Macron wins – the 24% who voted for him rejoice, the rest sigh

May 09, 2017

by Ramin MazaheriMacron wins – the 24% who voted for him rejoice, the rest sigh

Communist ideas have won concessions from industry, but they have been unable to stop high finance from exploiting workers.

That is the big battle today. Only revolutionary and heavily socialist countries like Iran, Cuba and China – as well as dictatorships like South Korea in the past – have been able to stop domination by international finance.

France, however, has fearfully rushed into the arms of the candidate who wants your wages to pay for bad loans: former Rothschild banker Emmanuel Macron.

It’s almost insulting to take orders from a 39-year old who didn’t come to power at the end of the gun or at the front of a massive revolution, because how can such a young person not be the puppet of older, richer interests?

There’s no way Macron is as smart, experienced and mature as he believes himself to be, or as they want us to believe. It’s “not polite” by French campaign standards, but I note that his record as Economy Minister produced only economic stagnation and record-high unemployment.

I talk to people in France about how they will vote all the time, even though it’s also “not polite” by French standards. Hogwash. Emmanuel only has two appeals: first, he is young and new blood in a country run by an aged, corrupt aristocracy, and second, he is not Marine Le Pen.

Of course Emmanuel won: Le Pen lost in 2nd round head-to-head polling at all times and against everyone. I mean in every…single…poll since polling began in January.

We were hoping against hope, and because hope was a terrible, incompetent, neo-fascist candidate – hope lost.

Huge change from 2012 – there is no joy in Mudville. I can assure you that France’s spirit of resistance was alive and well in 2012. Ahhhh, austerity was so young back then – it’s so firmly-rooted now.

Francois Hollande was elected on a promise to fight high finance, fight Germany, end austerity and renegotiate EU treaties. The French people were 100% correct to be so optimistic – who can live in cynicism?

But who could have expected that Hollande would make such an undemocratic U-turn? His U-turn threatened to destroy the European Union, which has only been given a stay of execution with Macron’s victory. Even though Hollande couldn’t even run for re-election, nobody with any sense of justice thinks that is fair reparations.

I must pause here for a word on civil war: France talks about the possibility of a civil war an inordinate amount. And I perceived this years before this election involving Le Pen.

In the US that’s relegated to beyond the suburbs…half the country, sure. Of course, the English say the same thing. The Spanish may split over Catalonia. Scotland may break off. Ireland remains divided. Italy barely has a government. Belgium didn’t have one for a year (such Parliamentary gridlock is France’s future).

Only the Germans are happy with their leadership. And why not: everyone in the West “admires them”. Not me – higher poverty rate than France, for starters.

My point is: Western society, and not just France, is fractured in a terrible, horrible way. The lack of unity – even if only perceived – is staggering for a region of the world enjoying such enormous relative prosperity. There is, clearly, a problem in their culture.

Cuba doesn’t have this problem. Nor China. Iran – once you get out of rich North Tehran – will almost certainly have a higher voter participation rate in their elections this month than France, and France’s is still among the highest in the West.

The fear of civil war is a major Western phenomenon, and it was a major reason why people voted for Macron/against Le Pen

What do you expect? You’re all divided into parts of unequal sizes

That’s what identity politics is: Is a Black’s ideas worth more than a Gay? Seems like a Transgender rules the roost in 2017, especially if he/she has to go to the bathroom.

Can the White Nationalists fly their flag at the statehouse or not? We better ask the opinion of the left-handed homemakers north of the Mason-Dixon but west of the Mississippi who prefer jam to Nutella on partially-cloudy days – I’m sure their lobby group is being formed.

Or you could just have what works: Class politics.

Us versus the 1 billionth percent, the 8 people who own half the world’s wealth.

Anyone who supported Le Pen was browbeaten with insults against their character, intelligence and morality. Identity politics are not only about inclusion – I am in this group – it is about exclusion: You have to be like this or you are not in this group.

And who doesn’t want to be in the group the entire media (no exaggeration) said was the “good” one?

Because France does not accept multi-culturalism, promoting assimilationism instead, identity politics in France has a different face. The “in group” here is simply “France”. That’s why Macron saved this big PR gun for the final week of campaigning: “The National Front is the anti-France party”.

It resonated, even though the National Front is the most hyper-patriotic party.

Anyway, I ardently supported Marine Le Pen for two weeks – between the two rounds of voting – does that make me anti-France? Or does it make me a fascist and a racist? I’d swear at you but this is a family publication.

Fascism is a real dirty word over here. It’s not that way in the US because American fascists won WWII and thus were never discredited, like over here. People here had relatives die fighting German, Austrian & Italian fascists.

The past is indeed history, and history is indeed past

France also succumbed to the idea that the fascists their grandfathers fought are the real problem, as if France fought a civil war instead of the Germans in World War II.

More than identity politics, Macron won because France was convinced that the father of Marine Le Pen is more important than her ideas to rectify the very different problems of 2017. But high-speed trading didn’t exist in 1941. There was no European Union. In 1941 there was actually a Left in the West, LOL.

“You don’t see it, Ramin,” they told me “the threat of the National Front.”

What I see is you guys taking a backseat to Germany.

But, I’m exaggerating: I see France colluding with the Germans. Again, just like in World War II.

That is EXACTLY what has happened! Check the data: Which banks are leveraged in Greece? German AND French are the top two. Who funds the European Central Bank? The main percentage comes from Germany, with France in a very close 2nd place – we are talking dozens of billions of much-needed euros.

Acting as if Germany pays everything, does everything, plans everything – this is an Anglo-Saxon view not based on reality. I assume it is related to the historical Northern European view of their genetic supremacy over everyone else, including Southern and Eastern Europe.

But, that’s just more identity politics. It ignores the class view, as usual. The reality is that French capitalism is hugely a part of the neo-imperialist project of the European Union to cannibalize other Europeans – it’s not all Germany.

Le Pen would get that – Macron would think I am speaking Greek. Oh well.

Crying ‘terrorism’ is not just for kicks and giggles

But let’s not insult everybody in France as being class ignoramuses – this is not America: the French got two such bad candidates by another primary tactic of high-finance: the security state.

The first round vote was on April 23, and I already wrote a column about how terrorism was in the headlines an inordinately suspicious amount in the week prior to that vote.

And in the 14 days since April 23rd France’s security state made sure terrorism-related raids and announcements were in the headlines almost every day. Should we be surprised anymore? I made a list:

April 24-26: Fourteen arrests made in France and Belgium on terrorism.

April 25: Five more arrests in alleged Marseilles planned terrorism attack.

April 25: National homage to the cop killed on the Champs-Elysees.

April 27: Raid on an alleged terrorist’s home in Réunion. Two cops shot.

April 28: Citing the war on terrorism, police will ban traffic information apps from warning of radar traps and other police stops.

May 2: Five arrests in anti-terrorism.

May 3: Judgment in a high-profile “apology of terrorism” case.

May 3: In the lone presidential debate Macron said that terrorism will be the “focus of his 5 years”. 30 minutes of terrorism discussion, which preceded the debate on the European Union.

May 4: National day of homage to all cops killed in France.

This is an incomplete list. I can assure you that the French anti-terrorism units do not work this often in normal times – we’d all be in jail if they did.

The canard of terrorism was employed by Hollande to undemocratically ram through right-wing economic measures designed to benefit the bondholder class. It was also used to put Macron in office and, as I listed, Macron plans to keep it there.

Ultimately, there is still no plan in effect to win concessions from high finance. Le Pen would not have provided a solution, but she would have at least been a monkey wrench; she would at least have provided a temporary respite; she would at least have provided the chance to discuss solutions.

Finance is international, but Europe requires a unique solution because the creation and support for the European Union means they have a uniquely European problem.

I have no ideas, and neither do the faux-left supporters of Macron. They just keep telling me: “We’ll take to the streets to fight austerity”. Hey, jerk, check the scoreboard – we did that all the time under Hollande: we lost.

Macron will continue the neoliberal policies which didn’t work while he was minster, and they will not work now.

Ultimately, the election of Macon just kicks the can down the road. Prior to the election this was repeatedly written by mainstream journalists to describe the necessary economic “reforms” France resisted implementing. Absurd, these “deforms”.

What is postponed are the revolutionary, pro-communist changes which put finally the people ahead of the financial class, which is the new aristocracy.

Postscript – the Macron Era, Day 1 of 1,826.25

The above was written on election night. I was planning to finish it in between my 10 scheduled live interviews for Press TV, but at this point in the column the Le Pen camp refused my entry to their headquarters, denying me a place to do some of those interviews and also to finish this column.

I wasn’t the only one – Le Monde, Mediapart and reportedly many other media were the victims of the Le Pen campaign’s allegedly accidental and regrettable choice to choose a small, swanky locale for their HQ.

Maybe such treatment was a harbinger of things to come and we dodged a bullet by avoiding the National Front and their anti-press neo-fascism?

Problem is, Macron banned Russian media a couple weeks earlier.

Problem is, prior to that Hollande took Press TV and all Iranian media off France’s state-run satellite Eutelsat, in a clear case of censorship.

Anyway, the day after the election Hollande joined Macron for the WWII Victory Day memorial and then immediately flew to Berlin to meet Merkel. Isn’t that fitting? And there were thousands already protesting Macron, with plenty of police brutality. I wanted to cover it but my cameraman begged off, citing fatigue. Honestly, I felt the same way.

Glass half-full: Macron is from the younger, less-racist generation. Maybe he’ll be able to take a firm stance on France’s xenophobic nonsense?

Problem is, his team threatened to close the nation’s Islamophobia watchdog, saying they are “in danger.” Pretty Le Pen-like, if you ask me, which is what I always said.

I really cannot even stomach reading the mainstream media’s take on France’s election, but people seem to be talking like Trump was avoided in France. People only say that because the economic angle – the class angle – is systematically repressed in favor of the economic angle.

Macron is going to wage an (economic) extremist war on the French public, and who can be excited about that? Nobody is excited about Macron here except unmarried, middle-aged women, who have finally found someone who won’t ignore them. I don’t want to rain on their honeymoon, though, so “Sweet dreams, ladies.”

Just do the math: 25% abstained and 12% submitted blank ballots (LOL, a record), meaning only 67% of the total electorate issued an acceptable vote. That drops Macron’s alleged final score of 66% down to 42% of the total electorate. Now subtract the 43% of Macron’s voters who say the voted to block Le Pen. That means only 24% of the total electorate voted for Macron’s personality or his policies.

Only 24% of France truly voted for Macron. So forget what the financial/foreign press says: there is no joy in Mudville, French democracy has struck out.

But the beat goes on. And for the next five years I’m covering the exact same news beat – Hollande (Jr.) and austerity.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

Multiculturalism and the Jews

By Richard Edmondson

It was maybe five to seven years ago I first came across that now rather famous video of Barbara Lerner Spectre being interviewed in Sweden on the subject of multiculturalism. Here was an American Jewish woman condescendingly giving advice to a group of Swedes about embracing multiculturalism, and stating unequivocally that “Jews are going to be at the center” of a “huge transformation” that Europe was about to undergo.

Now here we are in the year 2017. Europe is experiencing a swelling migrant invasion–due in no small part to wars in the Middle East and North Africa initiated and promoted by Jews–and traditional European culture is under threat.

As I noted in a post last month, there is something stupendously hypocritical about Jews who preach the gospel of racial tolerance and multiculturalism in America (or in their countries of residence in Europe), while saying nothing about the apartheid policies of Israel. If you want to know how racist and intolerant Israel is, simply ask a Palestinian. Yet not only do Jews by and large support the state of Israel, they have formed lobbying groups to advocate on its behalf–this all while campaigning noisily for open borders in their countries of residence and labeling as “racist” anyone who dares suggest that unlimited immigration might be a bad idea.

Europeans and white Americans are now finding their once “monolithic societies” being ripped apart by unceasing waves of immigrants; they are finding their histories and cultures disparaged, their religious faith demeaned and denigrated, by rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth “anti-fascists” who preach tolerance but who seem willing to commit acts of violence against anyone they disagree with.

The fact that Jews have been behind much of this is something that people increasingly are becoming aware of–and Barbara Lerner Spectre, bless her heart, has probably done more than any single person to wake people up to this fact. So much is this the case that you can now find a number of videos parodying her. Here is one:

Spectre is the founding director of Paideia, also known as the European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden. The organization was founded in 2001 with funding by the Swedish government, and today, on its website, touts itself as both “non-denominational” and “dedicated to the revival of Jewish culture in Europe.” According to Wikipedia, Spectre herself was born in Madison, Wisconsin and studied at Columbia University and NYU. In 1967 she and her husband, who is a rabbi, moved to Israel, but in 1999, they immigrated again, to Stockholm, where her husband served as rabbi of the Stockholm Synagogue.

In an article published on a Jewish website in 2014, Spectre is quoted as speaking of an “unholy alliance” between anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Semitic sentiment in the “far left and the far right.” The article, written by Gary Rosenblatt, focuses on the problem of “increased anti-Semitism” and seeks to address the question of whether there is a “future for Jewish life in Europe.”

Rosenblatt offers no analysis of what could be the cause of rising anti-Semitism other than to suggest it was “sparked by the Gaza war” (which at the time the article was published had only been fought just three months previously–that is, of course, assuming Rosenblatt was referring to “Operation Protective Edge”–not really a war so much as a massacre of more than 2,000 people, most of them civilians), but he does include one rather remarkable paragraph–a paragraph which discusses Jewish immigration to Israel (or “making aliyah”) but that also includes a striking admission about Jews in general and their constant promotion of multiculturalism:

Similarly, European Jewish officials cringe when Israeli political leaders, in their quest to promote aliyah, assert that there is no future for European Jewry. Asserting that “the world hates us, Israel is the only safe haven,” could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Such an attitude is far from helpful to those who would prefer to build a more secure future in their native country, fostering democracy and pluralism, rather than emigrate out of fear of oppression. (Emphasis added.)

So the choice before Jews, it seems, is: stay in their “native countries” where they, or the vast majority of them at any rate, can usually be found working industriously to foster “democracy and pluralism”–or, alternately, they can move to the apartheid state of Israel where they will find “safe haven” from “rising anti-Semitism.” In other words, work to ensure that multiculturalism prevails in the one place, and racism and oppression in the other. The contradiction, of course, is glaring.

But why–why do Jews work so energetically to throw open the borders of America, Sweden, and other countries to foreigners knowing that such massive influxes will be detrimental to these countries (if they can deduce widespread immigration would be bad for Israel, surely they can extrapolate that the same principle applies elsewhere)? The most widely held view is that Jews just naturally feel “safer” in a “pluralistic” society, but the gentleman in the video below posits an alternate theory. i.e. that the motive, at least for some Jews, is revenge for the holocaust.

Whether we can assume Jews are carrying out an ‘ethnic revenge fantasy’ (and it’s entirely possibly some are), a few broad coffee house-style observations and/or generalizations can be put forth. These are not my own original ideas. They are observations that have been made at many times in the past and by a wide variety of people, but they are worth repeating here.

  1. Jews regard themselves as “chosen”;
  2. This view of themselves as chosen is probably given added fuel by the fact that Jews dominate the banking and finance and media and entertainment sectors;
  3. Domination in these two sectors gives them, by way of extension, control over the politicians;
  4. Never before in history has one tiny ethnic group found itself with so much power;
  5. Jews, the ethnic group in question, obsess in a psychologically unhealthy manner over the holocaust;
  6. Obsessing over the holocaust can give rise to other pathologies, including the inability to self reflect and the tendency to see oneself as an “eternal victim”;
  7. Jews in Europe and America have promoted wars to benefit Israel;
  8. The power of the media to “demonize” this or that foreign leader (irregardless of facts) makes it relatively easy for them to get such wars started;
  9. The foreign leaders are generally accused of “killing their own people”;
  10. The wars that then are fought kill in large numbers the very same “people” the Jews initially expressed such concern for;
  11. Jews in Europe and America by and large advocate multiculturalism;
  12. In this they receive a lot of sympathetic support from the media;
  13. The same media portray as “racists” politicians who call for limits on immigration;
  14. By contrast, the media–owned by the same owners who support multiculturalism in the West–also support Israel, a country with elected leaders who are openly racist and whose policies are precisely the opposite of multiculturalism;
  15. Rising anti-Semitism among the public is the inevitable reaction to Jewish power and the hypocrisy and contradictions (and their often destructive results) in Jewish behavior.

It seems that Jews are in favor of “monolithic societies” as long as they are Jewish.

Let me return once more to the article by Rosenblatt. As I mentioned above, it seeks to address the issue of whether there is a “future” for Jews in Europe. On that question the author quotes Spectre as saying, “We have to be careful and strategic,” and then adds:

While Hungary, with its strong supremacist, nationalist government presents a threat, for instance, the German government is aggressive in its efforts to confront the anti-Jewish problem. Just last week the Conference of European Rabbis, meeting in Tbilisi, Georgia, urged governments across the continent to pass laws banning hate speech against Jews, as have France and Germany.

So let’s see…if Rosenblatt is correct, the rabbis are pushing for laws “banning hate speech against Jews” specifically. But what about hate speech against other groups of people? Apparently that’s not on the agenda.

Laws against hate speech, no matter who the speech is directed against, are a bad idea; they are nothing more than thinly disguised attacks upon free speech. I’ll go out on a limb here and venture a guess: the more such laws are promulgated, the greater the likelihood Rosenblatt’s “self-fulfilling prophecy” may come to pass.

Last year I wrote an article discussing attacks on the BDS movement in which I speculated that the motive behind these attacks may not be what it appears to be. Hate speech laws fall very much into the same category as legislative efforts targeting the BDS movement, and in my article I posed the hypothesis that such endeavors may intentionally be designed to increase rather than decrease anti-Semitism. Here in part is what I wrote:

One seemingly preferred method used by Jewish leaders to exert control over other Jews–and certainly one which Gentiles are more familiar with–is the strategy of instilling fear. And the fear button is especially manipulated to inculcate fears of rising anti-Semitism…

The right to call for a boycott is a free speech issue. And those seeking to implement penalties of this sort are in essence waging a war against the First Amendment. If there is any document the American people hold sacred and inviolable, it is the US Constitution (the Bible probably runs a very, very distant second), and if there is one part of the Constitution held as sacrosanct above all others, it is the First Amendment. Any attempt to curtail our free speech rights would be bound to elicit a visceral response from a large number of Americans.

So why would Israel supporters seek to impose such measures? Do they really believe it is going to stop the BDS movement? You could in fact argue, quite plausibly, that it will do just the opposite. Whenever a popular political movement encounters government repression, regardless of the country, the almost invariable result is that more people flock to join it. For government repression tends to legitimize social justice movements.

My guess is that the Jewish leaders pushing these initiatives have no realistic expectations of stopping the BDS movement. But the initiatives conveniently serve another purpose as well: they increase anti-Semitism. Attempts to curtail free speech in America will, as I say, trigger a visceral reaction, and if a particular group of people can be perceived as being behind such efforts, the resultant hostility will be directed at that group.

The article is entitled Synagogues and Prisons. The title is self explanatory. Jewish tribalism has in effect become a matrix in which ordinary, rank and file Jews are imprisoned. And maybe, I suggested, the time has come for a break. The greatest fear of Jewish leaders is the fear of Jews leaving the fold, so to speak–that is to say of shedding the chains of their societal reclusion and joining the rest of humanity.

Maybe, were that to come to pass, we would see far fewer Jews obsessing over the holocaust and campaigning for multiculturalism.

For Goy Hatred on Speed Please Subscribe to the Forward

August 24, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

The Jewish Forward calls Trump’s supporters a bunch of bullies and  losers

The Jewish Forward calls Trump’s supporters a bunch of bullies and  losers

By Gilad Atzmon

If you want to grasp the level of contempt American ‘progressive’ Jews hold towards their host nation all you have to do is subscribe to the Forward.

Jay Michaelson, a contributing editor for the kosher outlet, proclaims that Donald Trump is the candidate of “the losers.”

The fact that progressive Jews don’t like goyim, especially when they appear in white, is not new, but Michaelson takes Jewish bigotry to a new level.

“As is now well known,” Michelson writes, Trump’s “core supporters are white, undereducated men who have been left behind by technology, globalization and the attendant erosion of America’s manufacturing base. Moreover, their days of white supremacy are coming to a close, and they’re mad as hell about it.”

Why does it seem natural for a Jew to label about half of the American people as ‘white supremacist’ i.e., rabid racists.

Jay Michaelson:  Donald Trump is the candidate of the 'white undereducated' and the 'losers.'

Jay Michaelson:  Donald Trump is the candidate of the ‘white undereducated’ and the ‘losers.’

In case you failed to get the message, the Jewish writer reiterates for you:

“Trump’s supporters are the losers of the new economy on the one hand, and of multiculturalism on the other.”

Trump supporters, pretty much like Bernie Sanders’s betrayed followers, have one thing in common: they crave a radical change. They long for a productive America, a country with a prospect of hope and a future.  They reject the narrative offered by Wall Street’s oligarchy that America is committed to one thing; Mammon. Does this make Americans into losers? Apparently so, in the eyes of the New York Jewish writer.  

The Forward calls Trump’s supporters a bunch of ‘bullies.’ And the losers always become bullies. At this stage, Michaelson realises that he’s gone a bit too far. After all, a Jew throwing gruesome insults at most of the American people can lead to some tragic consequences. The ‘progressive’ editor backtracks a bit. He concedes that Jews are also losers, yet, unlike Trump supporters, Michaelson explains, in the Jewish cultural heritage Jewish losers always prevail: 

“Of course, in each case, the(Jewish) ‘loser’ wins, enacting ancient Israel’s fantasies of triumph.”

And if you want to know why the Jews think they are so good at spotting injustice, Michaelson has the answer.

“Along the way, these biblical stories also instill a keenly felt sense of the injustice of bullying.”

The kosher progressive kindly allows a narrow outlet for criticism of Jewish bad behaviour.

“Often the Jewish state is not so different from what Trump’s would be, particularly in the past few years, as ugly racism has become mainstreamed in Israeli society, as Islamophobic rhetoric insists that ‘they’ are unlike ‘us.’”

This is a typical Jewish progressive spin. Israel is not an occasional mirror of an imaginary Trump America, Israel and Zionism were racist and plunderous from the day of inception. The 1948 Nakba was a barbarian act against the indigenous Palestinians driven by racist ideology that is deeply rooted in Jewish culture.

The Holodomor, the systematic starvation of Ukraine was perpetrated by “Stalin’s willing executioners” as the Jewish historian Yuri Slezkin refers to Stalin’s Jews in his monumental book The Jewish Century.  The Israeli ultra Zionist writer Sever Plocker repeated this line in the Israeli outlet Ynet admitting, “we mustn’t forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish.”  In 1936, justice driven revolutionary Jews traveled to Spain to fight ‘Fascism’ by killing Catholics and burning their churches. It took us three quarters of a century to admit that three quarters of the Spanish International Brigade were Jewish volunteers and the Lingua Franca of the Brigade was Yiddish. Time to ask why these moral interventionists always happen to burn Churches and kill Goyim.  Is this their ultimate sense of Justice?

And what about the Neocon school, another Zionist ideological precept that has inflicted global disaster in the name of ‘moral interventionism.’ Also, consider Wilhelm Reich, Marcuse and the cultural Marxists who used their sexualised interpretation of ‘socialism’ to weaken the West and destroy the unity of the labour movement beyond repair.

Michaelson’s Jewish progressive propaganda is consciously misleading. It isn’t just recent Israeli politics that shows a small problem with the notion of ‘Jewish justice.’ We have suffered a century of global disasters. Many of them were and still are driven by Jewish ideologies and political practices. Bolshevism, Cultural Marxism, Ziocons, Zionism, Mammonism a la Soros et Goldman Sachs are just different horrid faces of one tribal supremacy – an ideology that refers to the goyim as a bunch of losers and ‘white supremacists’, as Michaelson does in his Forward article.

Let ‘s examine this progressive Pro-Palestine comment in light of Jewish supremacism: moderate and contained anti Zionism is a maneuver used by the Jewish Left as a diversion. Instead of examining the breadth of disastrous global activity by Soros, Goldman Sachs, Cultural Marxism, Bolshevism and Neocons, we are permitted limited criticism of Israeli politics. Why do they allow us to reproach Israel? Because they know that Israel can easily take it.

Michelson ends his Jewish self loving rant, writing

“Judaism is proudly the religion of losers. It is a faith, and now a culture, of people who remind themselves every year — every day, even — that they were slaves, that might doesn’t make right, and that while it is human nature for the weak to bully the weaker, it is our divine nature to rise above it.”

These words make clear why Michaelson is afraid of the so-called American ‘losers.’ He knows that people who are oppressed by Wall Street’s mammonism and tired of neocon wars may well rise like the Jews and in the name of Justice identify those who bully them for more than a while.  

I do not think that Trump is capable of leading such a move. But Michaelson knows enough Jewish history to gather that the conditions for America’s awakening are ripe.  In fact the rise of the Americans is overdue.   Michaelson knows that Justice may prevail and he is surely aware of the meaning it may carry for himself and his people whom he outrageously labels as of “divine nature.”

Brexit and Jewish Oligarchy

By Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday Britain voted to leave the EU. The causes of this result have been known for a while. More than half of the Brits are dismayed by the level of immigration, multiculturalism, lack of job opportunities, global capitalism, evaporation of manufacturing and a housing bubble that leaves most young Brits without the prospect of a decent future.

The Brexit was an outlet for these legitimate frustrations. Yet the problematic symptoms listed above have little to do with the EU or Brussels. Their root cause lies elsewhere.

Immigration and multiculturalism (that is; the ideology designed to suppress expression of chauvinism) are integral to cultural Marxist ideology. Britain, like the rest of the West, has been subject to an invasive and brutal paradigm designed to vitiate the working class. Flooding Britain with immigration was a conscious political act pushed by the Jewish left and the Jewish lobby. This is explainable. Jews have good reason to be fearful of the working classes. Historically, it has been the working classes that turned against the Jews. Breaking society into fragmented and diverse segments is transparently a Jewish left interest. When a society is broken into a manifold of tribes and identities, the Jews become merely one tribe amongst many.

I am an immigrant myself and not an anti immigration campaigner. However, at a certain stage in the early 2000s my eight piece Orient House Ensemble consisted of seven immigrants and one native Brit. We were Israelis, a Palestinian, a Romanian and a Moldovan. At the time our ensemble won every British musical award. We were a favourite of the BBC and the Guardian’s album of the year. We were heroes of multiculturalism and the symbol of a new ‘tolerant’ British society. The British Council sent us around the globe to promote those ideals. This didn’t last long. I quickly grasped the underlying agenda. As those who know me may expect, I didn’t keep my mouth shut.

Yesterday the Brits voted against immigration. But leaving the EU may not be the answer for their plight. Looking into the elements and ideologies that planted pro-immigration policies and multiculturalism may be the ultimate way forward.

The demography of the referendum suggests that it is primarily the British working people who want to leave the EU. In the last four decades they have watched manufacturing dying out. They saw an economic bubble that left many of them impoverished and off the property ladder. But it wasn’t really the EU that caused all of it and leaving the EU may not improve things. Milton Friedman, who taught ‘free market’ philosophy to Margaret Thatcher, never lived in Brussels. Friedman believed in the service economy. He also believed that capitalism wasn’t just a great idea, it was also very good for the Jews. Goldman Sachs, George Soros and others who fecklessly destroy one country after another are also not part of the Brussels Government. The British vote was actually a vote against Goldman Sachs, Soros, Friedman and cultural Marxism, but most of them do not know it yet.

Yesterday the Brits proved, once again, that they are a brave people. They made a decision that they understood could inflict some serious difficulties on their society. Knowing that, they marched into the Brexit with pride and I admire their courage.  The Brits voted against immigration, banksters, the global economy, the City and the two parties that have facilitated this disaster for decades.  However, the Brits failed to attack the root cause of the problem.  Leaving the EU is not going to emancipate them. For Jewish oligarchy, the Brexit is a red alert. ‘Hands off’ would be the most clever strategy. Can they follow this humble advice? I doubt it.

Most British Jews have little to do with it. Liam Fox and Michael Gove who were amongst the leaders of the call to leave, are notorious for being dedicated servants of the Jewish lobbies. The Jewish press was pretty quiet on the Brexit. And crucially, if British Jews had identified that the call to leave the EU was somehow related to Jewish power, Jewish Banking or Jewish Left pro immigration we would have seen the rapid formation of a “Jews for Brexit campaign.” This is what Jews do when they detect dissent to their political power, they immediately form the bodies that control the opposition.

Jewish Identity Vs. Humanism – Rich Forer interviewed by Gilad Atzmon

March 27, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

I have known Rich Forer for a few years, we have met several times and shared a platform more than once. Rich is the author of Breakthrough: Transforming Fear Into Compassion – A New Perspective on the Israel-Palestine Conflict?  Rich’s opposition to Zionism is universal and humanist in nature.

Recently, an interview with Rich was published by the Jewish Pro-Palestinian outlet, Mondoweiss.  I was impressed with many of Rich’s statements but thought that some of his ideas should be challenged. I believe that those who are interested in criticism of ID politics, Jewish culture and power may find this dialogue enlightening. 


Gilad Atzmon:  I’d like to congratulate you for your recent interview with Katie Miranda.

I have no doubt that your heart is in the right place and I welcome your criticism of Jewish Identity. But I also have some fundamental doubts about your thesis.

In the interview with Miranda you present a binary opposition between the ‘human’ and the ‘Jew.’  You write “If, for example, I define myself as a Jew first and a human being second I will possess anywhere between a subtle and a palpable emotional and intellectual bias that takes for granted that the collective Jewish worldview is superior to other worldviews. On the other hand, if I define myself as a human being first my identity as a Jew is less likely to be pathological.”

I would like to point out to you that the binary opposition you present above is in itself inherently Jewish. Ordinary people, gentiles, don’t ‘define’ themselves ‘as humans.’ Ordinary people know they are human and see no need to identify themselves as such. In other words, your presentation of a distinction between the ‘Jew’ and the ‘human’ suggests to me that you still think within fundamental Jewish categories. And if you cannot emancipate yourself from the Jewish identity complex, who can?


Rich Forer: It is nice to dialogue with you. In the interview I made a point of saying: “These psycho-spiritual roots affect all of us regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or ideology.”  So, I disagree that I am presenting “a binary opposition between the ‘human’ and the ‘Jew [my emphasis].’” What I am presenting is an understanding of how the universal dilemma of separation, arising out of the process of identification, affects all humans and how it can lead to immense suffering in the world.

This binary is not inherently Jewish, it is inherently human. Of course, it can manifest in unique ways depending on one’s culture, religion or other categories but there is no qualitative difference from one human to another in terms of the dilemma. To borrow Hindu and Buddhist terminology, the separation or differentiation of the world into self and other and the multitude of permutations that manifest from dualistic thinking is Maya or illusion.

In short, my thinking on this subject not only reflects emancipation from fundamental Jewish categories, it reflects emancipation from all categories that are based upon a presumption of a limited or exclusive identity.

Identification, the act of identifying, begins with the conception of self and other, which cannot be anything other than binary (I prefer “duality”) because, to the conceptual mind, everything falls into one of two categories: self and other; and both of these categories are in flux.


Gilad Atzmon: I am sorry to interject. It seems to me as if your terminology is vague. You say, “the act of identifying, begins with the conception of self and other,” surely what you mean is ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Identification encompasses the self’s craving for belonging and doesn’t act alone. But more important, following Hegel’s Master Slave dialectic (and Lacan’s Mirror Stage) we tend to believe that the relationships between the ‘self’ and the ‘other’ are not binary in nature but more of dynamic and dialectic.  For Hegel and Lacan our notion of ourselves is shaped by other’s recognition. This is not a binary relationship, it is actually symbiotic or do you disagree?


Rich Forer:  From my perspective, self and other is the foundation of dualistic thinking but I cannot say with complete certainty that my understanding is complete. In order to know for sure we have to fully intuit our earliest beginnings as human beings. However, my intuition is that self and other is the being’s innocent acceptance and modeling of a separate identity via its earliest relationships, prior to the development of the thinking mind.

The consciousness of us against them arises out of self and other and requires indoctrination and a thinking mind. I agree that self is shaped to an extent by the other’s recognition and that there is a symbiotic nature to this relationship. There has to be because in the most fundamental sense other is a reflection ofself.


Gilad Atzmon: Contemporary Jewish identity involves a certain element of binary qualities due to choseness. As we know, Jewish assimilation and secularization, starting in the 19th century, led to the evolution of a Jewish concept of biological exceptionalism that is racist in nature. The supremacy we detect in Jewish political discourse, both Zionist and so-called anti, points to an inclination towards a Jew/Goy ‘binarism.’


Rich Forer:  I agree that the supremacy in Jewish political discourse, Zionist and non-Zionist, points to an inclination towards ‘binarism.’ I would also say that the idea that “Choseness” conveys supremacy is, in my opinion, a perversion of original Jewish teachings. I agree that Jews (and many Christians who’ve also perverted their teachings) who actively participate in or passively defend Israel’s inhumane treatment of the “other” are guilty of a belief in Jewish exceptionalism, whether that belief is conscious or not. This is the predictable result of, allegedly, being chosen by God.

However, I never hear anyone ask the question, “If Jews are a chosen people, what are they chosen for?” The answer I have found in Jewish teachings is that Jews are chosen to bring blessing to the world, to make the world a “dwelling place” for the Divine. The Hebrew phrase for this is dirah betachtonim.  The consciousness of us against them has perverted this teaching and turned it into exceptionalism. I believe making a dwelling place for the Divine is what all humans, regardless of religion, are chosen for.

Gilad Atzmon: I agree. I also believe that the Judaic notion of choseness is less poisonous than the Jewish secular and political version of the word. And yet, when it comes to Judaism, I still wonder what kind of people invent a God that chooses them over all other people. 

Rich Forer: I agree that the Judaic notion of choseness is less poisonous than the secular. In support of that conclusion, Gershon Winkler, a Torah scholar and formerly an orthodox rabbi who now calls himself “flexidox,” told me that the Torah calls the Jewish people “A” chosen people, not “The” chosen people.

I’d like to add that growing up in the U.S., in synagogue I occasionally heard the phrase that Jews were God’s “chosen people” but there was no teaching or discussion of choseness and no mention of Jewish exceptionalism. If people developed a belief in Jewish exceptionalism it was either because of the pride they felt in the accomplishments of fellow Jews throughout the world or as a reaction to anti-Semitism, which made them retreat more devoutly into a Jewish identity. The former is very similar to the pride someone might feel because a beloved celebrity comes from their home town. I refer to this pride or inflation of self as consolation for the ego.


Gilad Atzmom: I am not so sure.  I wonder what is it that establishes a delusional continuum between Moishe from the corner shop and Spinoza or Einstein? Isn’t this a manifestation of the tribal fantasy of Jewish biologism – the belief in race or blood connection? This I what I refer to as choseness, and it is uniquely Jewish.


Rich Forer: Yes, “Jewish biologism” is a “tribal fantasy” and it has an influence in the collective Jewish mind. Earlier, you said that it evolved in the 19th Century. I suspect its evolution began much earlier as a survival mechanism and that its fuller expression flowered in the 19th century. Centuries have passed and survival is no longer an issue, yet the fantasy persists and has taken what I can only describe as a virulently self and other destructive turn.

I think we disagree on this but although I am not aware of choseness as a concept in Islam or Christianity, both religions see themselves as more blessed or less tainted than other religions and groups of people.



Gilad Atzmon:  It is possible that some Muslims and Christians may believe to be ‘more blessed than other people’, and yet, such a belief is spiritually driven rather than biologically oriented.  

I really appreciate and admire your emancipation in light of your personal history and affiliation with The Lobby. I wonder, do you think American Jews, who are considered the most privileged ethnic group in the USA, would consider relieving themselves of their exceptionalism? The facts suggest the opposite. Jewish power and identity politics is a snowball, it grows exponentially.  On the one hand you see PM Benjamin Netanyahu imposing himself on the congress, on the other hand you see the so-called good Jews, those who support the Palestinians doing very little but celebrating their affinity to purge culture in our midst. Is it really normal behavior?  Is this a universal tendency? Can you think of any other ethnic group in America that has followed a similar behavioral path?


Rich Forer: I seriously doubt that American Jews or any other privileged group would be willing to relieve themselves of exceptionalism. The ego easily becomes addicted to special privilege or status and always finds ways to justify that privilege. Over time this status is taken for granted so that the idea of giving it up is inconceivable. With regard to American Jews, this addiction, combined with fear of losing their privilege, especially in light of the Jewish people’s history of persecution, is, possibly, the greatest obstacle to peace and an acceptance of the Palestinian people as human and as inherently entitled to the same rights as anyone else.

Offhand I cannot think of another ethnic group in the U.S. that resembles this behavioral path, though I suspect others would be pleased to enjoy a similar status as American Jews, so I do see this tendency as universal. To clarify a bit, by “universal” I do not mean to suggest that every member of every group has a desire to acquire special privilege. Many people are humble and fair-minded. But there are always significant minorities in any group who do aspire to privilege. In the case of American Jews, the outrageous and dishonest hasbara that Israel and its lobbies in the U.S. continually disseminate finds its way into the minds of many people, depriving them of rational thinking while depriving the Palestinians of any chance for equal rights.


Gilad Atzmon: To take it further; I believe that such identity issues are primarily a Jewish secular symptom that emerged after assimilation.

In the late 19th century, it was only natural for Germans to become Germans and for the Italian to become Italians. It was far more complicated for German Jews to decide who they were.  That specific identity crisis is known as the ‘Jewish Question.’  Bolshevism and Zionism were attempts to solve the Jewish Identity crisis. Similarly ID politics, cultural Marxism and the orchestrated attempt to split Western society into ID groups are also Jewish progressive projects. Jewish intelligencia taught the West to think sectarian.  We learned to identify ourselves ‘as a..,’ ‘as a Jew,’ ‘as a Black,’ ‘as a Woman,’ ‘as Gay,’ etc. Rather than being united in our struggle for a better world, we ended up living in a society shredded by multiple identity synagogues. I am not sure that identity/identification is a universal or metaphysical feature. I think it is a contemporary cultural symptom and it is universally Jewish . I, for instance, have never identified ‘as a saxophonist.’ I am a saxophonist; I make a living playing the sax. I am pretty sure that my next door neighbor knows he is English, he doesn’t have to identify as such. And this brings us to the next question. Can you differentiate between identification and belonging?


Rich Forer: Gilad, I am not familiar enough with the history you cite to give a well-thought out answer to that part of your question. I think, though, that you and I use the word “identity” in different ways, which make it appear that we don’t agree, though we are probably in greater agreement than either one of us sometimes tends to think.

When I speak about identity I am speaking about a tendency that is latent within every individual from birth. I think you speak about identity more within an historical context and perspective.

Actually, I have always thought that we agreed about 90% of the time and that the 10% is more a result of unique perspectives than actual rejection of our respective points of view.

I agree with you that you are a saxophonist and do not need to identify yourself as one. I could say I am a Jew by birth but do not need to identify myself as one. However, I don’t think that is the case with most people who, in fact, are attached at a deep, deep level to their conception of self. If the ego or presumed identity is attached to a need to identify with something in order to boost its sense of self or to allay its fear of mortality, it may cling to the label “sax player.” By the same token it may also cling to, or attach itself to its apparent heritage as a Jew as a way of “belonging.”  That belonging provides a security blanket and the false sense that we are not alone, that we are part of a greater whole. This is paradoxical because in one sense we are all alone but in another sense we are a part of the greater whole. It is just that the greater whole we really are a part of is not a particular tribe, as distinguished from other tribes; it is all of humanity and, according to some spiritual realizers, all of life itself down to the smallest atom.


Gilad Atzmon: I understand why contemporary Jews are prone to ‘as a..’ identities.  Identification (and by that I mean all forms of identification) removes one from authenticity.  Even ‘identifying as a human.’  Rather than encountering the world authentically, identification imposes a mimicking mediating template as well as a layer of correctness.   Those who ‘identify as’ saxophonists are obviously insecure about their sax playing. They ask themselves what would Coltrane or Bird do on a given chord sequence. Similarly, Jews who identify ‘as human’ are insecure about their ‘humanity.’ They must be asking themselves what humanity entails or how humans are supposed to react in a given scenario. By doing so, they accept or admit being foreign to the human experience. Secular Jews are often obsessed with their Jewish identification because Jewishness is vague for them and yet they cling to it. I think that identity/identification and ID politics is primarily a Jewish discourse. Accordingly the dominance of ID politics is a symptom of Jewish power.

Interestingly enough, Zionism and Israel provide an answer to Jewish ID politics. Israel is telling the Diaspora Jew to stop talking ‘as a Jew,’ come over to Tel Aviv and ‘be one.’  The Scottish nationalists are selling similar products, when they tell their followers rather than talking ‘as Scots’ let’s ‘be Scots.’  Funny enough, ISIS is selling an identical product. Rather than talking ‘as a Muslim’, it offers young French and British Muslims the chance to be Muslims. It is interesting that the Zionist barbarian interpretation of Jewishness is vastly popular amongst Diaspora Jews, yet statistics suggest that ISIS’s brutal version of Islam is only accepted by a fraction of Muslims worldwide.

In short while ID politics robs the human subject of the authentic experience by means of mimicry, belonging, like the ‘dwelling’ is home.

I guess my final question to you is whether you agree that the rise of nationalism is an answer to invasive ID politics and multi culturalism? After all, Brits, Christians, Muslims, saxophonists, humans etc. do not have to identify at all. Within the nationalist context we are what we are rather than what we claim to mimic. We accept otherness because we know that to others we are ‘the other.’


Rich Forer: Your comment thatidentification removes one from authenticity and I mean all forms of identification. Even ‘identifying as a human.”  Rather than encountering the world authentically, identification imposes a mimicking mediating template as well as a layer of correctness” is an excellent understanding of the human dilemma. I see this dilemma as common to all of humanity and, although there are distinctions according to DNA, nationality, religion, ethnicity, the dilemma itself does not, in my opinion, differentiate among those characteristics.

Ordinary people do not “see the need to identify as humans,” but that doesn’t mean they are free of the dilemma of separation, which operates at all levels and is so ingrained within the mind that very few ever become conscious of it, let alone resolve it.

We all have many identities, but core identities are particularly problematic because we will defend them to the point of death. The irony is that what we are defending is an illusion. It is not who we really are.  Identities are borne of thought and exist in the mind, yet they influence our destinies and, collectively, the destiny of mankind.  Emancipation from identity and dualistic thinking confers the compassion and clarity necessary to recognize our common humanity with all people.

With regard to your question about nationalism, I consider it another separative ideology. However, if one understands that his nationality is secondary to his humanity then I have no problem with it.


Gilad Atzmon: Thanks so much for your time and energy. I guess that we have managed to complete a circle here. You landed back at your original position assuming that there is kind of an elementary hierarchy of identifications between humanity and Nationalism. I do not believe that this is the case. I believe that this form of binarism or even dualism is Jewish in nature. I prefer to see authentic existence as a dialectic continuum. I have argued all along that ID politics and Identification is a symptom of inauthenticity. However, I also think that the fact that we do not agree makes this discussion a fruitful and entertaining dialogue. I hope to continue this exchange in the near future.

Blair, Immigration, and the Betrayal of British Workers

February 28, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

According to The Daily Mail, PM Tony Blair conspired to flood Britain with immigrants in order to impose a multicultural society on the Brits. Yesterday, the paper published a chapter from Tom Bower’s explosive new biography of Tony Blair. The paper’s subtitle reads: “Conman Blair’s cynical conspiracy to deceive the British people and let in 2 million migrants against the rules.”

According to Bower, Blair secretly instructed ministers to waive tens of thousands of asylum seekers into the UK, by reclassifying them as ‘economic migrants.’ Blair planned to “change the face of Britain for ever with mass immigration.”  He ordered his Labour government never to discuss in public the supposed advantages of the unprecedented influx.

If Tom Bower’s account is correct then the criticism leveled by right wing ideologists and so-called ‘bigots’ against Labour and the left is valid. The Labour government that purported to care for the lower classes, implemented radical measures designed to destroy the cohesion of the working people and dismantle their political power.  Thanks to Blair and his Labour government, the British working classes have been reduced to a workless under-class!

Stephen Boys Smith, who was then head of the Home Office’s immigration directorate, said about Barbara Roche, a little-known Jewish MP who was immigration minister between 1999 and 2001: ‘It was clear that Roche wanted more immigrants to come to Britain. She didn’t see her job as controlling entry into Britain, but by looking at the wider picture in a “holistic way” she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society.’

According to the Mail, “Britain’s borders had been thrown open for ideological reasons.” And if this needs official confirmation, former Labour speechwriter Andrew Neither said the aim was to “rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

According to Bower, Blair thought that immigration was ‘good for Britain’ and his silence on immigration issues “encouraged Muslims and Hindus to believe there was no need for them to integrate with the rest of society.” Bower provides more evidence to support his claim.  ‘Why don’t we stipulate that immigrants must speak English before we grant them British nationality? To make British nationality a prize?’ suggested immigration chief, Tim Walker. ‘No,’ was Jack Straw’s reply. In public, Home Secretary Straw was keen to show he wasn’t an easy touch. There should be stronger controls at the borders, he told the Commons. Yet behind the scenes, he continued to make it easier for asylum seekers. And harder for (Home Office) officials.

This requires an explanation. Why did Blair, Straw, Roche and others go out of their way to suffocate Britain with economic immigrants?  Shouldn’t Left politicians focus on the interests of British workers? It is no secret that Left and Labour movement relationships with working people are problematic–it is dotted with mistrust. For some reason, the working class refuse to subscribe to ‘working class politics’, they tend to vote for the Tories. The worker is too often conservative, nationalist and patriotic, he and she are not as revolutionary as Marx and Trotsky suggested.  The worker reads The Sun and the Daily Mail. The worker is not very interested in The Guardian or the Miliband dynasty.  For the British lower classes the Union Jack is more meaningful than LGBT ideology, sectarian ID Political nonsense or Eric Hobsbawm’s ‘proletarian’ history. Working class people have no need to identify ‘as working people.’ They know who they are.

The story may be even more devastating. The Mail’s story suggests that at the time Blair & Co.  conspired to destroy Britain’s working class, the Labour Friends of Israel and Lord Levy were his prime funders. It is known that Jewish left and Jewish academia have been at the forefront of multi cultural and immigration advocacy (in spite of the fact that the Jewish State’s attitude towards immigrants is uniquely aggressive on the verge of barbarian). Like Labour, Jewish academia and the Jewish left are also suspicious of the ‘lower’ classes. After all, in the past it has been the working classes that have united against the Jews. Jewish lobbies have been supporting immigration and have historically joined forces with Left politicians. Officially this advocacy is accompanied by an ethical argument. There are strong ethical arguments in support of asylum seekers. But the argument in support of economic migration is political rather than moral or ethical.

In 2003 Tony Blair led Britain into a Ziocon criminal war at the same time that the Labour Friends of Israel were his prime funders and Lord Cashpoint Levywas his chief fundraiser. We may want to verify whether it was the LFI, Lord Cashpoint, Minister Barbara Roche and Jack Straw who led Britain into a multi cultural experiment together with Tony Blair. We may want to understand what exactly they had in mind. Did they try to save Britain or to weaken some elements within British society?

I admit that at the time that I became a British citizen, Blair was at the helm. I was hailed as one of the heroes of British multiculturalism: the Guardian of Judea praised my work and the British Council shipped my band and me around the world. Of course, it didn’t take me long to burn that bridge. All I had to do was relate what I thought of Blair and multiculturalism.

West’s Wars, Domestic Storms: Fascists, Terrorists, & “Multiculturalism”

February 25, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – The United States and Europe, along with many willing collaborators have waged a series of wars and proxy wars stretching across much of Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia.

What the West was pursuing in reordering the post-Soviet world through conventional military means in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq beginning in 2003, it continued through somewhat less-conventional means – the so-called “Arab Spring” and the series of proxy wars that erupted afterward beginning in 2011.

Today, Western-fueled wars continue to consume Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, while violence and political instability plague other nations the West has either recently meddled in or is currently occupying or undermining.

France alone – in addition to conducting military operations in Libya in 2011, and currently carrying out military operations in Syria and Iraq – has troops stationed in African nations including the Central African Republic (2,000), Chad (950), Ivory Coast (450), Djibouti (2,470), Gabon (1,000), Mali (2,000), and Senegal (430).

Eritrea and Somalia during this 15 year period have been subjected to invasions from neighboring Ethiopia – who despite being plagued by widespread poverty – has been the benefactor of US military support and encouraged to carry out proxy war upon its neighbors not unlike Saudi Arabia is now doing in Yemen.

Predictably, the result is an arc of chaos stretching halfway around the world. Also predictably, from this arc of chaos refugees flee, and they are fleeing to Europe, the only place they can go to escape the chaos.

For Africa, perhaps the most ironic aspect of the current refugee crisis besetting Europe is the fact that Libya – whom Europe conspired to destroy – had been absorbing refugees from across Africa for years, putting them to work and giving them a stable nation to live their lives in. When Libya was set upon by the US and Europe in 2011, it was predicted that Libya would go from serving as a destination for refugees, to a gateway for them, onward to Europe. And that is precisely what has happened.

Europe Created the Refugees, Europe Must Take Responsibility for Them 

Without doubt, along with the US and many others, Europe is responsible for the refugee crisis. Every nation that voted for or contributed military assets to operations across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia are directly responsible for the subsequent instability that has inevitably followed.

It was in “humanitarianism” that the West justified these wars, and now that is time to provide humanitarian assistance to refugees created by these same wars, there is now inexplicably a debate on whether or not to render aid, and to what degree.

Citing international law is moot, since one would have expected international law to have made the extraterritorial aggression that precipitated this refugee crisis in the first place an impossible proposition. But the inescapable question remains – if Europe is not to take in the refugees its own wars created, nor will its collaborators – the US, Turkey, Israel, and the Persian Gulf – who should?

Turning a Crisis into Chaos 

Tens of thousands of people flooding from a trans-regional conflagration into Europe will inevitably create tension. Systems must absorb a growing number of people who need to be fed, clothed, housed, cared for medically, and eventually educated and put to work. Under the best circumstances with a reasonable and honest government, it would be a challenge. Considering that those charged with managing the crisis were those directly responsible for creating it, ensures that a manageable crisis turns to greater chaos.

Turning this crisis cynically into chaos requires three ingredients:

Fascists: First, the US and Europe have invested heavily in the spreading of “Islamophobia” in the wake of September 11, 2001, to help fuel the endless wars subsequently predicated on the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Groups like the English Defense League (EDL), and the more recent “Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West” (PEGIDA) have sprung out of and have since been supported by the very engineers of the wars driving people from their countries into Europe. Ironically, this “War on Terrorism” was being waged by armies of terrorists these very same interests along with their Saudi partners were arming and funding for decades.

The EDL and PEGIDA deal in the worst sort of disinformation, lumping the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims into a single group they claim is set on “Islamizing” the planet. For the average EDL or PEGIDA member, it doesn’t matter to them that if even 1% of the world’s Muslims were violent extremists, that would constitute an army 10 million strong that would have long already “Islamized” them.

When torrents of refugees began flooding into Europe, in a climate of fear and ignorance carefully and methodically constructed over the past 15 years, it doesn’t take much to convince EDL and PEGIDA followers that the “invasion” had begun.

Terrorists: The second ingredient is extremists. The United States, Europe, and its Turkish and Persian Gulf allies have invested for decades in creating terrorist groups to both act as a proxy mercenary force abroad and a means of violent, coercive fear inducement at home. Through a concerted campaign by the media, these extremists are lumped in together with the refugees – and Western intelligence agencies may even be literally lumping them into camps and enclaves springing up all across Europe.

For those that doubt this, reports of “mosques” featuring “imams” supporting the so-called “Islamic State” and even recruiting fighters from across Europe to join the fight in Syria should be of particular interest. Especially when these same “mosques” are revealed to be working with the police and government to manage these fighters when they return as was the case with one notorious “mosque” in Denmark.

The Local DK would report in an article titled, “Danish mosque doubles down on Isis support,” that:

“We want the Islamic State to come out on top. We want an Islamic state in the world,” the mosque’s chairman, Oussama El-Saadi, said in the DR programme. 

El-Saadi also said that he views Denmark’s participation in the US-led battle against Syria as a direct affront not only to his mosque but to all Muslims. 

“The war is against Islam,” he said.

Paradoxically, a man who should by all accounts be arrested and removed from society for providing support for a listed terrorist organization was later revealed to be the centerpiece of a Danish program rolled out to handle returning ISIS fighters from Syria. Der Spiegel’s article, “Community Response: A Danish Answer to Radical Jihad,” would report:

Commissioner Aarslev says he is proud of what they have thus far achieved, though he never forgets to praise his people and the others involved in the program. He is particularly effusive when speaking of one man: a bearded Salafist who is head of the Grimhøjvej Mosque in Aarhus, where many of the young men who left Aarhus to join the war in Syria were regulars. It’s leader is a man named Oussama El Saadi….

…these two men have joined forces in a project that is seeking to find answers to questions that are plaguing the entire continent of Europe: What can be done about radical returnees from Syria? What measures are available to counter the terror which once again seems to be threatening the West closer to home?

El Saadi role is threefold. He intentionally feeds into the narratives of the EDL and PEGIDA, fills the ranks of the West’s terrorists forces abroad, and serves as a handler for them when they return home, with a deadly array of skills and connections which can be leveraged to further inflame existing tensions inherent with any influx of refugees.

Multiculturalism: The third and final ingredient is the West’s version of “multiculturalism.” Like terrorism and far-right extremism, the same special interests have also invested in an army of NGOs to prop up their own take on what should be a fairly straightforward concept.

Far from anything resembling impartial mutual respect for other people’s race, religion, and culture, under a singular national identity, it is instead the intentional, selective, and cynically manipulative use of culture, lending it primacy not only over national identity and the rule of law, but over the cultures of others whenever and wherever convenient.

This way, those cultural characteristics found as most disruptive can be intentionally placed ahead of those that are most stabilizing and constructive, at the expense of other people’s lives and liberty. It is done intentionally to breed a sense of privilege and animosity among different cultures, races, and religions, and has historically been an integral part of any ‘divide and conquer’ stratagem.

Together, this trifecta works with devastating efficiency, turning what is already a crisis of Europe’s own creation, into chaos – chaos that can be wielded to suit the special interests behind this trifecta.

From Chaos, to Crisis, to Stability 

Throughout human history, huge numbers of refugees and migrants have been absorbed into nations not only with success, but to the benefit of those who made genuine efforts to absorb these influxes. For Europe, doing likewise will be difficult but is not impossible, but several matters must be addressed.

1. End the Wars: Even under ideal conditions, the refugee crisis would be difficult to manage. As long as Europe wages or backs wars around the world, this crisis will not only continue, it will only get worse. Even as European leaders pose as victims amid their own self-made catastrophe, they are still pushing for war in Syria, allowing Saudi Arabia with absolutely impunity to destroy neighboring Yemen, and occupying with their military forces a large number of foreign nations.

Ending the wars and allowing these nations to rebuild in their own way is the only way the current deluge will be stayed. Obstructing Syrian and Russian forces in the restoration of peace and order in Syria is an indictment of the lack of sincerity expressed by European leaders regarding humanitarian concerns and more specifically their refugee crisis they are attempting sidestep.

2. Humanize the Refugees: To truly protect the refugees, they must be given an identity. Calling them “refugees” rather than humanizing them, and recognizing them not only as an “influx,” but as individuals, denies those that both created this crisis and seek to exploit it the opportunity to collectivize the influx and thus collectivize responsibility for when anyone amongst this influx commits a crime or is even baselessly accused of doing so.

For many Europeans, they cannot distinguish the difference between Shia’a and Sunni, let alone understand how Wahhabism is neither. Many cannot even distinguish the difference between Sikhs and Muslims in most cases. This ignorance is the swamp within which racism and bigotry breed. Draining this swamp is essential. Rather than attacking the most extreme and immovable edifices leading the EDL and PEGDIA in the streets, appealing to and educating the silent majority as to who is really in these camps will make it ever so much clearer who is creating trouble among a very small minority, and who came to Europe and is prepared to live within the rules to build a new future.

Pretending that out of tens of thousands of refugees no where will there be found a criminal element denies the realities of human nature itself – and by collectivizing the refugees in this matter, we aid those who seek to exploit this crisis in collectivizing responsibly among all refugees when one does ill. Assigning characteristics, good or bad, to any group is the very definition of bigotry. If one doesn’t want it wielded against the refugees, they must not wield it in their defense.

3. Reclaim Multiculturalism: Russian President Vladimir Putin himself would say in a piece titled, “Russia: The Ethnicity Issue,” that:

Any individual living in this country [Russia] should be keenly aware of their faith and ethnicity. But above all they must be citizens of Russia – and be proud of it. No one has the right to place ethnic and religious concerns above state law. The law, however, must take account of ethnic and religious concerns. 

President Putin claims this is demonstrated in Russia. In Singapore, it is also the definition of multiculturalism. For Singaporeans who range from Muslims to Christians, from Buddhists to Hindus and secular, they are all first and foremost Singaporeans. Their national identity is defined by universal ideas like meritocracy, professionalism, excellence in education, and hard work. They provide mutual respect for one another’s cultures, faiths, and beliefs, neither asking to be spared from those of others, nor being forced to abandon their own. What results is distinctively different cultures and religions working together under a singular identity as Singaporeans.

The abuse of multiculturalism takes this concept and twists it. Like an imperial viceroy ruling over a colony intentionally showing favor for one tribe over all others to intentionally bait the others into attacking the former, Western “multiculturalism” is really the playing off of one culture against another – keeping all of them weak, and with mutual respect erased entirely from the equation.

Moving beyond the false ‘left-right’ pro- and anti-multiculturalism narrative, it must instead be redefined and taken back. When those defending the refugees are able to delineate between real refugees and their religion and culture, versus Western-created cartoon characters like “Imam” Oussama El Saadi and the perversions he passes off as religion and culture, the majority in the middle gravitating toward PEGIDA will finally have a rational alternative to turn to.

4. Integrate the Refugees: Leaving the refugees segregated and in legal and socioeconomic limbo ensures only further tension and incidents. Integrating them into society and allowing them to begin rebuilding their lives must take precedence above all else. In the unlikely event that Europe and its allies cease hostilities across the globe and withdraw their troops and proxies from the many nations they are now destroying and undermining, resources can then be invested in helping these people return home.

The refugees are capable and willing to work, like the many millions already doing so across Europe from over the decades and even centuries. They will become an asset to Europe and the economic threat they pose to Europeans will not exist if afforded equal protection under the law on the streets, at school, and especially at work. Additionally, by integrating them socioeconomically, they begin the process of assimilation.

Europeans who fear their nations will be changed by this influx of refugees are at least partially right. Europe will change. After all, a nation’s current state is but an amalgamation of its history. Part of that history for Europe is invading and destroying the nations of other peoples, faiths, and cultures, leaving them with no alternative but to follow the trail their futures were stolen down. The refugees will change Europe precisely because Europe has changed the nations the refugees are fleeing.

Cause, for better or worse, and effect, for better or worse, but inescapable.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.  

%d bloggers like this: