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”.  

Racist talk from France’s Cukierman intended to cause conflict between religious groups

French Jewish Leader Slammed for Saying Young Muslims Cause ‘All Violence’ – See more at: http://www.vtjp.org/boycott/#sthash.pebDk6uF.dpuf

Roger Cukierman Called Barrier To Interfaith Dialogue

A row broke out on Monday between leaders of France’s Jewish and Muslim communities after the former said young Muslims were the cause of all violent crime, prompting the Muslim group to boycott a prominent Jewish event.

Roger Cukierman

getty images
Roger Cukierman

The comments by the head of the CRIF Jewish umbrella group came just hours before President Francois Hollande was due to give a speech at its annual dinner, which typically draws leaders of all major religions as well as politicians.

They rekindled tensions in a country which is home to Europe’s largest Jewish and Muslim minorities, weeks after political leaders called for a spirit of ‘national unity’ in response to a series of attacks by Islamist militants that killed 17 people and three attackers.

“We need to say things clearly: all violence today is committed by young Muslims,” Roger Cukierman told Europe 1 radio. “Of course, it’s a tiny minority of the Muslim community and Muslims are the first victims.”

Cukierman had been asked whether the far-right National Front party bore any responsibility for anti-Semitic acts. Five minors were arrested last week for having damaged hundreds of tombs earlier this month in a Jewish cemetery in eastern France.

“I think that all of us in the Jewish world are aware that behind (National Front leader) Marine Le Pen – who is blameless on a personal level – there are all the Holocaust deniers,” he said.

Muslim advocacy groups have reported a rise in Islamophobic acts, including vandalism on mosques, after the January attacks at the Charlie Hebdo satirical weekly and a kosher supermarket on the edge of Paris.

The CFCM Muslim umbrella group condemned Cukierman’s comments in a statement as “irresponsible and unacceptable” and said it would not attend its dinner.

“I don’t think Mr. Cukierman is someone who will contribute to us all living together peacefully,” Abdallah Zekri, head of a CRIF department that tracks Islamophobic incidents, told BFMTV television.

Cukierman told French media later that he was disappointed that the CFCM would not be attending, though he did not address his earlier comments directly.

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/215326/french-jewish-leader-slammed-for-saying-young-musl/#ixzz3SeUIS1dF

 

 

Domination Strategies of the Anglo-Zionist Empire

The psychopathic quest for total world domination by what some (e.g., the Saker) call “the Anglo-Zionist Empire” and many others “the American Empire,” involves establishing global hegemony by any means: endless wars and coups d’etat, economic warfare (ruinous trade pacts, blockades and sanctions), financial terrorism (debt enslavement,currency manipulation),  or threats thereof.

The Anglo-Zionist campaign for global hegemony currently unfolding in the world (the Middle East, Far East Asia, Africa, South America and the Pacific limitrophe states, and around Russia’s borders) is described and analyzed in Michel Chossudovky’s excellent exposé called The Globalization of War. Nevertheless  it is true, as Lasse Wilhelmson remarked in a comment, that Chossudovsky  “forgot something, and that is to name those in control of the US.”

Lasse is right. This reminds me of the old Soviet joke in which the interrogator tells the arrested man,”We have information that last night at the pub you insulted the Beloved Leader repeatedly calling him The Pig.” “No, comrade,” pleads the frightened man. “I was talking about a neighbor of mine.”

“Stop lying,” says the interrogator, “we all know who the The Pig is!”

At least Chossudovsky, unlike the kosherized “left,” does not misidentify who is in control of the US, he does not peddle the “white race” hasbara. Chossudovsky’s analysis is excellent, his alarm call is well justified, and we all know who The Pig is. Well, maybe not all of us, so for this I agree with Lasse that there is room for improved precision in this exposé.

The twin companions of these “procedural” domination strategies are the “cognitive” strategies aimed at achieving an ideological makeover: imposing upon the nations in their dominion unquestioning acceptance of the Orwellian doctrine of Upside Down (“patas para arriba” per Galeano and Salbuchi) morality, according to which unprovoked wars are “humanitarian interventions,” state terrorism is “the war on terror,” genocidal massacres are “our right to defend ourselves,” unchecked immigration is “multiculturalism” (while resistance to it is “racism” or “fascism”), subversion to undermine and destroy national culture, religion and traditions and rewrite history is enlightened “secularism” (while resistance is “bigotry” and “anti-semitism”  — the apex of all thought crimes).

The pockets of resistance to the official narrative, the opposition to thought control seen only in the alternative media, are to be neutralized by “gatekeeping.”

A gatekeeper’s mission is to block the political discourse from veering into forbidden territory, thus controlling and rigging the game. The mission demands that the gatekeeper stay inside the perimeter and be credible.

What happens, however, when the public awareness surges against the gate and threatens to topple it? Some things need to be abandoned, sacrificed, like continuing to deny the existence of the Jewish lobby, about which the don of gatekeeping, Chomsky, once said that it is no more powerful than the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). That gatepost has been moved: it is OK to admit and even criticize the Jewish lobby a bit. Just so it is done with “balance,” like for example claiming that the Saudi lobby is far more dangerous to the US than the Jewish lobby (per Michael Scheuer).

The war on Iraq, ardently pushed and supported by the neocons, is another gatepost that has been moved. It is Ok now to say it was a “mistake” (mainly due to faulty/misunderstood intelligence) and to add that you are “anti-war” or a “non-interventionist.”

It’s a little like when your house is on fire: you gather only the most valuable possessions and get out. Efficient gatekeeping means grabbing the Holocaust and 9/11 (the core taboos) and moving the gateposts. The gatekeeper who moves the posts gets to continue his role inside the perimeter and gets increased credibility: he is the hero who boldly walked into the enlarged territory of dissent.

Michael Scheuer is such a heroic gatekeeper, who boldly moves a few gateposts. But who is he?

Scheuer has had a 22-year career with the CIA during which which working in both the Directorate of Intelligence (DI) and the Directorate of Operations (DO) — thus acquiring a vast experience in both “procedural” and “cognitive” strategies. During this time he was Chief of the CIA’s “Osama bin Laden unit” at the Counterterrorist Center.

David Cohen, head of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, wanted to create a unit that “would fuse intelligence disciplines into one office—operations, analysis, signals intercepts, overhead photography and so on” (per wikipedia). He recruited Michael Scheuer, an analyst then running the CTC’s Islamic Extremist Branch who was “especially knowledgeable about Afghanistan.” Scheuer must have become emotionally attached to his mission since he codenamed the Bin Ladin unit the “Alec Station,” after his own son’s name.

Scheuer is considered “the foremost expert on Osama Bin Laden.” One might say he is to Bin Laden  what Homer is to the Iliad (not discounting nevertheless the accretions contributed in both cases by anonymous bards reciting the myth). So imagine his discomfiture when competing narratives emerged, exalting Zacarias Moussaoui as the “mastermind of 9/11.”

He resigned from the CIA at the end of 2004 (three years after Bin Laden died) but he has kept busy, not only as a professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies, author of acclaimed books (“Imperial Hubris”), and analyst on CNN and other TV channels, but also as a defender of Bin Laden’s (for lack of a better word) legacy, steadfastly maintaining that 9/11 was Bin Laden’s masterwork, in essence “blowback” for our foreign policy in the ME that has enraged the Muslims.

In what can only be seen as a touching gesture of gratitude and reciprocal favor, Bin Laden majestically rose from the dead in 2007 not only to read Scheuer’s book, Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America, but to also allegedly release a video in which he said:

“If you want to understand what’s going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard.”[We only have an illegible transcript of it but it’s good enough for me.]

A blurb to kill for. Speaking of killing, Scheuer warned us that,

‘The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda….These people are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States, and we’re going to have absolutely nothing to respond against.”[“Marching toward Hell,” p XIII]

He is an acerbic critic of Obama, a weak leader unable to do what is needed, namely tofully use the might of the US military to stamp the Islamic terrorism for good. Appreciated by ardent zionist Bill Maher, he espoused his views on his shows as an invited guest.

So what gateposts did he move as a gatekeeper?

— Yes, there really is a Jewish lobby but oy, watch the Saudis…

Scheuer said to NPR that “They [Mearsheimer and Walt] should be credited for the courage they have had to actually present a paper on the subject. I hope they move on and do the Saudi lobby, which is probably more dangerous to the United States than the Israeli lobby.””[31]

— The US must “dump” Israel because it is its support of Israel that has caused all of the “blowback” from the Muslim world. Why, that was a big post to move. Our attitude to Israel, however, must not be one of condemnation but of a sort of indifferent equanimity because… America comes first (play the Stars and Stripes for Ever here).

— They don’t “hate us for our values”, Scheuer says, moving another gatepost 2 cm farther, closer to the one about the “blowback,” but for our interventions  and wars in which we don’t even have the resolve to defeat Islam and defend the American people: “air power is nothing,” full military power must be applied.

— We must stop “sending our kids to die so Mr Mohamed can vote in a free election” and then turn around and become a Jihaddist. (Apparently our wars are not all for Israel and oil but also out of our sincere but naive altruistic desire to bring democracy to the Muslims. No more, America must come first.)

— We must also know that “there is a growing Islamic terrorist movement” afoot, which is “an existential threat to the US.” We must stop supporting Israel (this must be repeated because it is a great credential builder in gatekeeping), and we must also end our dependence on ME oil (start drilling offshore vigorously to spite the jihaddists).

— “Kill as many of them (‘Islamic terrorists’) as possible,” he says to Bill Maher. Presumably his non-interventionism and anti-war stance has its limits, he being a red-blooded American and all.

— The Islamic terrorists are our creation, he says. No, not as you think, by arming, training and directing them, but by our support of Israel that has enraged them — he cannot stress it enough — which engendered the blowback thing.

— The worst part is not that we intervened but that we did it indecisively: we withdrew from Afghanistan and left it in the hands of Jihaddists and now we have Obama who is not mensch enough to “fully use our military force” and just plays with drones.

Watch him and spot his gatekeeping footwork in the video entitled:

Michael Scheuer: “ISIS Could Not Ask For Any Greater Gift Than The One Obama’s Giving Them”

Play Hatikva now.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

%d bloggers like this: