sie die Verbrechen Hitlers an den Juden relativieren würden. Ist das wahr?

Atzmon: Ich will mich so klar ausdrücken wie möglich aus. Zunächst bin ich Verleumdungen und Diffamierungen ausgesetzt, weil ich die Kritik an Israel über die Grenzen der bloßen politischen Kritik oder der Denunzierung des “Zionismus” hinaus ausgeweitet habe.

Ich habe erkannt, dass, wenn sich Israel als jüdischer Staat definiert, wir besser herausfinden sollten, wofür das “J-Wort” steht: Wer sind die Juden? Was ist Judentum und was bedeutet Jüdischsein? Während die israelischen Juden diese drei Begriffe relativ gut verstehen, wie sie zueinander in Beziehung stehen, zum Zionismus, zur israelischen Politik und zur israelischen Existenz, bevorzugen die jüdische Diaspora und die jüdische Linke im Besonderen diese Begriffe verschwommen und verwirrend zu bewahren. Dies ist der Hauptgrund für die Kampagne gegen mich. Ich habe den Diskurs über den banalen Zionismus gegen “Anti”-Tiraden hinausgehoben. Diejenigen, die meiner Arbeit folgen, verstehen, dass das Eintauchen in das Jüdischsein, die Ideologie mit dem Kern des Auserwähltheit, bei der der Zionismus nur ein Symptom ist, viele Antworten liefert. Fall ich also recht habe, könnte das auch darauf hindeuten, dass die Solidaritätsbewegung jahrzehntelang in die Irre geführt wurde und aus gutem Grund nichts erreicht hätte. Ich sollte auch erwähnen, dass ich in meiner Arbeit niemals Juden als Menschen, Rasse, Biologie oder ethnische Zugehörigkeit kritisiert habe. Ich unterlasse es auch, mich mit dem Judentum (als Religion) zu befassen. Ich beschränke mich auf Kritik an Ideologie, Politik und Kultur.

MM: … und wie ist es mit der Holocaust?

Atzmon: Meine Haltung zum Holocaust ist sehr klar. Ich behaupte, dass Geschichte der Versuch ist, die Vergangenheit zu erzählen, während wir uns voran bewegen. Als solches muss es ein offener dynamischer Diskurs bleiben, der offen für Veränderungen und Überarbeitungen ist. Ich behaupte, dass Geschichte im Wesentlichen ein revisionistisches Erlebnis ist. Ich bin deshalb gegen alle Geschichtsgesetze (Nakba, Armenien Genozid, Holocaust etc.). Wie viele andere Gelehrte behaupte ich, dass der Holocaust nun zu einer Religion reduziert worden ist. Es ist ein Dogma. Es hat seine universellen Reflexionseigenschaften verloren, es ist keine ethische Botschaft mehr. Und wenn der Holocaust die neue Religion ist, erbitte ich Atheist sein zu dürfen.

Um Ihre (ursprüngliche) Frage zu beantworten. Der Begriff der “Holocaust-Relativierung” ist an sich eine sinnlose oder absurde Vorstellung. Geschichte ist ein relatives Erlebnis. Wir begreifen die Vergangenheit, um beispielsweise Hitler mit Stalin zu vergleichen, um den Unterschied zwischen ethnischer Säuberung durch das 3. Reich und in Palästina durch Israel zu untersuchen.

Daher ist die Forderung, nicht mehr über die Vergangenheit im Hinblick auf vergleichbare Bedingungen nachzudenken, eine religiöse dogmatische Forderung nach blindem Gehorsam. Ich werde mich einer solch lächerlichen Regel nicht beugen und niemand sollte das tun.

MM: Sie sollen einmal gesagt haben, dass Sie stolz seien, ein selbsthassender Jude zu sein. Warum konvertieren Sie nicht einfach in eine andere Religion? Die Staatsbürgerschaft haben sie ja bereits gewechselt.

Atzmon: Grundsätzlich diskutiere ich meine persönlichen religiösen Angelegenheiten nicht öffentlich. Aber ich kann Ihnen versichern, dass ich seit vielen Jahren kein Jude mehr bin. Ich bin nicht der Typ einer Person, die sich leicht einer organisierten Religion anschließen könnte. Aber ich erfreue mich daran, die ökumenische Lektion Jesu auf meine Weise zu befolgen. Ich lernte meine Nachbarn zu lieben, und Wahrheit und Frieden anzustreben. Das ist mein persönlicher Dschihad.

MM: Es gibt eine ganze Reihe von Juden, auch in Israel, die sich gegen die Besatzungspolitik wehren. Wir hatten z.B. die Ehre die Friedensaktivistin Prof. Nurit Peled-Elhanan zu interviewen. Ihre Kritik an der israelischen Gesellschaft wird in den Medien immer sehr undifferenziert dargestellt. Ist Ihre Kritik wirklich so pauschal?

Atzmon: Ich stimme der Darstellung nicht zu. Ich habe großen Respekt vor einigen israelischen Dissidenten wie Shlomo Sand, Gideon Levy, Uri Avnery, Nurit Peled, Yoav Shamir, Israel Shamir, Israel Shahak und anderen. Ich beziehe mich gelegentlich auf ihre Arbeiten. Ich war der erste aus Israel, der Shlomo Sands “Die Erfindung des jüdischen Volkes” rezensiert hat. Wie ich bereits erwähnt habe, kritisiere ich weder Menschen noch eine Religion. Ich beschäftige mich mit Ideologie, Politik und Kultur.

MM: Als Soldat der israelischen Armee waren Sie auch im Libanon und haben palästinensische Flüchtlingslager gesehen. Welchen Einfluss hatte diese Erfahrung auf Ihre Entwicklung?

Atzmon: Es war der Libanon 1982, der mir klar machte, dass ich wenig mit meinen Mitmenschen teile und früher oder später wegdriften müsste. Es war im Libanon, als ich die Flüchtlingslager sah, als ich das Ausmaß der ethnischen Säuberungen in Palästina im Jahr 48 begriffen hatte. Im Libanon wurde mir klar, dass in einem jüdischen Staat im Land von anderen zu wohnen ein ethische rote Linie überschritt. Sie müssen verstehen, dass rückblickend in 82 niemand in Israel über die Nakba sprach. Ich erkannte dann und dort aus erster Hand, wie doppelzüngig das israelische Projekt war.

MM: Erst vor wenigen Tagen haben israelische Soldaten einen schwer behinderten Mann, dessen Beine amputiert sind, erschossen. Welche Rückwirkung haben solche grausamen Taten der eigenen Armee auf die Bevölkerung in Israel?

Atzmon: Soweit ich das beurteilen kann, ist der Effekt minimal und genau hier beginnt mein Erforschen. Wie ist es möglich, dass Menschen, die in ihrer Geschichte so viel gelitten haben, anderen so viel Leid zufügen können? Wie kommt es, dass die Unterdrückten zum Unterdrückern werden? Wie ist es möglich, dass nur drei Jahre nach der Befreiung von Auschwitz der neu geborene jüdische Staat Palästina ethnisch gesäubert hat?

MM: Können Sie sich nach allem, was geschehen ist, vorstellen, dass Juden Christen und Muslime eines Tages gemeinsam in Frieden in Jerusalem leben?

Atzmon: Das ist Geschichte für Sie. Die europäisch-jüdische Vergangenheit ist eine endlose Kette von Katastrophen. Auf der anderen Seite genossen Juden in der muslimischen Welt ihr Leben und entwickelten sich. Es ist mehr als nur möglich, dass sich kulturell und ideologisch angleichende arabische Juden mit aschkenasischen Juden alle Antworten bereitstellen, die wir benötigen. Doch genau dies ist die Art von Forschung, an der wir gehindert werden.

MM: Kommen wir zu der Veranstaltung in Berlin vor wenigen Tagen, die einige versucht haben zu verhindern. Wie war Ihr Eindruck von der Veranstaltung und konnten Sie Ihre Botschaft herüberbringen?

Atzmon: Ich fand die Veranstaltung unglaublich. Es war gut besucht. Man konnte den Geist des Widerstands atmen. Die Menge war gemischt, viele Jugendliche. Ich muss zugeben, ich war überwältigt durch die Unterstützung, die ich aus dem Saal erhielt.

MM: Was ist Ihr Antrieb für diesen nervenaufreibenden und mit vielen Opfern verbundenen Einsatz für Gerechtigkeit und Frieden in Palästina? Wir fragen diese Frage um anderen Mut zu machen, die früher oder später vor der scheinbaren Übermacht der zionistischen Gegenwehr aufgeben.

Atzmon: Es geht weitaus um mehr als Palästina. Es geht um Syrien, Libyen, den Irak, und es erstreckt sich auf Griechenland und Portugal, und dann Großbritannien, die USA und darüber hinaus. Inzwischen sind wir alle Palästinenser. Wir sind alle unterdrückt durch das, was wir nicht einmal artikulieren dürfen.

Ich lebe auf diesem Planeten und wie andere möchte ich befreit sein. Ich vermute, dass die Wildheit der Feindseligkeit gegen mich auch darauf hindeutet, dass einige Leute da draußen wirklich Angst vor meiner Botschaft haben. In Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass ich keine politische Figur bin und nicht einmal ein Aktivist, nehme ich an, dass einige Angst vor meinen Gedanken haben müssen. Das ist beunruhigend, aber es ist auch eine Anerkennung.

MM: Was sind Ihre nächsten Projekte, können wir mit einem weiteren Buch rechnen?

Atzmon: Ich weiß nie, was als nächstes kommt. Aber ich kann Ihnen sagen, es könnten viele Dinge sein außer Langeweile.

MM: Herr Atzmon, wir danken für das Interview.

Englisches Original

Exploring the Truth on German Soil (Holocaust, History & Palestine)


December 18, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Following is the talk I delivered in Babylon, Berlin on 14.12.2017. Together with Ken Jebsen, Evelyn Echt Galinski and the organisers (Marxist outlet NRhZ) I have been subject to an insane defamation campaign. Despite being banned by the venue’s owner Mr. T. Grossman, I delivered my message and as you could hear, the room was ecstatic. Mr Grossman, on the other hand,  was shamelessly booed off stage. Truth is clearly way more poplular than censorship.

English and German Texts are available here.

German voice over:

German voice over:

نارام سرجون: الاثم الكنعاني .. والاثم الفرعوني .. وآثام الأمم

Image result for ‫عبد الناصر الذي كان أول مصري يكسر الاثم الفرعوني‬‎

نارام سرجون: الاثم الكنعاني .. والاثم الفرعوني .. وآثام الأمم

نارام سرجون

يبدو الباحث حائرا أمام هذين المصطلحين اللذين لايلتقيان كالخطين المتوازيين .. فما هي العلاقة بين الاسمين وبين الاثمين ..؟؟ فالاثم الكنعاني هو المصطلح الذي نحته الزعيم السوري الخالد أنطون سعادة وحدده بأنه الوجدان السوري القابع في الأعماق والذي يجعل السوري اينما رحل مربوطا بخيط كالمشيمة الى وطنه سورية تحت وطأة الشعور باثم الرحيل ..

وهو ماصار يعرف بأنه أول وطنية في العالم بحيث يرتبط الانسان ويتحد بأرضه .. ويصبح جسد كل سوري حقيبة ملأى بتراب سوري .. فتعلقه بأرضه يستقر في كل خلاياه وفي وعيه ولاوعيه ويمر الى جيناته وينزرع فيها .. انه يشبه سلطة الاثم على الوعي وهيمنة الخطيئة على الضمير الحي ويتجلى في أطوار لاحقة بشعور(التابو) أو الخط الأحمر المقدس .. كما هو الشعور بالاثم البشري في الميثولوجيات الدينية من خطيئة الخروج من الجنة من أجل تفاحة .. فيمضي الانسان عمره باحثا عن الغفران بالصلاة والايمان عله يعود الى الجنة لأن الاثم تحول الى عقيدة .. ولكن يبدو أن الشعور بالاثم هو عصب البقاء للأمم والشعوب .. والأعراق .. وطبعا الأديان .. التي تأخذ الانسان في رحلة بلانهاية في الشعور بالآثام وتشكل العقائد وهي ربما ماعبر عنه ابن خلدون في مرحلة لاحقة بأنه يتطور الى الشعور بالعصبية الذي يجتاح الامم التي تنطلق في رحلة بناء الدولة .. فلكل أمة اثمها الذي لايفارقها والذي تعيش عليه وتتمسك به وماان تتخلى عنه حتى تتفكك وتتلاشى وتذوب لصالح أمة أكثر شعورا بالعصبية ويحركها في أعماقها اثم آخر أكثر قوة ..

وكما اكتشف الزعيم السوري انطون سعادة الاثم الكنعاني فان البحث في خصائص كل أمة قد يكشف لنا اثم كل أمّة الذي يسيطر على تاريخها اللاواعي وثقافتها .. فالاثم التوراتي هو ذل الشتات بعد الخراب .. وخطيئة الخراب قبل الشتات .. وهي العقدة التي تحكم اليهود اينما ذهبوا وهي التي ترضع للطفل اليهودي منذ ولادته ..

فهم يخشون من ملامسة اثم خراب الهيكل الذي يسكن فيهم كالخوف الأزلي .. والشعور بالاثم التوراتي هو الذي تعتمد عليه المدرسة الصهيونية في شد أعصاب (الأمة) اليهودية لبقاء اسرائيل الخائفة من أن يلحق بها اثم الفناء والخراب الذي لازمها آلاف السنين .. ولذلك فان الخوف من تكرار الاثم يجعل اليهودي الصهيوني خائفا ولايمكن أن يعيش في سلام مالم يدمر خوفه بادخال الخراب الى الأمم التي يخشاها .. ولذلك سيبقى اليهود مهووسا بالأمن والخوف الى أن يقتل هاجسه أو يقتله ..

أما الاثم الصيني مثلا فربما هو الشعور اللاواعي للصيني بأن سور الصين هو نهاية الأرض ومابعده “بحر الظلمات الصيني” الذي لايحب الابحار فيه والمغامرة ونشر الأشرعة .. ولايجب على الصيني أن يتجاوز هذا الخط الأحمر ويخرج الى العالم ..

واذا فعلها اسثناء أيام جنكيز خان فان الاثم أعاده الى داخل الأسوار .. ولذلك فان التاريخ لم يشهد خروجا للصينيين خارج السور الا قليلا .. وعلى عكس ذلك ربما يحس الالماني باثم بقائه بعيدا عن حلم الرايخ الذي بقي مزروعا فيه فأحرق أروربة مرتين ليتخلص من هذا الاثم العميق .. فيما يتلخص اثم الأيبيريين أنهم تركوا المسلمين “والبدو الاقل تحضرا” يهزمونهم ويستقرون في اسبانيا ثمانية قرون .. فكفروا عن الاثم بمحاكم التفتيش والمحارق ليتطهروا ..

وطبعا فان الاستفادة من علم الآثام الأممية ربما تسبب في الانتباه لامكانية صناعة الاثام للأمم .. فصار هناك نوع من الآثام التي تزرع في الشعوب والأمم كما فعلت الصهيونية بالشعوب الغربية بزرع الاثم بقتل اليهودي في أوروبة .. كاثم صناعي عبر صناعة قصة المحرقة .. الذي صار اثم الهولوكوست في الضمير الغربي .. ومن ينكره فقد كفر واتهم بالهرطقة (الوجدانية) ودخل السجن .. ولولا بعض الحياء لأحرق المهرطقون بالهولوكوست احياء كما أحرق غاليليو ..

الاثم الفرعوني .. هل هو موجود؟؟

منذ أيام نشرت مقالا عن وثائق سرية امريكية ومصرية من حرب تشرين .. ورغم أنه لم تكن بينها وثائق سورية فانني تلقيت رسائل غاضبة من بعض القراء الأعزاء المصريين وتبرع بعضهم بالكتابة على المقال بعصبية وغضب .. ويلوم السوريين والعرب وفلسطين فيما وصلت اليه مصر .. ولكن في رسائل الجميع وردودهم كنت أضع يدي من غير قصد على شيء يشبه الاثم .. فهل تراني وضعت يدي على الأثم الفرعوني .. بنوعيه الأصيل والصناعي .. فما هو هذا الاثم الفرعوني ..؟؟ ..

ان خلافنا في عبد الناصر لن ينتهي ولكن خلافنا في السادات لم يبدأ بعد .. فالسادات برأيي هو الذي أطلق الاثم الفرعوني .. فقد أطلق السادات معاهدة سلام وسيّجها بتعويذة الاثم الفرعوني وتركها في عهدة حراس الآثام .. ويشبه الاثم الفرعوني ذلك الاثم الصيني الذي قرر ألا يخرج خارج سور الصين .. فمنذ 2500 سنة لم يخرج الفراعنة باستثناء أحمس الأول خارج مصر الا تحت راية “غير فرعونية” .. فالحملات التي خرجت من والى مصر اما أغريقية أو رومانية أو فارسية أو اسلامية ومملوكية وعثمانية الخ .. ومافعله السادات هو أنه قدم الخروج المصري عبر مشروع ناصر القومي خارج حدود النيل على أنه الاثم الفرعوني الذي انتهك العقيدة الفرعونية في أن المصريين لايجب أن يخرجوا في مغامراتهم خارج مصر .. أي بعكس مافعله عبد الناصر الذي كان أول مصري يكسر الاثم الفرعوني منذ أحمس الأول بالصعود الى رتبة القيادة وبالخروج بالمصريين خارج مصر ليتجاوز لعنة الفراعنة فيمن لايلتصق بنهر النيل .. وتعبيرا الخروج والالتصاق هنا مجازيان نسبيا ..

ولو قارنا مافعله ناصر ومافعله السادات لوجدنا شيئا غريبا .. فناصر خرج من مصر كما خرج محمد علي باشا (غير المصري) ووصل باسم مصر الى اليمن والهند (عدم الانحياز) وافريقيا وروسيا وأوربة الشرقية ولكنه خسر سيناء في رحلة الخروج ..

فيما عاد السادات من تلك الرحلة حول العالم وجمع مصر من كل هذه البقاع وعاد بها الى مصر واستعاد سيناء (أو بعضها) وأقفل خلفه الأبواب (؟) وقال للمصريين اننا عدنا ولن نخرج خارج مصر بعد اليوم !! .. وكأن السادات تنبه الى الاثم الفرعوني القديم وأيقظه وهو القلق العميق لابن النيل من أن يغامر بعيدا عن النيل ..

ولكن اكتشاف قوة هذا الاثم في ترويج مشروع السادات المناقض لمشروع ناصر جعل الساداتيين ينجحون في أن يصنعوا للشعور الوطني المصري اثمه الصناعي المسمى جمال عبد الناصر كما هو اثم الهولوكوست في ضمير الاوروبيين .. فعبد الناصر تحول الى مقياس للأثم المصري المزدوج دفع ثمنه المصريون غاليا وترجمه الساداتيون الى شعار شهير بالنأي بالنفس (واحنا مالنا؟؟) الذي يشبه التابو الذي لايكسر ..

فعبد الناصر هو الذي حاول الخروج من مصر الى فلسطين وسورية .. والى اليمن ليطل على باب المندب ليقفل البحر الأحمر بين قناة السويس التي أممها وبين باب المندب ويحوله الى بحيرة مصرية ويطل منها على القرن الافريقي ليمسك منابع النيل .. ولكن هزيمته العسكرية بسبب السعودية عند باب المندب واسرائيل عند السويس حولت المغامرة العسكرية المصرية (الناصرية) الى اثم لايجرؤ كثيرون في مصر على الثناء عليه كمحاولة جديرة بالتقدير خاصة أنه اثم مركب .. فهو اثم لكسره لتابو عدم الخروج من نطاق نهر النيل .. واثم بالشعور بالهزيمة المذلة المسجلة باسم مشروع ناصر .. والساداتيون حولوا علاقة ناصر بفلسطين وسورية الى اثم فرعوني آخر تحمل بسببه المصريون أخطارا كبيرة فخسرت مصر العبور العظيم في أكتوبر بسبب سورية بذريعة تطوير الهجوم الذي زعم السادات أن المصريين غامروا به لانقاذ السوريين الذين طالبوا به (دون وجود وثيقة واحدة او برقية أو محضر اجتماع يثبت ذلك).. وكذلك حرمت قضية فلسطين مصر من فرص عالمية للانخراط في المنتديات الاقتصادية والدولية .. والساداتيون طبعا حولوا العلاقة مع العروبة والقومية الى اثم مابعده اثم نفر بعدها المصري من العروبة ومن الفكرة القومية الشاملة الي تحولت الى اثم مرتبط بالاثم الناصري .. فعاد الى ماوراء سيناء واقفل ابوابه عليه ..

ولكن أهذا هو فعلا الاثم الفرعوني أم أنه سر توراتي خفي؟؟

اذا كان الاثم الكنعاني هو في خلق أول ارتباط بالوطن والأرض يحاسب ضمير كل سوري يخون وطنه أو ينساه .. فان الاثم الفرعوني مرتبط ارتباطا وثيقا بوطن الاثم الكنعاني .. وهو مرسوم بالجغرافيا والتاريخ .. فمصر منذ أيام الفراعنة خلقت نظرية الأمن البعيد عندما اكتشف الفراعنة ان أمن البلاد لايقع على حدودها بل يقع على حدود بلد آخر هو سورية .. والتنكر لهذه الحقيقة صار بمرتبة الاثم .. فأمن مصر يبدأ من حدود بلاد الشام وليس من سيناء وأن الحفاظ على مصر لايمكن ان ينجح الا بضمان ان الخطوط الدفاعية عن مصر في بلاد الشام لاتسقط وذلك واضح للاوعي المصري لأن الموجات التي غزت مصر كلها وصلت الى مصر بعد أن استولت أو استقرت في بلاد الشام .. اي سورية الطبيعية .. منذ أيام الهكسوس وحتى الاسكندر المكدوني والرومان والفرس والمسلمين العرب وزمن هولاكو والتتار والموجات الصليبية وحتى الغزو العثماني الذي كان لابد لها كلها أن تبدأ باسقاط بلاد الشام ثم مصر ..

لو تعثرت اي حملة في بلاد الشام فان مصر تبقى آمنة .. وكان نابوليون يدرك أن حملته على مصر لاتكتمل الا بالاستيلاء على حدودها الشمالية عند طوروس .. ولكنه عندما سقط في عكا أدرك أن العملية فشلت وأن البقاء في مصر من دون سورية أمر محال .. فغادر وجاء الانكليز عام 1882 ولكنهم ظلوا يعملون على مشروع حماية مستعمرتهم في مصر عبر محاولات احكام السيطرة على سورية لأن القبضة على مصر لاتقوى الا بالقبض على سورية .. ونجحت أخيرا جهود الانكليز فاسقطوا سورية بعد ثلاثة عقود عام 1916 بتدبيرهم للثورة العربية الكبرى التي حملتهم الى دمشق والى كل سورية لتأسيس سايكس بيكو التي كان الغرض منها تفتيت سورية الكبرى بحيث لايتم التواصل بين مصر وسورية بوضع جسم غريب ثقيل هو الجسم اليهودي ليفصل بين الشام ومصر .. وعندما تحررت سورية وخرج الانكليز والفرنسيون من المنطقة الشامية بين عامي 1945 – 1948 سقط حكم الانكليز في مصر بسرعة عام 1952 عبر صعود جمال عبد الناصر والضباط الأحرار ..

ولذلك فان اللاوعي المصري بالتاريخ يدرك الاثم الذي يرتكبه عندما يفك الارتباط مع بلاد الشام تحت اية ذريعة .. فتراه ينفعل عن غير قصد اذا ذكره أحدهم بهذا الاثم الفرعوني الذي يرتكبه .. ويدرك أن الاثم الذي زرعه الساداتيون في العقل المصري (بأن المصري لايجب أن يخرج من وادي النيل خاصة نحو بلاد الشام) هو الوهم بعينه وهو اثم الآثام .. وأن الاثم الناصري الذي تجلى بالخروج من مصر خارج حدود مصر لم يكن اثما بل كان جزءا من اليقين الفرعوني القديم في اللاوعي المصري بأنه كي تحيا مصر فانها يجب أن تحيا في سورية .. وأن غير ذلك هو الاثم والخطيئة .. فلكي تحمي مصر فانه يجب أن تحميها من حدود سورية .. وكي تحمي النيل فلتحمه من ينابيعه في سورية .. فانه ينبع

مجازا من سورية وليس من اثيوبية .. فمن يملك مفاتيح سورية فانه يملك مفاتيح الجزيرة العربية وهذه الاخيرة معلقة فيها مفاتيح باب المندب واليمن .. حيث تطل على منابع النيل .. واذا فهمت هذه المعادلة ستدرك لماذا فصلت سورية عن مصر عام 48 باستيلاد اسرائيل بينهما .. ولماذا فصلت مصر عن سورية عام 58 .. ولماذا فصلت عنها عام 1979 بكامب ديفيد .. وتدرك لماذا يصر الاعلام الساداتي والعربي على أن يصور للمصري أن الاثم الفرعوني هو ماارتكبه ناصر في خروجه نحو بلاد الشام واليمن .. رغم أن الاثم الفرعوني في تفريطه بأمنه القديم سيبقى يخز المصري في لاوعيه في كل يوم طالما أنه بلا سورية صاحبة الاثم الكنعاني الوطني .. حيث هي درعه التاريخي والجغرافي .. وهي الملاذ والفردوس التي أكل فيها تفاحة كامب ديفيد التي أعطته اياها الأفعى اليهودية فخرج منها .. وصار يبحث عن الخطيئة ليقتلها كي يعود الى ملاذه الآمن .. ولايعرف اين هي الخطيئة .. انها الآثام والخطايا في الأمم .. فمن يمحوها؟؟ ..


Trump and American History Have Been Assassinated

Paul Craig Roberts

August 21, 2017

When Trump was elected I wrote that it was unlikely that he would be successful in accomplishing the three objectives for which he was elected—peace with Russia, the return home of offshored US jobs, and effective limits on non-white immigration—because these objectives conflicted with the interests of those more powerful than the president.

I wrote that Trump was unfamiliar with Washington and would fail to appoint a government that would support his goals. I wrote that unless the ruling oligarchy could bring Trump under its control,Trump would be assassinated.

Trump has been brought under control by assassinating him with words rather than with a bullet. With Steve Bannon’s dismissal, there is now no one in Trump’s government who supports him. He is surrounded by Russophobic generals and Zionists.

But this is not enough for the liberal/progressive/left. They want Trump impeached and driven from office.

Marjorie Cohn, whom I have always admired for her defense of civil liberty, has disappointed me. She has written in Truthout, which sadly has become more like PropagandaOut, that the House must bring articles of impeachment against Trump for his abuse of power and before he launches a new civil war and/or nuclear war.

This is an extraordinary conclusion for a normally intelligent person to reach. What power does Trump have? How does he abuse his non-existent power? The ruling Establishment has cut his balls off. He is neutered. Powerless. He has been completely isolated within his own government by the oligarchy.

Even more astonishingly, Marjorie Cohn, together with 100% of the liberal/progressive/left are blind to the fact that they have helped the military/security complex destroy the only leader who advocated peace instead of conflict with the other major nuclear power. Cohn is so deranged by hatred of Trump that she thinks it is Trump who will bring nuclear war by normalizing relations with Russia.

Clearly, the American liberal/progressive/left is no longer capable of rational thought. Hate rules. There is nothing in their lexicon but hate.

The American liberal/progressive/left has degenerated into idiocy. They think that they are fighting “white nationalism” in the White House and that Trump is a champion or symbol of “white nationalism” and that there will be no victory until Trump and all symbols of “white nationalism” are obliterated.

Little do they understand. Ajamu Baraka spells it out for them in CounterPunch. White Supremacy, he writes, is inculcated into the cultural and educational institutions of the West. Liberal and leftist whites are also white supremacists, says Baraka, and Trump and the “alt-right” are nothing but a superficial useful platform on which the white supremacist American liberal/progressive/left can parade its self-righteousness. Ajamu Baraka’s conclusion is “that in order for the world to live, the 525-year-old white supremacist Pan-European, colonial/capitalist patriarchy must die.” It is not difficult to see in this statement that genocide is the solution for the white plague upon humanity. Little wonder the “alt-right” gets exercised by the anti-white propaganda of Identity Politics.

Non-white immigration will finish off the shards of remaining European civilization. All current demographics indicate that all of Europe and North America will sooner than you expect be occupied by non-white majorities.

The problem is not so much the immigrants themselves as it is that they are taught to hate whites by white liberal/progressive/leftists. The destruction of statues will not end with Robert E. Lee’s. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are next. They owned slaves, whereas the Lee family’s slaves were freed by will three years prior to the Lincoln’s invasion of the South. The Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials will have to be destroyed also as they, too, are momuments to racism. Indeed, according to the Identity Politics of the Liberal/progressive/left the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are White Supremacy documents written by racists. This doubles the indictment against Thomas Jefferson and adds all of the Founding Fathers to the indictment. All are guilty of institutionalizing White Supremacy in America.

The uninformed insouciant Average American may think that this is a joke. But no. It is the orthodoxy of the white American intellectual class. It is taught in all the universities.

In Atlanta they are talking about erasing the heads of the South’s generals carved into Stone Mountain. Mount Rushmore in South Dakota will be next. It has carved into it the heads of Washington, Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. All racists, and Roosevelt was a colonialist and imperialist to boot. Lincoln was the worst racist of all.

Economist/historian Thomas DiLorenzo reminds us that “to his dying day, Lincoln was busy plotting the deportation of all the black people in America, including the soon-to-be-freed slaves.”

The following statements are all statements that are in Abe Lincoln’s Collected Works:

“I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [of the white and black races] . . . Such separation . . . must be affected by colonization” [sending blacks to Liberia or Central America]. (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln vol. II, p. 409).

“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime.” (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 409).

“I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” (Collected Works, vol. III, pp. 145-146).

How did Lincoln in the face of his own words and deeds get to be the hero who liberated blacks from slavery? The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, as Lincoln’s Secretary of State complained. It was a war measure that only applied to slaves under the jurisdiction of the Confederacy in hopes of fomenting a slave rebellion that would pull Southern soldiers off the front lines to rush to the protection of their wives and children. In 1861 the year the North invaded the South, President Lincoln said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so” (First Inaugural Address). In 1862 during the war, Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.”

Lincoln was elevated to the undeserved position of black liberator by the historical lies made up by white liberal/progressive/leftists who hate the South. They are so consumed by hate that they do not understand that the hate that they teach will also devour them. They should read Jean Raspail’s book, The Camp of the Saints. People taught racial hate do not differentiate between good and bad members of the people they are taught to hate. All are equally guilty. As one Third Worlder wrote to me, “all whites are guilty,” even those such as myself who speak out against the West’s atrocities against the darker-skinned peoples.

The Amerian liberal/progressive/left has long been engaged in demonizing white people exactly as Nazis demonized Jews and Communists demonized capitalists. One would think that the liberal/progressive/leftists would be aware of what happened to the Jews and to the Russian, Chinese and East European capitalists and bourgeois middle class. Why do the liberal/progressive/leftists think they will escape the consequences of teaching hate?

What has Charlottesville taught us other than that the hate expressed by the liberal/progressive/left exceeds the hate expressed by the white nationalists themselves. When it comes to hate, the White Supremacists are out-gunned by the liberal/progressive/left.

Hate is the hallmark of the American liberal/progressive/left, and hate always ends in violence.

The Northern ruling economic interests had no interest in devoting resources to a war to free slaves. They wanted the Union held together so that there would be no competition for the lands west of the Mississippi and so there would be an agrarian sector to which to market northern manufactured goods protected by tariffs against lower priced British goods.

The northern work force didn’t want any freed slaves either. The large number of recent Irish immigrants driven out of Ireland by the British starvation policy called Lincoln’s war “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.” What freed slaves meant for the northern working class was a larger labor supply and lower wages. In 1863 when the Republicans passed the draft, the Irish in Detroit and New York rioted. The rioters took out their anger and frustration on northern blacks, many of whom were lynched. It is not clear to me whether more backs were lynched in the North during the war or in the South during Reconstruction. If there are any memorials to the Irish, those racist statues will have to be taken down also. Perhaps even the Statue of Liberty is racist.

And we haven’t yet heard from Native Americans. In his excruciating history, The Long Death: The Last Days of the Plains Indians, Ralph K. Andrist describes the genocide of the Plains Indians by Lincoln’s Civil War generals, William Tecumseh Sherman, Phillip Sheridan, Grenville Dodge and other of the first war criminals of the modern age who found it a lot easier to conduct warfare against Southern women and children than against armed troops. Against the Native Americans Lincoln’s generals now conducted a policy of genocide that was even more horrible and barbaric than Sheridan’s destruction of Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley.

Lincoln historian Professor Thomas DiLorenzo provides a synopsis of the genocide of Native Americans here:

During the eight year presidency of General Ulysses S. Grant, 1868-76, the Union generals conducted a policy of extermination against the Native Americans. Entire villages, every man, woman, and child, were wiped out. The Union Army’s scorched earth policy starved to death those Indians who escaped fire and sword.

Professor DiLorenzo writes:

“Sherman and Sheridan’s troops conducted more than one thousand attacks on Indian villages, mostly in the winter months, when families were together. The U.S. Army’s actions matched its leaders’ rhetoric of extermination. As mentioned earlier, Sherman gave orders to kill everyone and everything, including dogs, and to burn everything that would burn so as to increase the likelihood that any survivors would starve or freeze to death. The soldiers also waged a war of extermination on the buffalo, which was the Indians’ chief source of food, winter clothing, and other goods (the Indians even made fish hooks out of dried buffalo bones and bow strings out of sinews). By 1882, the buffalo were all but extinct.”

Indian warriors who were captured were subjected to the type of trials and executions that the George W. Bush regime gave Saddam Hussein: “hundreds of Indians who had been taken prisoner were subjected to military ‘trials’ lasting about ten minutes each, according to Nichols (1978). Most of the adult male prisoners were found guilty and sentenced to death—not based on evidence of the commission of a crime, but on their mere presence at the end of the fighting.” In other words, POWs were executed, for which the US executed German officers at Nuremberg.

The Union massacre of the Indians began before the Civil War was won. DiLorenzo reports:

“One of the most famous incidents of Indian extermination, known as the Sand Creek Massacre, took place on November 29, 1864. There was a Cheyenne and Arapaho village located on Sand Creek in southeastern Colorado. These Indians had been assured by the U.S. government that they would be safe in Colorado. The government instructed them to fly a U.S. flag over their village, which they did, to assure their safety. However, another Civil War ‘luminary,’ Colonel John Chivington, had other plans for them as he raided the village with 750 heavily armed soldiers. One account of what happened appears in the book Crimsoned Prairie: The Indian Wars (1972) by the renowned military historian S. L. A. Marshall, who held the title of chief historian of the European Theater in World War II and authored thirty books on American military history.

“Chivington’s orders were: ‘I want you to kill and scalp all, big and little.’ ( Marshall 1972, 37). Then, despite the display of the U.S. flag and white surrender flags by these peaceful Indians, Chivington’s troops ‘began a full day given over to blood-lust, orgiastic mutilation, rapine, and destruction—with Chivington looking on and approving’ (Marshall 1972, 38). Marshall notes that the most reliable estimate of the number of Indians killed is ‘163, of which 110 were women and children’ (p. 39).

“Upon returning to his fort, Chivington ‘and his raiders demonstrated around Denver, waving their trophies, more than one hundred drying scalps. They were acclaimed as conquering heroes, which was what they had sought mainly.’ One Republican Party newspaper announced, ‘Colorado soldiers have once again covered themselves with glory’ (Marshall 1972, 39).

DiLorenzo reports: “The books by Brown and Marshall show that the kind of barbarism that occurred at Sand Creek, Colorado, was repeated many times during the next two decades.”

General Sherman, a war criminal far in excess of anything the Nazis were able to produce, wrote to his wife early in the Civil War that his purpose was “extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people.”

His wife responded: Conduct a “war of extermination” and drive all Southerners “like the swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing” ( Walters 1973, 61).

DiLorenzo observes that Sherman did his best to take his wife’s advice.

The extreme hatred and barbarity to which the Northern war criminals had subjected Southern non-combatants broke like fury over the Plains Indians. Distinguished military historians have described the orders given to General Custer by Phillip Sheridan as “the most brutal orders ever published to American troops.”

Clearly, if we are taking down statues, we can’t stop with Robert E. Lee. We will have to take down the Statues of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and all the rest of the Union war criminals who implemented what they themselves called “the final solution to the Indian problem.”

The designation of the northern invasion of the South as a civil war is itself a lie. The term “civil war” is used to cover up the fact that the North initiated a war of aggression, thus removing the sin of war from the North. A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. However, the South had no interest or intent to control the government in Washington. All the Southern states did is to use the constitutional right to end their voluntary association with other states in the United States. The South fought because the South was invaded. Southerners did not regard the War of Northern Aggression as a civil war. They clearly understood that the war was a war of Northern Aggression.

As brutal as Lincoln’s war criminal armies were to Southern civilians, the inhumanity of the brutality toward Southern people escalated during the long period called Reconstruction. The Northern ruling Republicans did their best to subject the South to rule by the blacks while Northern “carpetbaggers” stole everything that they could. No white Southern woman was safe from rape. “Civil War” buffs have told me that there were southern towns in which all the women were hidden in the woods outside of town to protect them from the Republican Union soldiers and the former slaves that the Republican agents of Reconstruction encouraged. What happened to the South at the hands of the Republicans was no different from what the Russians and Americans did in Germany when the Wehrmacht surrendered. The demonized KKK was an organization that arose to protect what remained of the South’s honor from unbearable humiliations.

Consequently, for decades no Southern person would vote Republican. The Democrats lost the “solid South” by aping the Reconstruction Republicans and again bringing Reconstruction to the South, using federal force instead of persuasion.

No real facts are any longer taught in the US about the so-called “Civil War.” In the place of the actual history stands only lies.

In an accompanying guest contribution, economist/historian Professor Thomas DiLorenzo explains the real reason that Lincoln invaded the South. He shows that Lincoln’s success in conquering the South destroyed the political character of the United States that had been formed by the Founding Fathers. He also shows that the Union policy of conducting war against civilians created the precedents for the massive war crimes of the 20th and 21st centuries. Seldom does the opportunity arise to acquire an enlightening and accurate history lesson from one article. That is what Professor DiLorenzo has delivered.

Say NO to Pyramids

I really like this ladies. Please give them a listen.

Understanding Russia: The Continuum of History

June 20, 2017

by Yameen KhanUnderstanding Russia: The Continuum of History

The United States is actively committed to bring Russia into submission via encirclement and a two pronged attack.

NATO’s expansion of bases in vassal states right up to Russia’s borders, coupled with an attempt at encroachment in Syria, should allow The Hegemon to undermine Russia’s underbelly from the Caucasus to Central Asia.

To understand how Russians usually respond to Western power a little time travel, starting 1219 AD, is more than useful.

This was a time when a cataclysmic event left deep scars on the Russian character; an abiding fear of encirclement, whether by nomadic hordes then or by nuclear missile bases today.

Russia then was not a single state but consisted of a dozen principalities frequently at war with each other. Between 1219 and 1240 all these fell to the Genghis Khan hurricane, whose lightning-speed cavalry with his horse-borne archers, employing brilliant tactics unfamiliar to Europeans, caught army after army off guard and forced them into submission.

For more than 200 years Russians suffered under the Golden Horde of the Mongol – named after their great tent with golden poles. They left the Russian economy in ruins, brought commerce and industry to a halt, and reduced Russians to serfdom. Asiatic ways of administration and customs were superimposed on the existing Byzantine system.

Taking full advantage of its military weakness and of its reduced circumstances, Russia’s European neighbors started to help themselves to its territory, starting with German principalities, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden. The Mongols couldn’t care less so long as they received their tribute. They were more concerned with their Asiatic dominions.

Still, European cities did not match the riches of Samarkand and Bukhara, Herat and Baghdad, whose incomparable wealth and splendor outshone wooden-built Russian cities.

Russia’s greatest fear begins here – crushed between their European foes to the West and the Mongols to the East. Russians were to develop a paranoid dread of invasion and encirclement which has tormented their foreign relations ever since. Hardly ever has an experience left such deep and ever-lasting scars on a nation’s psyche as this cataclysm did on Russians. This explains, among other things, their stoical acceptance of harsh rule at home.

And then came Ivan III – the man who freed the Russians from the Golden Horde.

Muscovy then was a small provincial town overshadowed by and subservient to its powerful neighbors. In return for allegiance and subservience locals were gradually entrusted with more power and freedom by the unsuspecting Mongols. Over time the Principality of Muscovy grew in strength and size, eventually to dominate all its neighbors.

In 1476 Ivan refused to pay the customary tribute to the grand Khan Ahmed. In a fit of rage Ivan trampled the portrait of Ahmed and put several of his envoys to death.

The showdown came in autumn 1480 when the Khan marched with his army to teach a vassal a lesson, but was astonished to find a large well-equipped force awaiting him on the far bank of the River Ugra, 150 miles from Moscow. For weeks the two armies glowered at one another, neither side wanting to make the first move.

The stakes were clear. Ivan did not need to cross the river. He would change the course of history if he did not lose. A stalemate could become a turning point in history.

For Ahmed Khan there is no choice. He must cross the river and engage. Win or die like Tariq ibin Ziyad in 711 AD, another age and time, when a brilliant Arab general landed on the ‘rock of Hercules’ subsequently called by Arab Historians ‘Jabal Tariq’, meaning the ‘mountain of Tariq’ and later anglicized as Gibraltar.

Tariq, by one master stratagem, with a much smaller force (12,000 against 90,000 Spaniards) at the Battle of Guadalete defeated Roderic and thus opened the road for the subsequent Arab commanders to march all the way to Tours in France.

With the arrival of winter, the river began to freeze. A ferocious battle appeared inevitable. And then something extraordinary happened. Perhaps a miracle. Without warning both sides turned and fled in panic. Despite their inglorious act, the Russians knew that their long subservience was over.

The Khan had lost his stomach for a fight. The once invincible Mongol might had evaporated. Their centralized authority in the West had now collapsed, leaving three widely separated khanates (Kazan, Astrakhan and Crimea) as their last remnants of the once mighty and the largest contiguous land empire in history.

It was in 1553 when Ivan the Terrible, a successor of Ivan III, thirsting for revenge, stormed the fortress of Kazan on the upper Volga, slaughtered its defenders and thus ended the Mongol rule. Two years later the Khanate of Astrakhan, where the Volga flows into the Caspian met with similar fate.

Starving Napoleon’s army

Fast forward to June 1812, and the fateful day, the 24th , when Napoleon’s Grande Armée crossed the Neman River in an attempt to engage and defeat the Russian army.

Napoleon’s aim was to compel Tsar Alexander I of Russia to stop trading with British merchants through proxies and bring about pressure on the United Kingdom to sue for peace. The overt political aim of the campaign was to liberate Poland from the threat of Russia (as the US claims of Eastern Europe today). Thus the campaign was named the Second Polish War to gain favor with the Poles and provide a political pretense for his actions.

The real aim was domination of Russia.

The Grande Armée was massive; 680,000 soldiers. Through a series of marches Napoleon rushed the army rapidly through Western Russia in an attempt to bring the Russian army to battle, and in August of that year winning a number of minor engagements and a major battle at Smolensk.

Any invading army must consider war in Russia as a war at sea. It is futile to occupy land or city or cities. The aim of an invading force must be to destroy the military machine of Russia. The aim of Russian commanders has always been to survive and use its vast land mass to exhaust its enemy, learn from him and defeat and annihilate him with his own tactics and stratagems, only better executed.

Napoleon engaged the Russian army for a decisive battle at Maloyaroslavets. The Russians would not commit themselves to a pitched battle. His troops exhausted, with few rations, no winter clothing, and his remaining horses in poor condition, Napoleon was forced to retreat.

He hoped to reach supplies at Smolensk and later at Vilnius. In the weeks that followed the Grande Armée starved and suffered from the onset of “General Winter”. Lack of food and fodder for the horses, hypothermia from the bitter cold and persistent attacks upon isolated troops from Russian peasants and Cossacks led to great losses in men, and a general loss of discipline and cohesion in the army.

When Napoleon’s army crossed the Berezina River in November, only 27,000 fit soldiers remained. The Grand Armée had lost some 380,000 men dead and 100,000 captured. A riveting defeat.

All those Afghan overt – and covert – wars

Four centuries after the cataclysm of the Mongol invasion, the Russian Empire had been steadily expanding at the rate of 55 square miles a day – or 20,000 square miles a year. At the dawn of the 19thcentury only 2,000 miles separated the British and the Russian empires in Asia.

Both the Russians and the East India Company (as in the British Indian Empire) sent their officers, businessmen in disguise, as Buddhist priests or Muslim holy men, to survey uncharted Central Asia.

One such chap was Captain Arthur Connolly of the 6th Bengal Light Cavalry in the service of the British East India Company. The East India Company was the British version of America’s Halliburton.

Connolly ended up beheaded as a spy by the orders of Alim Khan, the Emir of Bukhara. It was Connolly who coined the expression “The Great Game”, which Kipling immortalized in his novel “Kim”.

By the end of the 19th century the Tsars’ armies had swallowed one Khanate after another and only a few hundred miles separated the two empires. In some places the distance was only twenty miles.

The British feared that they would lose their Indian possessions – the ‘Jewel in the Crown’ – to the Tsar; and two theories emerged to defend the frontiers of British India.

The ‘forward policy’ and its proponents (hawks, today’s US neocons) argued to stop the Russians beyond India’s frontiers by getting there first, either by invasion, or by creating compliant ‘buffer’ states, or satellites, astride the likely invasion route.

But there were those who did not buy this proposition and did not believe that the Russians would invade India. The opponents of the ‘forward policy’ argued that India’s best defense lay in its unique geographical setting – bordered by impassable mountain ranges, mighty rivers, waterless deserts, and above all warlike tribes.

A Russian force which reached India surmounting all these obstacles would be so weakened by then that it would be no match for the waiting British Army. Therefore, it was more sensible to force an invader to overextend his lines of communications than for the British to risk theirs. And above all this policy was cheaper.

NATO today has a forward policy of deploying troops all over Eastern Europe and creating bases around Russia in an effort to encircle it. The final straw for the Russian Federation has been the occupation of Ukraine, by proxy, by Washington.

Guess who won the policy debate in 19th century Britain? The hawks (the US neocons of today), of course.

In 1838 Lord Auckland decides to replace the current Emir of Afghanistan, Dost Muhammad Khan with Shuja-ul-Mulk.

One could easily replace Dost Muhammad of Afghanistan in 1838 with today’s Gaddafi of Libya or Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Or Putin of Russia. Or anyone who becomes an obstacle to the West’s geopolitical, geoeconomic domination.

And yet the British suffered a massive defeat after a year’s occupation of Afghanistan. The only soldier who eventually reached Jalalabad was William Brydon. The Afghans may have spared him so he would be able to tell the tale of this horrific defeat.

You would think the British would have learned from history. Not at all. They did it again.

Tension between Russia and Britain in Europe ended in June 1878 with the Congress of Berlin. Russia then turned its attention to Central Asia, promptly sending an uninvited diplomatic mission to Kabul.

Sher Ali Khan, the Emir of Afghanistan (the son of Emir Dost Muhammad Khan) tried unsuccessfully to keep them out. Russian envoys arrived in Kabul on July 22, 1878, and on August 14, the British demanded that Sher Ali accept a British mission too.

The Emir not only refused to receive a British mission under Neville Bowles Chamberlain, but threatened to stop it if it were dispatched. Lord Lytton, the viceroy, ordered a diplomatic mission to set out for Kabul in September 1878 but the mission was turned back as it approached the eastern entrance of the Khyber Pass, triggering the Second Anglo–Afghan War.

After several defeats in various battles except one, and thus abandoning the provocative policy of maintaining a British resident in Kabul, the British were forced to withdraw.

One would think the British would have enough sense to cease with the stupid policy of occupying Afghanistan. Not at all. They tried it for the third time.

The Third Afghan War began on May 6, 1919 and ended with an armistice on August 8, 1919. An Afghan victory, again.

The British finally abandoned their forward policy. It had failed – just as the American neocons “policy” is failing.

And yet, roughly 60 years later the Russians would don the madman’s (British) hat and on December 25th, 1979, launched a vertical envelopment and occupied Kabul.

Their main aim was the airbase at Shindand, about 200 miles as the crow flies from the Straits of Hormuz, the choke point of the Persian Gulf, through which at the time 90% of the world’s oil was flowing.

They placed 200 Bear Bombers – the equivalent of the US B-52’s – as if sending a message to President Carter: “Checkmate”. A certain game was over – and a covert war was about to begin.

As our historical trip takes us from The Great Game to the Cold War, by now it’s more than established that the United States took on the mantle of the British Empire and filled in the power vacuum left by the British. If Connolly were to come back during the Cold War he would be right at home – as the Cold War was a continuation of the Great Game.

In between, of course, there was a guy named Hitler.

After Napoleon, it was Hitler who considered the Russians as barbarians and despite a nonaggression pact invaded Russia.

The Second Great European War (GEW II) was in fact fought between Germany and the USSR. Germany deployed 80% of its economic and military resources on its Eastern Front compared to 20% against the rest of the allies on the Western Front, where it was merely a ‘fire brigade operation’ (Hitler’s words).

Paul Carell describes the moment when, at 0315 on June 22nd 1941, the massive ‘Operation Barbarossa’ over a 900-mile front went under way.

“As though a switch had been thrown a gigantic flash of lightening rent the night. Guns of all calibres simultaneously belched fire. The tracks of tracer shells streaked across the sky. As far as the eye could see the front on the Bug was a sea of flames and flashes. A moment later the deep thunder of the guns swept over the tower of Volka Dobrynska like a steamroller. The whine of the mortar batteries mingled eerily with the rumble of the guns. Beyond the Bug a sea of fire and smoke was raging. The narrow sickle of the moon was hidden by a veil of cloud. Peace was dead.”

Bagration revisited

Russians are masters of Sun Tzu: “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”

These principles were recently applied in Ukraine and Crimea. For background, one just needs to study the battle of Kursk as well as Operation Bagration.

The Soviet military doctrine of maskirovka was developed in the 1920s, and used by Zhukov in the 1939 Battles of Khalkhin Gol against Japan.

The Field Regulations of the Red Army (1929) stated that:

“Surprise has a stunning effect on the enemy. For this reason all troop operations must be accomplished with the greatest concealment and speed.”

Concealment was to be attained by confusing the enemy with movements, camouflage and use of terrain, speed, use of night and fog, and secrecy.

Operation Bagration – the Soviet destruction of the German Army Group Centre – was, arguably, the single most successful military action of the entire war. This vital Soviet offensive is symptomatic of the lack of public knowledge in the West about the war in the East. Whilst almost everyone has heard of D-Day, few people other than specialist historians know much about Operation Bagration.

Yet the sheer size of Bagration dwarfs that of D-Day.

“Army Group Centre was really the anchor of that whole German front,’ writes Professor Geoffrey Wawro, ‘blocking the shortest path to Berlin; and the Russians annihilated it at the same time as we were landing on D-Day and marching on, liberating Paris and then heading towards Germany. But the scope of the fighting was much bigger in the East.

You had ten times as many Russians fighting in Bagration as you had Anglo/American/Canadian troops landing on the Normandy beaches.

And you had three times as many Germans in action fighting trying to hold up the Russian advance as you had defending the Atlantic Wall.

So, it’s a perfect encapsulation of the problem (of lack of appreciation of the scale of fighting on the Eastern Front). I mean, think about it, when D-Day and Bagration jumped off, the allied armies in Normandy and the Russian armies on the Eastern Front were equidistant from Berlin, and in the German view they were sort of equal threats.

After Operation Bagration, Russia is seen as being the principal threat because they just kicked down the door altogether and reoccupied all the ground that was lost in 1941. They take most of Poland and they move into East Prussia and they’re at the very gates of Berlin while we’re still slogging our way through Normandy and towards Paris.”

Operation Bagration was a colossal victory for the Red Army. By the 3rd of July Soviet forces had recaptured Minsk, capital of Belorussia, a city which had been in German hands for three years. And by the end of July the Red Army had pushed into what had been, before the war, Polish territory, and had taken Lwow, the major cultural center of eastern Poland.

Before Operation Barbarossa, the German High Command masked the creation of the massive force arrayed to invade the USSR and heightened their diplomatic efforts to convince Joseph Stalin that they were about to launch a major attack on Britain.

Maskirovka (deception) was put into practice on a large scale in the Battle of Kursk, especially on the Steppe Front commanded by Ivan Konev.

The result was that the Germans attacked Russian forces four times stronger than they were expecting.

The German general Friedrich von Mellenthin wrote, “The horrible counter-attacks, in which huge masses of manpower and equipment took part, were an unpleasant surprise for us… The most clever camouflage of the Russians should be emphasized again. We did not .. detect even one minefield or anti-tank area until .. the first tank was blown up by a mine or the first Russian anti-tank guns opened fire”.

Broadly, military deception may take both strategic and tactical forms. Deception across a strategic battlefield was uncommon until the modern age (particularly in the world wars of the 20th century), but tactical deception (on individual battlefields) dates back to early history.

In a practical sense military deception employs visual misdirection, misinformation (for example, via double agents) and psychology to make the enemy believe something that is untrue. The use of military camouflage, especially on a large scale, is a form of deception.

The Russian loanword maskirovka (literally: masking) is used to describe the Soviet Union and Russia’s military doctrine of surprise through deception, in which camouflage plays a significant role.

There are numerous examples of deception activities employed throughout the history of warfare, such as: feigned retreat leading the enemy, through a false sense of security, into a pre-positioned ambush; fictional units creating entirely fictional forces or exaggerating the size of an army; smoke screen – a tactical deception involving smoke, fog, or other forms of cover to hide battlefield movements; Trojan Horse – gaining admittance to a fortified area under false pretenses, to later admit a larger attacking force; strategic envelopment – where a small force distracts the enemy while a much larger force moves to attack from the rear (that was a favored tactic of Napoleon’s).

And that brings us to Syria, and its importance to Russia.

The deep state in Washington wants to keep the entire spectrum from the Levant to the Indian sub-continent destabilized – shaping it as the platform to send sparks of terrorism North to Russia and East to China. At the same time the US military will keep a physical presence (if China, India and Russia will allow it) in Afghanistan, from where it can survey the Eurasian land mass. As a master geopolitical chess player, Putin is very much aware of all this.

Syria is right at the underbelly of Russia and would be strategically important if it were in the hands of remote-controlled thugs like Ukraine is today. It has the potential to destabilize Russia from the Caucasus to Central Asia – generating as many Salafi-jihadi terrorists as possible. The region from the Caucasus to Central Asia holds about 80 million Muslims. Russia has enough reasons to stop US advances in Syria and Ukraine. Not to mention that in Iraqi Kurdistan the Pentagon is aiming to build a mega base, a springboard to create mischief in Central Asia for both Russia and China, in the form, for instance, of an Uyghur uprising in Western China, like it has done in Ukraine for Russia.

Once again; it may be helpful to look back to the continuum of history. It tells us these current efforts to encircle and destabilize Russia are destined to fail. (edited by Pepe Escobar)

Selected bibliography:

Carell, Paul: Hitler’s War on Russia (George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., London, 1964).
Fraser-Tytler, W.K.: Afghanistan: A Study of Political Developments in Central Asia (Oxford University Press, London, 1950).
Hopkirk, Peter: Foreign Devils on the Silk Road: The Search for Lost Cities and Treasures of Chinese Central Asia (First Published by John Murry (Publisher), 1980; First issued as an Oxford University Press, paperback 1980, Oxford).
Tzu, Sun: The Art of War (Edited with an introduction by Dallas Galvin; Translated from Chinese by Lionel Giles, First Published in 1910, Produced by Fine Creative Media, Inc. New Yor
Gibbon, Edward: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Volume III (Random House Inc. Manufactured in the United States by H. Wolf).
Weatherford, Jack: Genghis Khan and the making of the Modern World (Three Rivers Press, New York).
Wawro, Geoffrey: (Professor of Military History at the University of North Texas).

%d bloggers like this: