The Waves of Time

JANUARY 19, 2019

The Waves of Time

by Jimmie Moglia for The Saker Blog

That all the world is a stage and all men and women merely players is a familiar and generally accepted proposition. But many, prompted by curiosity and helped by new information previously unknown or uneasily available, would like to know more about the play they are the unwitting players thereof.

Which transforms the frame of mind of the curious into that of a historian. In turn, this exposes him to the immediate problem of interpretation. Interpretation of the historical facts themselves, often accompanied by a likely change of his worldview, following the discovery of new facts. For historians themselves can modify their views, when forced by the train of circumstances.

Here is an example. Friedrich Meinecke was an eminent German historian, with an unusually long life span, during which a series of revolutionary and extraordinary changes affected the fortunes of Germany. His books reflect four different Meinecke(s), each the spokesman of different times, and each speaking through one of his major works.

In his first, “World Citizenship and the Nation State,” published in 1907, Meinecke sees the embodiment of German national ideals in Bismarck’s Reich. And like many 19th and 20th century thinkers, he identifies nationalism with the highest form of universalism.

Here is dramatic evidence of the revolution of the times. In the parlance of current Western European & American elites, nationalism, rather than a higher form of universalism, is labeled as ‘fascism’ or ‘racism’. And since the characterization is ludicrous, a new word has been coined, ‘populism’, to demean and disgrace the idea.

In his second book, “The Idea of the Raison d’Etat,” (published in 1925), Meinecke speaks with the divided and bewildered mind of an observer of the Weimar Republic – where the world of politics has become an arena of unresolved conflict between the reason-of-state and morality. Morality, of itself, seems external to politics, but in the last resort it affects the life and security of any state. For morality is written in the human heart, even of those who hold it in contempt.

To frame the issues in today’s terms, since the end, in the 1950s, of the “Legion of Decency” act in American Cinema,” Hollywood’s productions have set the standard, planted the roots and sowed the of seeds of shame and iniquity, in just about all domains of collective and personal behavior.

In the Weimar Republic, as we know, it was the state of universal degradation, promoted, inculcated and imposed upon Germany after her defeat in WW1, that prompted the birth and growth of National Socialism.

In his “Development of Historicism” (published in 1936), Meinecke laments the idea of a certain view of history, which seems to recognize that whatever is, is right.

In our days, examples of this ‘historicism’ are many, from the totally unbelievable official explanation of 9/11, to the physical destruction of the Middle East, the ongoing farce in Ukraine, the grotesque Russophobia, the idea that Western European and North-American states can exist without borders, and so on.

Finally, in 1946, after seeing his country defeated and leveled to the ground, he published “The German Catastrophe,” where he exposes the belief that history is at the mercy of blind and inexorable forces.

That the times we live-in weigh on our thoughts and judgment is as obvious as saying that a great cause of the night is lack of the sun. Nevertheless, our individual evolving point of view also influences the selection of the facts needed to produce an acceptable explanation of causes and effects, or of causes and defects as the case may be.

That is, the historian and the facts of history are necessary to one another. For a historian without his facts is futile; and facts without a historian are dead and meaningless.

Finally – and I hope the strenuous reader will forgive the long preamble, though I hope there is method in the meandering – not all facts are historical. History begins when the historian selects certain facts and declares them endowed with historical value.

But the distinction between historical and unhistorical facts is not rigid or constant. Any fact may become historical, once its relevance and significance is recognized. If so, that fact generates its own historical wave, whose effects may be felt after a long time and with enormous power, unimaginable when the fact occurred.

In nature an analogy is the tsunami, where, at the point of origin, the waves are only about 3 feet high. But travelling at incredible speed across incredible distances, they finally release their apocalyptic energy on touching land.

As someone ‘curious about history’ and not a professional historian, I experienced a change of outlook on historical events when the United States declared war on Iraq and destroyed it. For I knew the country well and I could personally attest that all that was said about Iraq by the organs of mass persuasion, was false. And while accepting the inherent murkiness of politics, I could not reconcile myself to the idea that the two Bushes, one of whom is dead, could be some of the lyingest knaves in Christendom.

As it is universally accepted, the US destroyed Iraq to satisfy Israel’s ambitions. And given that curiosity is the mother of explanation, I took up the doubtful challenge of locating the original historical fact, the trigger and the source of the wave-of-time, which eventually led to the Iraqi Armageddon and beyond.

In this and similar instances, opinion reigns supreme. Other ‘curious about history’ may choose another episode or fact, and with good reason. But sometimes, lesser-known events, singularly representative of the reality and culture of an era, can offer a perspective different from the conventional and usual narratives.

In the instance, I pinpoint the source of the topic wave-of-time in Napoleon’s emancipation of the Jews in France, following the French Revolution.

Actually, already in 1791, in the midst of the Revolution, the National Assembly had granted Jews full citizenship. It was hoped that, by so doing, Jews would stop acting like a separate nation within France. But soon there were complaints that the Jews were stuck in their old ways, particularly in Alsace and Lorraine, where their majority lived. Their ‘old ways’ referred to usury, or, as we would say today ‘financial engineering’, or ‘banking shenanigans’.

The situation remained fluid and uncertain till Napoleon, converted from a servant of the Republic into an Emperor, convened, in 1807, what he called the Great Sanhedrin, to resolve the controversial issues arisen from the emancipation. The Great Sanhedrin refers to the governing body of the Jewish community, notably during the Roman Empire.

To a council of 71 Jewish leaders and rabbis, Napoleon posed 12 questions about their laws and customs. Some questions were amusing – for example, were Jews allowed to have more than one wife? The main issue, however, was whether Jews born in France, and now treated by law as citizens, would regard France as their country. They answered that there was nothing inherent in their religion preventing the full integration of the Jewish community into French life. This was enough to confirm their full recognition and emancipation, along with an obligation to take up French names.

Perhaps Napoleon ignored that if a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a Shylock, by any other name would still call for his pound of flesh.

In fact, there was immediate widespread opposition to the move, in French-ruled Europe and in France itself. Even one of Napoleon’s famous generals, Francois Christophe de Kellerman, whose name is inscribed in the Arc de Triomphe, recommended strongly that the Jews be prohibited from dealing in commerce.

With easy hindsight, Napoleon, like all who like to anticipate futurity and exalt possibility to certainty, might or should have avoided this adventure, so linked to chance. For, in this and other similar instances, disappointment must always be proportionate to the breath of the original hopes.

The pressure became so intense that soon Napoleon restricted the terms of emancipation, via the so-called “Infamous Decree” of 1808. The decree annulled, reduced or postponed all debts with Jews, and imposed a ten-year ban on any kind of Jewish money-lending activity.

As an aside, the official public face of a notable politician or ruler, often conflicts with his private persona, as seen in his diaries or confidential papers. In a letter to his brother Jérome Napoleon, dated 6 March 1808, Napoleon writes, “I have undertaken to reform the Jews, but I have not endeavored to draw more of them into my realm. Far from that, I have avoided doing anything which could show any esteem for the most despicable of mankind.”

“Give me ten thousand eyes, and I will fill them with prophetic tears” – said Cassandra predicting the fall of Troy. The most Cassandra-like admonition given to Napoleon came from his uncle, Cardinal Fesh, who told him, “Sire, by giving the Jews equality as Catholics, you wish for the end of the world to come.”

But the onrush of events, including Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, inaugurated a new era. When an atheistic ideology, molded in the Age of Enlightenment, and strengthened by the impact of the French Revolution, took hold and spread at large throughout Europe.

For the 19th century saw an upsurge of anti-clerical movements and ideologies in the Western world. This is not a wholesale defense of organized religion. Nevertheless, religion also acts as a bulwark of the moral law. And irrespective of specific customs or ceremonies, religion – without disrespect – is metaphysics for the people, an intelligible intimation of eternity, an unthreatening glimpse of the infinity, a psychological safeguard from the despair of mortality.

In this context, it is not accidental that the rebirth of Russia, earlier ravaged, debased and plundered by the dissolvers of the Soviet Union, has seen the resurgence of her religion, which was dormant but never died.

Compare this with America, with her enforced and compulsive secularization, the banning of religion in schools and the prohibition of public display of religious symbols.

But I digress. Let’s return to the subject at hand. After 1815, Jewish supremacy, especially in the banking field, asserted itself in Europe, spearheaded by the ubiquitous House of the Rothschilds. In the second part of the century, England even had a Jewish Prime Minister, Disraeli.

During that time, with a pronouncement that today seems impossible, the Vatican declared that any country that abolishes the Christian religion will be run by Jews.

It’s worth transcribing an extract from a 1890 issue of “Civilta’ Cattolica,” the key media organ of the Jesuits and the Vatican,

“The XIXth century will end, in Europe, leaving her in the throngs of a very sad issue, of which the XXth century will feel consequences so calamitous, as to induce her (Europe) to drastically deal with it. We refer to the improperly-called “Semitic Question,” that more accurately should be called “Judaic Question” – which is connected via an intimate link, to the economic, moral, political and religious conditions of Europe.

How fervid at present and how much this question perturbs the major nations, is manifest by the common cry against the invasion by Jews in all spheres of public and social life; by the leagues formed to slow its advance in France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Russia, Rumania and elsewhere. By the calls for action in various Parliaments – by the large number of newspaper articles, books and pamphlets that are constantly printed, all showing the need to stem the growth of this plague, and to combat it, showing evidence of its very pernicious consequences….

Naively, some try to show that the ”Judaic Question” is the result of a (Christian) hatred of the (Judaic) religion or sect. Mosaism (read ‘religion inspired by Moses) in itself could not be an argument for hatred…. for it was the antecedent of Christianity… But for centuries Judaism has turned its back on Mosaism, exchanging it with the Talmud, quintessence of that pharisaism, many times blasted by Christ…. And although Talmudism is an integral element of the Jewish question, we cannot say that (Talmudism) is all that relevant to it (Judaic question). For in Talmudism the Christian nations detest not so much the theological part, almost reduced to insignificance, but the moral one, that contradicts the elementary principles of natural ethics…. “

Incidentally, and as another aside, it is customary to describe the roots of European culture as “Judeo-Christian.” Many contend that a better description would be the “Greek-Christian” tradition, as certain important tenets of Christianity are actually derived from Plato. For example, he suggested that a trinity of forces shapes the cosmos and he struggled with the idea of a Being, purely incorporeal, executing a perfect model of the universe and molding with his hand what was but a rude chaos of random forces.

As an explanation, or at least a theory, Plato considered the divine nature of the universe under three modifications. There was indeed a first cause, the Reason or Logos, the soul of the universe, along with three subdivisions.

Readers may recall the beginning of St. John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” where ‘word’ is an imperfect and narrow translation of the Greek ‘logos.’ For one of the meanings of ‘logos’ is indeed ‘word’, but not with sense that we usually attribute to it. A better translation could possibly be, “In the beginning was the Reason of the Universe.”

Plato conceived of 3 original principles, incorporated in the Logos, different, but linked to each other by a mysterious generation.

The important point is that the mystical and mysterious concept of the Trinity is the Christian rendering of Plato’s idea. The Trinity may still remain mysterious, but at least the mind can understand a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit, better than Plato’s more symbolic rendering.

Back to the main subject. During the early XXth century three events, distinct but important affected the wave-of-time begun with Napoleon.

One was the establishment of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in 1913 – at first in America but now practically extended and enforced worldwide.

In fairness to its founders and all subsequent members, it should really have been called the ‘Jewish Anti Defamation League.’ Though by astutely avoiding the qualifying adjective, ‘ADL’ suggests impartiality, thus evading suspicion among the majority of the gentiles, who rarely or superficially follow the details of political events and institutions.

The actual purpose of the now ubiquitous and wealthy ADL was and is to aggressively prevent any criticism of Zionism and Israel, by crushing the critics, destroying their career, often depriving them of a livelihood and even removing them from the Congress or the Senate.

Observers may have noticed that when the Prime Minister of Israel addresses a US joint session of Senate and Congress, he routinely receives a record number of standing ovations. And, after an ovation, no one wants to be the first to sit down – presumably but also probably – for fear of being suspected of weaker Pro-Zionist sentiments.

Readers familiar with the Communist world will easily detect the stunning similarities between the new-speak of Communist Eastern Europe and ADL’s new-speak and thought-crime – in America but also in Europe and the English-speaking world at large.

As an example, in December 2018, the owner of a pleasant yet unostentatious house in the Italian provincial city of Aosta, installed a metal gate at the end of his driveway. The gate carried a decorative wrought-iron winged eagle, reminiscent of a National Socialist emblem, though without a swastika or other disturbing symbols.

But it was enough for a rabbi in Turin, 100 km away (and presumably a member of a local ADL chapter), to have a judge issue a search warrant and dispatch the Italian police to execute it against the shocked, bewildered and disbelieving house-dweller.

The police carried a thorough search of the premises, removed his computer, various personal effects and books from his library. In the end all the ‘incriminating’ evidence they found – besides the eagle on the gate – consisted of some books about the history of WW2.

Curiously, the event leading to the founding of the ADL had nothing to do with defamation and all to do with the sexual assault and murder of Mary Phagan, a 13-year old girl in Atlanta, Georgia. Mary worked for the National Pencil Company, and in May 1913 went to her place of work to collect her $1.20 earnings from the company superintendent Leo Frank. She was never seen again. Her body was later found in the basement of the company, mutilated, bruised and with her undergarments torn off. She had been strangled and Frank was the most likely suspect.

At the trial, Frank pleaded innocent and declared himself a victim of hate. But after a thorough investigation, Frank was found guilty. That is when Adolf Kraus, president of the Jewish-American order of B’nai B’rith founded the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. Its charter reads:

“The immediate object of the league is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.”

Sometime later the outgoing governor of Georgia commuted the sentence from death by hanging to life imprisonment. But the leaders of the town were enraged by what they rated a corruption of justice. They dragged Frank from the courthouse and hanged him.

Ever since, Leo Frank is viewed by the ADL as a kind of patron saint; a man whose death serves as a reminder of the depths of depravity to which men can sink when in the grip of xenophobic hatred.

Today, as universally acknowledged, the ADL is the lay arm of the Zionist inquisition and a patently obvious instrument for censorship and the abolition of free speech.

The second momentous event I referred to was the publishing of the so-called Scofield Reference Bible. Which is a Bible annotated by Cyrus Scofield, a man of questionable background though an able manipulator of souls and money.

Scofield and his Bible are responsible for the birth and expansion of Christian Zionism. If there was ever a contradiction in terms, Christian Zionism is one. It created a class of unpaid and obedient political eunuchs at the service of the Zionist state.

Specific and central to Christian Zionist belief is Skofield’s comment on Genesis 12:3 (the words in Italics are the comment). ‘I will bless them that bless thee.’ In fulfillment closely related to the next clause, ‘And curse him that curseth thee.’ Wonderfully fulfilled in the history of the dispersion. It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Jew—well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle.

Though a struggling born-again preacher, Scofield became a member of the exclusive New York ‘s Lotus Club, where he was befriended by the Wall Street lawyer Samuel Untermeyer. Untermeyer was instrumental in having Scofield’s annotated bible published.

In Scofield’s biography, written by Joseph Canfield, we read that Scofield’s theology was “most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the international interest in one of Untermeyer’s projects—the Zionist Movement.”

Israel holds the Christian Zionists in utter contempt. The Talmud considers Christ a heretic boiling in excrement for eternity, and his mother a whore. Jehovah allows goys to exist so as to be like donkeys in the service of the chosen people.

But according to Fundamentalist preaching, at some unspecified time in the future, there will be what they call a ‘rapture,’ during which the Messiah will return to earth and all Jews will convert to Christianity.

If Fundamentalism were played on a stage it would be condemned as improbable fiction. Even Greek-Roman paganism contains more truth than Fundamentalism and its absurd ‘dispensations,’ as they define their ranting.

For the extravagance of the Grecian mythology proclaimed clearly that the inquirer, instead of being scandalized or satisfied with the literal sense, should diligently explore the occult wisdom, which had been disguised, by the prudence of antiquity, under the mask of myth and the display of follies practiced by the quizzical dynasty of the Olympian Gods.

The Fundamentalists are a large congregation. Israel supplies their leaders with money, endowments and private planes, while feeding and securing their lavish lifestyle.

The third event, whose momentousness and importance is gradually being recognized, was Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi’s launching of the plan for the creation of the European Union, with extraordinary, new and revolutionary characteristics.

He was the son of the Austrian Ambassador to Japan, Heinrich Coudenhove-Kalergi, who was also a great friend of Theodore Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism.

In the 1920s Heinrich’s son, Richard Kalergi, published a few books, the most important of which is “Praktischer Idealismus,” never, as far as I know, printed in English. The book is important because what Kalergi prophesied, promoted and predicted about the fate of Europe is occurring under our own eyes.

Kalergi envisioned a unified Europe, invaded by Africans, who would miscegenate with Europeans, creating a new negroid population, similar in appearance to the characters depicted on the inside walls of Egyptians pyramids and tombs. Ruling over them would be a class of “the best of the Jews” some of whom would intermarry with the best of the European nobility.

In his autobiography Kalergi states that when his book was printed, it came to the attention of the Jewish banker Schiff, who along with the American Jewish banker Warburg generously financed him to carry out his plan. From then on Kalergi would undertake a massive lobbying operation, which – temporarily halted during WW2 – was restarted immediately afterwards.

An Italian history professor, Matteo Simonetti, has published a very interesting book, titled “Kalergi, La Prossima Scomparsa Degli Europei” (Kalergi, The Forthcoming Disappearance of the Europeans) – available at Amazon. In his book, Prof. Simonetti included the most critical pages of Praktischer Idealismus translated from the German. What transpires is even worse than the disappearance of the Europeans.

I quote directly from the translation. At pages 21-22-23 of Praktischer Idealismus we find that “the future race, negroid-caucasian will be composed by people without character, without scruples, weak in their will, without respect (for one another) and untrustworthy. The new race will replace the multiplicity of people with a multiplicity of individuals.”

As for the ruling Jews, Kalergi describes them as “close in blood”, whose “strength of character and sharpness of spirit” predestines them to become “the race of (the new) Europe’s spiritual leaders,“ the “carriers of the nobility of spirit,”…. endowed of superior intelligence, a race of lords (Herrenrasse)… the chosen people (pages 28, 33, 49-51 in the original German book).

But it gets worse. The only free marital union will apply to “the most noble of men and women.” Inferior men and women will mate with their societal equivalent. The “erotic style” of the lower classes will be casual mating. Only the upper classes will enjoy the free formation of families.

The new cultivated nobility of the future will emerge from the divine laws of erotic eugenics. “It is here, in social eugenism, where the new nobility will achieve its historical mission of excellence” (pages 55-57).

The new miscegenated race of the lower classes will live in “factory-cities,” where the factory will be the new “cathedral of work”, the center and object of devotion of the new race of miscegenated goys (page 110).

As for the elimination of genders, Kalergi hints at the formation of a Brave-New-World society. “Today men of both sexes (sic) command political and economic power. The emancipation of woman is but the triumph of the feminine man over the real feminine woman. With the emancipation, the feminine sex is mobilized for a technical war and regimented into the army of labor.” (page 119)

As for democracy, Kalergi says it is an instrument to be discarded, as soon as the new Jewish nobility will be established and in charge. (page 36).

In summary, there we have it – the predicted apocalyptic end of the tsunami – helped and driven by the ADL (at work to criminalize free speech), the fundamentalists (a docile army of spiritual eunuchs in the service of Israel), and the Kalergi Plan (a Europe of Negroids ruled over by Jews).

As universally acknowledged, Jewish elites and politicians are at the forefront of the push for illegal immigration and the abolition of borders, worldwide.

And the Left, deprived of its reference class, the proletariat, has made of the migrants a sort of fig leaf to prove that they still side with the weak. Indeed, migrants are the new proletariat, because their identity (or consciousness thereof) is not here, but elsewhere. But the original inhabitants of the poorer districts of Europe and elsewhere have the right not to be uprooted from their customs by a culturally heterogeneous immigration. The migrants do not reside in London’s Chelsea, New York’s Upper East Side or the posh districts of other cities. Nor they steal the jobs of bank managers and corporate directors.

The chosen elites have decided that people are ugly, dirty, bad and xenophobic because they do not want to accept migrants by the millions. But it is the people who bear the weight of immigration and the loss of manual work.

During the latter years of neo-liberalism and turbo-capitalism, the cultural devaluation of labor has been possible thanks to the reserve army made up of migrants. It is logical that the chosen elites favor immigration. It frees them from relocating in the cesspits of despair, by bringing cesspits and despair to the ugly and xenophobic locals, along with the prospect of a Kalergi-type future.

We cannot know precisely how far the wave-of-time, traced back to Napoleon, has travelled towards its end. For the laws of probability, true in general, fail in the details. But given the essentially unchallenged progress of the wave, I doubt whether the collective consciousness of the European peoples will wake up and prompt them to react effectively in self-defense.

Until historically recently, the Catholic Church provided protection. It preached and prohibited violence against the chosen people, but expected them not to corrupt the culture of the host nation. And she gave them the option of conversion. By converting to Christianity, all true or pretended forms of discrimination would be instantly removed.

But the Catholic Church has lost power and unity. In recent Catholic pronouncements, it is even stated that Jews no longer need to convert to be “saved.” And in current religious ceremonies the brethren are invited to “pray for our elder brothers in the Abrahamic religion.”

Therefore, given that time comes stealing by night and day, I must reluctantly observe that the very shortness of time and the failure of hope will tinge with a deeper shade of brown the evening of our current historical times, and the last act of the play performed on the current historical stage.

Advertisements

With Regard to War, Trump Doesn’t Talk the Talk or Walk the Walk

With Regard to War, Trump Doesn’t Talk the Talk or Walk the Walk

WAYNE MADSEN | 18.11.2018 |

With Regard to War, Trump Doesn’t Talk the Talk or Walk the Walk

Last week, Donald Trump disgraced himself before his French hosts, US and Allied military veterans, and the entire world by remaining inside the residence of the US ambassador to France and snubbing a memorial service for US dead in World War I.

Donald Trump, who is undoubtedly the least intelligent man to ever occupy the White House, failed to understand the importance of the 100th centenary observations in France held to mark the armistice that concluded World War I. At the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918, the guns along the Western front in France fell silent. The war was entirely preventable but had been spurred on by nationalist fervor whipped up by kings, emperors, prime ministers, and foreign ministers who sent armies into battle to fight for the “honor” of their nations.

It was unbridled nationalism that led to World War I and it was nationalist feelings bent on revenge for being vanquished in World War I that ultimately led to World War II. Left unchecked, similar nationalist feelings being fanned today may lead to World War III.

The irony of World War I was that the monarchs of warring parties Britain, Russia, and Germany were all related. King George V of the United Kingdom was the first cousin of German Kaiser Wilhelm. King George and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia were also first cousins. And the Tsar and Kaiser were third cousins. Nevertheless, the nationalistic passions between Germany and its ally, the Austro-Hungarian Empire of the Habsburgs; Serbia and its protectors Russia and France; and the Ottoman Empire, allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary; and the United Kingdom, later allied with the United States led to the first modern world war.

In 1914, the ground was set for a conflagration. All that was needed to set off the tinderbox was a flame. That match was struck in 1914 when Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg throne, and his wife, Duchess Sophie of Hohenberg, were assassinated in Sarajevo, in Austrian-ruled Bosnia, by a Serbian nationalist named Gavrilo Princip. Austria-Hungary not only blamed Serbia and a Serb terrorist group, the Black Hand, for carrying out the assassination but also implicated the Russian military attaché’s office in Belgrade, Serbia. Accusations that Serbia and Russia were behind the assassinations of the Archduke and Duchess were unfounded. Nevertheless, this “conspiracy theory” of 1914 eventually led to the direct deaths of almost 20 million people around the world. Add the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, which is believed to have been spread by troops returning home from the war fronts, and the indirect war dead count climbs to an additional 100 million.

Compare the Sarajevo conspiracy theory of 1914 to several that exist today, including accusations that Russia perpetrated biological warfare attacks on individuals in England and that Russian forces shot down Malaysian Airlines flight 17 over Ukraine, and we see the same irresponsible allegations about state-sponsored acts of violence that triggered World War I. In 1914, warfare led to the use of chemical and, quite possibly, biological weapons. World War II, the cause of which is nested in World War I’s aftermath, led to the use of nuclear weapons. It is unthinkable what a World War III might lead to.

Since Russia was Serbia’s patron, the Austro-Hungarians believed Serbia’s protector, Russia, and even Romania were behind the assassination plot. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Since Russia and France were pledged to defend Serbia, they declared war on Austria-Hungary, prompting Germany to honor its alliance with the Habsburgs and declare war on Serbia, Russia, and France. Eventually, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Greece, and Britain entered the war in an alliance with Russia and France. The Ottoman Empire backed the Central Powers of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Bulgaria. The United States entered the war in 1917 on the side of Britain and France.

For all the warring parties, “the other” meant their “nefarious” enemies. Extreme nationalism took an ugly turn. For the Austrians and Germans, “the other” was the “barbaric” Slavs. For the British, French, Russians, Italians, and, eventually, the Americans, “the other” was the “beastly” Germanic “Huns.” For the Ottoman Turks, “the other” was the nomadic, “uncivilized,” and “cruel” Arabs. The Greeks and Serbs, “the other” was the Ottomans Muslim “hordes” ready to re-occupy the Balkans and eradicate Christianity. And, so it went, until over 18 million military and civilian personnel were killed. World War I was the result of blaming “the other” for whatever atrocity could be conjured up by the propaganda machinery of the era. It was a case of extreme nationalism running rampant. At the end of the conflict, the royal houses of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire fell, but the nationalistic blame game continued.

Aspirant peoples, with nationalism as their trumpet, rose from the battlefields of World War I to demand independence. Some of these nations, including Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia), were recognized at Versailles. Others, like Kurdistan, the Emirate of Darfur, the Dervish State of Somaliland, Tuareg Confederation, Zayan Confederation of the Berbers, the Emirate of Jabal Shammar (moderate rivals of the Saudis), Balochistan, and Vietnam, were not granted independence, a decision that would lead to war outbreaks later in the 20th century.

At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, statesmen, including US President Woodrow Wilson, gathered to draw new borders, grant aspirant nations their independence, and establish an international body – the League of Nations – to serve as a place for dialogue to prevent war. However, the Treaty of Versailles also, inadvertently, laid the ground for World War II. Wilson could never convince the isolationist “America Firsters” in the Republican Party to commit the United States to membership of the League of Nations. America’s absence from the League denied the organization the universality it desired. Today, President Donald Trump is ripping up treaty after treaty, withdrawing from various United Nations agencies and agreements, and sending troops to the US southern border to meet a bogus threat that Central American asylum seekers are planning an “invasion” of the United States. Trump, who fancies himself as an American “nationalist,” has seen “the other” in women and children escaping political violence and economic stagnation in countries where dictators and death squads are propped up by the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency.

Brutal reparations demanded from Germany by the victorious Allies at Versailles, as well as German disarmament, gave rise to someone who would blame “the other” for Germany’s miseries, which were accentuated by the economic depression of the 1920s.

For Adolf Hitler, a wounded veteran of the “war to end all wars,” “the other” was the “Jews,” aided and abetted by Bolsheviks and “international bankers.” Hitler blamed them all for Germany’s surrender in World War I and its subsequent economic collapse. The world failed to learn the lessons of World War I.

At a ceremony at the Arc de Triomphe in Paris to mark the 1918 armistice, French President Emmanuel Macron told the collected world leaders, including an uncomfortable Trump, that “patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.” Macron hosted a November 11-13 Paris Peace Forum for 84 world leaders in Paris for the World War I centenary. They included Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, British Prime Minister Theresa May, Moroccan King Mohammed VI, Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The forum’s itinerary, including a keynote speech by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, touched on topics ranging from climate change and rising nationalism to abusive corporations and human rights.

In addition to skipping a ceremony at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery outside of Paris, where the remains of thousands of American soldiers who died at the Battle of Belleau Wood are buried, Trump boycotted the Paris Peace Forum.

Trump, like the doomed monarchs of early 20th century Europe, the fascist dictators who rose to power in the interbellum period, and the tyrants of today, blames “the other” for everything he can imagine.

Trump wanted nothing to do with the Paris Peace Forum. His former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, is finalizing plans, along with Belgian, French, German, Austrian, Brazilian, British, white South African and Rhodesian, Hungarian, Serbian, Canadian, Australian, and fascisti Italian far-right wingers, to establish a Fascist International, called “The Movement,” in Brussels early next year. It is among these far-right wing politicians where Trump will feel most at home. One hundred years after the end of World War I, we should all have progressed to a point where we no longer pay heed to the Trumps, Bannons, and others who find always find blame in “the other.”

حزبان يتزاملان الطريق… وحزب ثالث

نوفمبر 17, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– في هذه الأيام يحتفل حزب البعث العربي الاشتراكي في سورية بذكرى إعادة التأسيس التي تمثلها الحركة التصحيحية التي قادها الرئيس الراحل حافظ الأسد، وأرست لسورية قواعد القوة والحضور التي خاضت بها حروبها وانتصرت، ولا زالت تنتصر، ويحتفل الحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي بذكرى تأسيس الحزب على يد الزعيم الراحل أنطون سعادة. وهذا التزامن الذي قد يبدو مجرد مصادفة بلا معنى يستحق التوقف أمامها، يصير له معنى ونكهة خاصة عندما نرى الحزبين اللذين تنافسا وتخاصما لعقود بعد تأسيسهما، قد تصالحا وترافقا الطريق وتزاملا بعد إعادة التأسيس التي قادها الرئيس حافظ الأسد لحزب البعث، والمراجعات التي أجراها القوميون لكثير من محطات تتصل بتصويب موقعهم في جبهات الصراع منذ رحيل المؤسس أنطون سعاده.

– جوهر ما جمع الحزبين كان ما هو جوهر عقيدتيهما، حشد طاقة الأمة نحو بوصلة الصراع الوجودي الذي يمثله التحدي الصهيوني التقسيمي والعدواني، ولا مشكلة في أن يرى القوميون الأمة بحدود سورية التاريخية وهي القاعدة الجغرافية والتاريخية التي يعتبرها البعث نواة النهضة العربية، كما لا مشكلة في أن يرى البعث الأمة بحدود ما بين المحيط والخليج وهو ما يعتبره السوريون القوميون الاجتماعيون وفقاً لنظرية مؤسس حزبهم سعاده إطاراً لا غنى عنه لتنسيق وتكامل استراتيجي في المدى الحيوي للأمة السورية. وكان هذا الجوهر للتلاقي المستمر والمتواصل في مسيرة الحزبين، رغم تجمّد بعض الحزبيين هنا وهناك على نكء نقاش عبثي حول قضايا عقائدية في زمن امتزجت فيه دماء البعثيين والقوميين في معارك الدفاع عن سورية بمثل ما سبق وامتزجت في معارك المقاومة والدفاع عن لبنان.

– في منتصف الطريق تلاقى الحزبان مع حزب ثالث يقود مسيرة المقاومة اليوم هو حزب الله، الذي يحمل نظرية الأمة الإسلامية، ولم يفسد الخلاف في الودّ قضية. فالحزب الثالث، الأول في المقاومة حول التلاقي إلى عقيدة، عندما استبدل معادلة العمل الحزبي القائمة على وحدة الهوية وتعدّد الأهداف بمعادلة وحدة الهدف والهويات المتعددة، فكان أمينه العام أول من إبتكر مصطلح الأمتين العربية والإسلامية، فيما كان الإسلاميون والعروبيون يقتتلون لنصف قرن تحت عنوان أمة عربية أم أمة إسلامية، وحول حزب الله هذا المفهوم العملي والنظري للتلاقي إلى نظرية كاملة، بتمييز الإسلام المقاوم عن الإسلام التكفيري الذي تموضع في المشروع المناهض للأمة سواء كانت سورية أم عربية أم إسلامية، فنشأت جبهة مقاومة قومية إسلامية عالمية، في مواجهة جبهة موازية تضم عرباً ومسلمين ولبنانيين وسوريين، وتقف واشنطن على خط نهايتها، ويختصر التهاون مع خطر الاحتلال جوهر هويتها، وصولاً إلى الاستعداد بالتصريح والتلميح للتعاون مع كيان الاحتلال.

– الجيش العقائدي الذي صنع النصر في سورية هو جيش البعث، وحزب الله الذي شارك في صناعة النصر السوري وصنع النصر المقاوم في لبنان هو حزب العقيدة الإسلامية، والحزب السوري القومي الإجتماعي الذي شارك في صناعات الانتصارات وقدّم التضحيات في كل الجبهات هو حزب عقيدة سعاده القائمة على الإيمان بالأمة السورية وأهليتها للوحدة وقدرتها على الانتصار، وقد جمعتهم بوصلة واحدة حاضرة بقوة في كل مفردة هي فلسطين.

– الاحتفال في هذه الأيام هو احتفال لفلسطين بوصلة لا تعدّل وجهتها قوة.

 

مقالات مشابهة

Questioning Jewish Progressive Wisdom

November 02, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

 There is an element of truth in the above…

There is an element of truth in the above…

By Gilad Atzmon

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

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

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

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

According to the Forward one sign read,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Ryan Dawson and Gilad Atzmon on Palestine and the rest of Us

October 15, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

In this extended discussion Ryan Dawson and yours truly delve into the Jerusalemisation of our universe. We identify that which sustains tyranny of correctness, the Zionification of our politics and even the elements that control the opposition and suppress a prospect of a better future.

Gilad Atzmon on Syria, Palestine and the Current Dystopia

April 14, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

I had an incredible time yesterday talking to Jason Liosatos. We spoke about the current Dystopia, tyranny of correctness, ID nonsense, the Ziocon war mongers and their service providers in Britain, USA and France. Truth doesn’t need a movement it needs to be explored!

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

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto,

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

The Banality of Good pt. 7: Global Tribes vs. National Pride

February 05, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

If global capitalism is a problem, we may have to consider the idea that equality within borders is a possible answer.

If global capitalism is a problem, we may have to consider the idea that equality within borders is a possible answer.

Global Tribes vs. National Pride

Clara:   I have just been reading a Canadian Jewish news bulletin and all the tribal features are there: the community life with kosher catering, the private Sunday schools with their curriculum of Jewish culture, Judaism and the Holocaust, the comment on why we shouldn’t sympathize with Palestinian children and the trip for adolescents to Israel where each of them is supposed to find out ‘what Israel means to me’.

In my opinion one of the flaws of biologically oriented identity politics is the belief that ‘the differences between the respective identity groups are bigger than the differences within the group’ as the ‘Saker’ defines ‘racism’. I am not sure that supporting Israel’s politics is really in the best interests of all the Canadian (US-American, British or German) Jews or even in the best interests of the Israelis themselves. But as members of the tribe they are all on board of the same ship.

Is that what you mean when you argue that identity politics are a tool of globalization and that  the ‘identitarian tribes’ are used to support Neocon / Zionist policies?

Gilad: It is actually simpler than that. The emergence of more and more ghetto walls between us the people dismantles our ability to fight for our universal needs, let alone see the universal for what it is. In the name of diversity, we create a fragmented human landscape that is blinded to its fragments.  This tribal construct is indeed ideal environment for Neocons, mammonites as well as our compromised politicians.

Clara:   In ‘The wandering who’ you write that compassion has evaporated in Jewish thinking. I often feel it is the same in Germany: we do not sympathise with the Greek people and their poverty in connection with the introduction of the Euro, we think they ought to be punished for ‘being lazy, living above their means and not doing their homework’. The same goes for the poor in our country. And we mourn the victims of terrorism in Germany and France but we are not really interested in the terror victims in St Petersburg, Beirut or the terrible suffering in Yemen. And the one time our politicians seemed to show compassion by opening the borders for refugees, the many Germans who, like myself, welcomed that chance had to realize the double standards which were behind it: supporting the wars and economic policies that caused people to leave their homes and not adequately addressing the social and security problems the influx of refugees caused at home.  

Does this lack of compassion have to do with the ‘incapability of mourning one’s own fate’ we mentioned in the beginning of our conversation and which seems to be a common feature in Jewish and German mainstream thinking?

Gilad: The lack of compassion is a symptom of chosenness and exceptionalism . Chosenness and exceptionalism are indeed attached to Jewishness but not only. It is hardly a secret that the selfish manner of thinking is embedded in capitalist thinking. The next question you may want to ask yourself is what is the connection between Jewish culture and capitalism. This is obviously a loaded question that has many answers. Marx believed that the two were intrinsically tied. Werner Sombart agreed with Marx. Max Weber didn’t.  My point, as always, is that we must be able to discuss these matters in the open.

Clara:   I agree, and it is actually a kind of selective compassion with double standards. But there is also the aspect of collectively getting stuck in the victimized self-image connected with identitarian world views.
Anyway, let’s be a bit more specific here. In a talk you gave in Berlin you said that for example the international feminist movement was used to promote wars for the rights of Muslim women. And just recently Angela Jolie posed for NATO exactly for that reason. You also gave the example of gay rights. When it comes to attacking Russia, gay activists from many countries show their concern about gay rights there. So we are led from one fragmented campaign to the other and forget about more important issues.

But what is the alternative? In that talk you seemed to argue that we should return to think in terms of national interests instead. You seem to want to replace the concept of ‘identitarian tribes’ by returning to the idea of strong national states and fixed borders. Isn’t that a very dangerous right-wing concept? Doesn’t that lead to new chauvinism, the persecution of ethnic minorities and more?

Gilad:  This is a good question. To start with, I am not a political activist. I do not offer solutions or alternatives. As mentioned before, I am a philosopher, I am refining questions rather than repeating readymade answers.  I indeed often argue that if global capitalism is a problem (and it is a problem), we may have to consider the idea that equality within borders is a possible answer. Now, let’s talk about Nationalism and National States. I contend that Nationalism isn’t necessarily a problem unless celebrated on the expense of others. In the 1940’s people and nations were minced in the name of lebensraum, in the Neocon dominated global universe we do the same in the name of Coca-Cola, Gay-Rights and fake democracy. I argue, therefore that ethical thinking which is basically an Athenian aspired domain is the remedy.   

Clara:   If there is a definition of left wing, it is concern for social issues and anti-imperialism. Many people argue that politics addressing these issues need a strong national state, i.e. Bill Mitchell  (fiscal policies), Paul Steinhardt (social welfare policies – paywall) and Professor Michael Hartman (national elites are still strong). While others advocate ‘more EU’ to address social issues on an international level, these people claim that such a project is bound to fail, even if tried which currently is not really the case; the EU is not a social project. The right wing parties want ‘less EU’ as well, but tend to support neo-liberal policies.
But again – slippery grounds – people quickly ‘stone you’ when you start talking about the role of the national state. When Sarah Wagenknecht from the Left Party criticized Merkel’s open-border policy, she was accused of socializing with the right-wingers from AfD.

Often accusations of working together with right-wing people (Nazis!) replace an open exchange of argument. I think this is a dangerous development.

Gilad: Again, you are pointing at the Jerusalemite tendency, that tyranny of correctness that dictates a manner of speech, a pattern of ‘correct’ thinking, newspeak. Orwell recognized that that tendency is inherent to Left politics which is fascinating considering the Athenian dialectic nature of Marx thinking. We are living in an upside down world –The anti Fascist are often intrinsically fascists. The anti Zionists are mostly AZZ (Anti Zionist Zionists) and the Athenians who see it all are castigated subject to constant abuse. Yet, the people are not buying into that reality. Brexit proves that Brits want to see a change. Trump won because Americans are frustrated (surely, they are more frustrated now).  Far from being surprising the popularity of Corbyn in Britain and Sanders in the USA can be realised as a similar symptom of frustration with the current identitarian dystopia. Both leaders are nostalgic anti identiatrian characters.  The meaning of it is simple. We are moving into a realm that transcends beyond left/right banal binary. To be in time is to grasp the post political condition.

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

cover bit small.jpg
%d bloggers like this: