US Protests: Why the uneasy silence?

US Protests: Why the uneasy silence?

June 04, 2020

by Ken Leslie for The Saker Blog

Note: I appreciate that some will find the essay controversial or even uncomfortable reading. I hope though that it can destroy the paralysing trope of Soros bad – everybody else good.

I’d very much like to thank The Saker for deeming this essay good enough to publish. Like many others, I have been engrossed in the mayhem unfolding in the United States over the last week or so. I have felt a sense of relief and hope in what I see as the beginning of the end of the United States as a fundamentally fascist quasi-empire whose criminal record in terms of destruction of innocent lives and countries after 1945 is unparalleled (according to some estimates, 30 million people and 56 countries respectively—highly likely more). More important, I have been heartened by the sense that a new, different America might be possible.

This is not the place to elaborate on why and how the USA arrived at a point at which, many people sense, a restoration of its former power and status is impossible. Here, I want to address something that I have found quite strange, namely, the muted if not completely inimical reaction in many alternative (particularly pro-Russian) media to this momentous event. Here, I will briefly comment on some of the relevant points but will avoid dealing with political and tactical reasons for such a reaction.

1. Why destroy a great country over one dead black man—he was passing a fake cheque!

The country as it is needs to end and be replaced by something else—hopefully better. It was built on a massive genocide of the indigenous human and buffalo populations (despite what some revisionists claim). It was built on the sweat of the black, Chinese and other sources of slave or near-slave labour. It achieved its acme at a time when the rest of the world was laid low by the ravages of war. Since the end of WWII, it has leveraged the disgusting, anti-Christian and anti-human myth of exceptionality to loot, pillage, destroy, and bully innumerable countries and retard progress towards a more equitable and just society. This is not even contentious.

Drunk on anti-communism, Russophobia and a completely undeserved superiority complex, successive US governments have also used this pernicious myth (remember the CIA cut-out Obama?) to anaesthetise their population to the fact that the Potemkin village of American supremacy was starting to crumble as early as 1968. The anaesthetic started to wear off in the early 2000s and now we are finally witnessing the moment of full awakening. The ultimate irony of the situation lies in the fact that great American “patriots” strutting on Twitter are quiet about the fact that their own cherished City on the Hill was born from a bloody rebellion, rioting and destruction—of continental proportions.

This is the main reason for the current confusion—people as thoroughly zombified as an average adult American are utterly incapable of comprehending their predicament and reflecting critically in order to affect positive change. Sure, there will be token gestures of “taking a knee” with protesters, sops to the black community etc. None of this however can reverse the rapid descent into Hades of a country built on iniquity. The pain of the black American is real. Still inchoate despite a number of attempts to articulate it intellectually, it reflects a genuine sense of grievance and desperation. The experience of slavery to one side, it is the constant and uninterrupted campaign by the right-wing whites to behead the black leadership and strangle any genuine attempts by the black community to advance—politically, economically or culturally—that has found its expression in an emotive call to protest.

Sadly, some people think of the black Americans as the lowest of the low. According to this view, they are hardly human and their low caste status is justified because of their low IQ, inherent laziness, affinity for violence, promiscuity etc. Never once do these superior human beings stop to consider that the causality might be reversed—that it is precisely because of the inhuman treatment, cruel uprooting and universal contempt of generations of African Americans that have given rise to the criminality. If I were treated by the police and white people the way that many black Americans are treated, I would rob, loot and kill too. This is not to say that white people are irredeemably racist. As the protests demonstrate, younger generations will not stand for racism of any kind.

It is unthinkable for me to view anybody, let alone an African-American, as a sub-human precisely because my people were enslaved for 400 years and as recently as 1940s, my “race” was considered Untermenschen, not worthy of life or any human consideration. In addition, I do believe in the precepts of Jesus Christ. This makes it easy for me to empathise with black Americans despite the constant poisoning of the well by various COINTELPRO machinations. Until now, there has often been more white outrage on the internet over the abuse of animals than over the deaths of black people. The narratives such as “they shouldn’t have resisted arrest” are no longer allowable and rightly so. This is the end of that argument, no ifs, no buts. Unless we are able to recognise our own exceptionalism, we can never claim to be fully human (or Christian). If you were ever thought of as “lower”, you have no right to look down. And especially if you weren’t! You can’t serve God and Mammon both. I am no better than anybody else, just aware of my own darkness.

2. Raise the bridge, Soros at the gates!

Apart from racial insensitivity, that insidious poison of the mind, another reason for the muted reaction must be the fear conditioned by the alt-right that Soros, Illuminati, freemasons, satanic Bolsheviks, Antifa, Frankfurt School etc. are behind the riots. The reticence is understandable—the malevolent speculator Soros is indeed one of the major criminals of the modern era and it is possible that some of this activity is being sponsored by his organisation. However, this has no bearing on the proper understanding of the situation. Even if all of this were true, and it isn’t, so what? Does it mean that we are prepared indefinitely to endure the whims of a belligerent right-wing regime which has taken the world to the brink of a world war (see e.g. the demented pencil-necked Tom Cotton baying for Chinese and black blood)? If nothing else, the protests have taken away what little domestic and international credibility America had and have crippled its soft power beyond repair. Is this such a bad thing?

The hypocrisy of the current US’s position is delightful. After accusing and sanctioning Russia and China for a long list of non-existent crimes, it has exposed itself for what it is—a shaky plywood fortress built on a land cursed by its extinguished owners. Why not celebrate? If Soros is funding the “left”, do you know who is funding the “right”, namely the ultramontane Bannonites, the crazed Evangelicals and assorted right-wing Zionist cabals? What about Jabba the Hutt Adelson? Has Trump’s election fund of over $100 million dollars (five times larger than Obama’s) come solely from the contributions of patriotic Americans? Perhaps, but I wouldn’t bet on it. The idea that the alt-right regime is in any sense “good” is beyond naïve.

Does the fact that nefarious agents always co-opt any meaningful human activity mean that we must forego the fight against obvious injustice? What’s wrong with giving America a taste of the Bolshevik medicine? If the “patriots” are anything like the fat, bearded or steroid-soaked rednecks with AR-15s I see daily on the internet, more power to Soros (and I have been following his criminal activity since the mid-90s). It could be argued that the alt-right has turned Soros into the ultimate scarecrow that successfully distracts from their own evil. If the reason for silence has to do with Russia, again, what is the problem? Russia has gone through three West-inspired tragedies in less than 100 years. If it has not learned the lessons of history, our support for Trump will not help much.

Before I continue, let me emphasise that US Democrats are as far from a true “left” as it is possible to get. The Overton window of the American political discourse has shifted to the right so much that known warmongering murderers and racists such as Hillary Clinton (“black super thugs”) are considered to be of the left. As discussed on this site ad nauseam, the US political scene is a parasitical corporatist duopoly. I am not interested in the flavour of this travesty (patronisingly liberal or patriotic and God-fearing) because both are massive cons specifically promulgated to give the plebs a sense of hope. This is now unravelling and with it, the capacity of the dark empire to harm the world. Why are we not raising a glass? Does anybody here think that the narcissistic racketeer Trump who has sanctioned Russia and China to death, incited a war against Iran and Venezuela, and is now threatening to move nuclear weapons to Poland, A MAN OF PEACE? The time has come to shed such illusions and acknowledge that we were wrong. The most charitable explanation for his failure is that compelled to renege on his campaign promises by the advanced imperial decay, Trump has accelerated the destruction of the fabric of the US society (some say deliberately) and exposed its dark racist and imperialist underbelly. Which brings me to the next point.

4. We must all cheer for Team Murrica!

The fact that the majority of US citizens are completely in thrall of the grand lie, I take for granted. What is more puzzling and troubling is the sense that the desperate and dirty struggle of the US regime to save itself from the justifiable wrath of its own people is somehow our struggle. For over 70 years we have been conditioned to think of America as a unique and irreplaceable Shangri-La whose destiny touches us all. We have spent a large amount of time and best years of our youth in that America of the mind that includes many great things but is ultimately a chimera built on lies with a single intent—to perpetuate the empire without having to resort to the force of arms.

Those living in the USA will say—oh, but it’s not like that, this place is really great. To that I reply—it might have been once and briefly but the unresolved internal contradictions (hello Karl) have sucked out its elan vital, destroyed its cohesion and sense of purpose. Wake up! The world is tired of the bullying, killing and racketeering perpetrated by the trillionaire parasites infesting the Wall Street, the Silicon Valley and the military-industrial-intelligence complex—the three fasciae.

Whether their chosen puppet is Trump or Biden is less important, if at all. For the United States to have any future as a coherent entity, it must first renounce its evil imperialist present and revisit some of the more humane and peaceful modes of existence based on peaceful co-existence. The first people that spring to mind here are Franklin Roosevelt and Henry Wallace (so hated by the “patriots”) but also a number of black intellectuals who have pondered this difficult question. The first step though is the eradication of the deep systemic racism which still blights the landscape. I have no doubt that African Americans deserve better—and this does not mean money but genuine respect. And, what is equally important, in the coming together of the young people of different races, I see a germ of a more hopeful future. Which leads to…

5. Those soy-fed white SJWs have no idea how privileged they are!

A typical reaction to the unprecedented participation of white youth in the protests is met with a lazy alt-right trope: pampered middle-class millenials and Generation Xers are playing at class struggle blah blah. Yet, the response has been so overwhelming that it cannot be explained away by empty generalisations. The young generation in America and the West feels cheated. Decades of lies and empty promises have left most young people helpless and hopeless. They are drowning in student loan debt and mostly have no hope of owning a home or holding a steady job. The typical right-wing injunctions to “get on your bike” or “learn to code” are largely meaningless when you realise that few privileged hustlers who produce nothing useful hold around 70% of the country’s wealth.

Why should a young person work their entire life for slightly more than a pittance in order to increase the profits of a malignant corporation? Why enter the corporate rat race when one can be happy with very little provided the society is based on humane values? Why should they spend years learning a skill or getting a degree only to be immediately removed from the queue and replaced by the cheaper H1b import? I would argue that the young are much smarter than we old f***s give them credit for. They understand the fundamental injustice of the present system and refuse to perpetuate it. Rather than a sign of stupidity, it is a mature and largely rational estimate of the situation. They cannot be lulled into obedience by the slimy appeals to freedom, family and second amendment issued daily by warmongering lechers and paedophiles hiding behind God and homeland.

It is this sense of hopelessness that has awakened empathy for the suffering of others. Yes, some might be selfish and deluded but even in their awkward attempts to embrace their black brothers and sisters, they are saying a loud NO to the system that has betrayed them all. They reject the divisive rhetoric of the fake left (race before class) and fascist right (implicit segregation, racial inequality). Instead of criticising them, it might be a good idea for us to move aside and hope that they are capable of rectifying the errors of their ancestors.

Oh, and FBI has just stated that there has been no Antifa presence at the protests so far.

Ken Leslie is an independent researcher based in the UK with some experience in post WWII history and geopolitics

عنصريّة… هزائم… فشل… تنتج «الربيع الأميركيّ» ثم…؟

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

منذ أن انتصرت أميركا في الحرب العالمية الثانية، سارعت إلى فرض شبه وصاية واحتلال واقعي على أوروبا وسعت إلى الهيمنة على كلّ المعمورة ونصّبت نفسها قائدة للعالم، معتقدة أنّ «الله اختارها لتقوم بهذه الوظيفة» من أجل «نشر الحرية والديمقراطية» بين الدول والشعوب، ورفعت شعار «حقوق الإنسان» إلى الحدّ الذي أجازت لنفسها ان تتدخل وتعاقب كلّ من تتهمه بأنه خرق هذه المبادئ وأهدر سلامة أو كرامة مواطنيه. متناسية أنها دولة قامت في الأصل على القتل والاغتصاب والإبادة والتهجير…

ومن المفيد التذكير هنا بأنّ ما يُطلق عليه اليوم اسم الولايات المتحدة الأميركية هي نتاج عمليات متلاحقة بدأت بعد اكتشاف الأرض بهجرة الأوروبيين البيض إليها، وانتهت بإقامة الدولة الحالية بعد الإبادة التي تعرّض لها سكان البلاد الأصليون (أسموهم الهنود الحمر ظناً منهم بأنّ الأرض المكتشفة هي الهند ذات السكان ذوي البشرة التي تميل إلى الحمرة) إبادة رافقها نقل أو استقدام أفارقة من ذوي البشرة السمراء أو السوداء ليكونوا عمالاً وخدماً لهم في مزارعهم وحقولهم. وهكذا نشأت الشخصية الأميركية وتجذّرت فيها النزعة العنصرية التي تجعل من الأبيض سيداً والأسود عبداً والأحمر شخصاً لا يستحق الحياة. وانّ أهمّ وأخطر ما في الشخصية الأميركية نزعتان داخلية قائمة على العنصرية والتمييز بين المواطنين، وفوقية تسلطية قائمة على النزعة الاستعمارية والهيمنة على الشعوب والدول الأجنبية. نزعتان تحكمتا بسلوك أميركا منذ نشأتها ولا زالتا تتحكمان بسياستها وسلوكها داخلياً وخارجياً.

بيد أنّ سياسة التمييز العنصري في الداخل كانت تواجه بين الحقبة والحقبة باحتجاجات وأعمال رفض تصل إلى حدود الثورة وتتوصّل في بعض الأحيان إلى انتزاع قدر من الحقوق لغير البيض، لكنها لم تصل حتى اليوم إلى انتزاع الحق بالمساواة بين المواطنين وبقي التمييز العنصري قائماً رغم تشدّق حكومة الولايات المتحدة الأميركية بحقوق الإنسان وعلى سبيل المثال نجد انّ السود الذين يصل عددهم اليوم في أميركا إلى 1/8 من السكان ليس لهم في الوظائف العامة أكثر من 1/20 وليس لهم إلا عضوين اثنين من 100 عضو في مجلس الشيوخ و10% من النواب. أما الأخطر فليس ما يظهر في الوظائف إنما ما يكمن في نفوس البيض ضدّ السود من نظرة فوقية وازدراء واتهام بالكسل والبلاهة ما يجعل العلاقة بين الطرفين غير ودية وغير سليمة في اكثر الأحيان، وأكثر ما تجلى مؤخراً نموذج عن هذا الأمر ما جاء على لسان ترامب عندما كال الاتهامات والتشنيع ضدّ أوباما وسلوكه وهو سلفه في رئاسة الدولة وهي اتهامات تنضح منها العنصرية بأبشع صورها. أما المثل الأخير الأبشع الراهن للعنصرية الأميركية فقد ظهر في الوحشية التي أقدم فيها شرطي أبيض على خنق مواطن أسود حتى الموت في مشهد شديد الإيلام مثير للأسى والحزن المصحوب بالغضب والاستنكار رفضاً لهذه الوحشية.

وفي مفعول تراكمي أدّت جريمة الشرطي الأبيض إلى إطلاق موجة من الاحتجاجات الشعبية ضدّ التمييز العنصري وضدّ أداء السلطات المحلية والمركزية التي كان فيروس كورونا قد فضح عجزها وتقصيرها وأظهر وهن النظام الصحي المعتمد في أميركا فضلاً عن الخفة والسطحية التي عالج بها المسؤولون بدءاً من ترامب، الوباء على صعيد أميركا كلها ما أدّى إلى إصابة ما يكاد يلامس المليوني شخص من أصل 6 ملايين مصاب في كلّ العالم ووفاة أكثر من 100 ألف من أصل 370 في كلّ العالم. وبات السؤال المطروح الآن هل يتحوّل جورج فلويد (المواطن من أصل أفريقي الذي خنقه الشرطي الأبيض) إلى بوعزيزي أميركا وتتحوّل مدينة مينيابوليس الأميركية إلى مهد للربيع الأميركي كما كانت مدينة سيدي بوزيد التونسية مهداً لما أسمي ربيعاً عربياً وظهر أنه الحريق العربي؟ سؤال جدير بالطرح والاهتمام خاصة إذا عرجنا على أكثر من ملف وموضوع تتخبّط فيه أميركا وتحصد منه نتائج سلبية.

بالعودة إلى واقع الحال الأميركي دولياً فإننا نجد أنّ أميركا تعاني اليوم من فشل وإخفاق وهزائم في الخارج لا تحجبها المكابرة ولا يمكن لإعلام او لحرب نفسيّة إخفاءها، وتعاني من صعوبات في الداخل لا يمكن لأحد ان يتجاوزها ولا يمكن لمليارات الدولارات التي سلبتها من الخليج ان تحجبها، فإذا جمع حصاد الخارج السيّئ إلى أوضاع الداخل السلبية كان من المنطقي ان يطرح السؤال الملحّ «أميركا إلى أين؟» وكيف سيكون وضعها كدولة متحدة وكيف سيكون موقعها في العالم؟ لأنه من الطبيعي ان يفكر المراقب بأنّ الهزائم والاضطرابات لا بدّ أن تلقي بظلها الثقيل على الكيان ودوره لهذا يبرّر طرح السؤال حول مصير أميركا الذي بات تحت علامة استفهام؟

قبل الإجابة نعود للتوقف عند الهزائم الأميركية في الخارج والتي تسبّبت في تآكل الهيبة الأميركية وتراجع قوة الردع الأميركي نتيجة فشل أميركا في أكثر من ملف في طليعتها عدوانها على دول وشعوب الشرق الأوسط خاصة العراق وسورية واليمن، وعجزها رغم الحروب المتعددة الأنواع التي شنّتها وتشنّها من عسكرية إلى إرهابية إلى نفسية إلى اقتصادية وسياسية، رغم كلّ ذلك لم تستطع إسقاط محور المقاومة الذي وجه لها مؤخراً صفعة قاسية في قاعدة «عين الأسد»، صفعة أنزلتها صواريخ إيران الباليستية، وركلة مؤلمة في فنزويلا حملتها ناقلات النفط الإيرانية. صفعة وركلة كانت قد سبقتهما سلسلة من الهزائم الميدانية بدءاً من حرب 2006 في لبنان وصولاً إلى سورية واليمن ومروراً بالعراق بحيث باتت أميركا تضع في رأس أولوياتها اليوم البحث عن انسحاب آمن من المنطقة يحفظ ماء الوجه.

أما على الجبهة مع الصين فإنّ أميركا تحصد مزيداً من الإخفاق مع كلّ موقف تطلقه مهدّدة الصين بشيء ما، وبات من المسلّم به انّ الصين تفعل وتتقدّم وانّ أميركا تصرخ وتتراجع، ولن يكون المستقبل إلا حاملاً أخباراً أشدّ سوءاً لأميركا مما مضى على الصعيد الاقتصادي، وسيكون أمرّ وأدهى إذا فكرت أميركا بالمواجهة العسكرية حيث يؤكد الخبراء الأميركيون انّ هزيمة استراتيجية عظيمة تنتظر أميركا إذا حاربت الصين عسكرياً.

وعلى صعيد العلاقات مع روسيا فقد بات من المتوافق عليه انّ كلّ الحصار والتهميش الذي فرضته أميركا على روسيا ذهب أدراج الرياح مع تقدّم الأخيرة من الباب السوري لتحتلّ موقعاً متقدّماً على الساحة الدولية مكّنها من دون خوف أن تمارس حق الفيتو في مجلس الأمن من دون خشية من أميركا، كما مكّنها من تقديم المساعدة العسكرية للحكومة السورية لإفشال العدوان الإرهابي عليها المدعوم أميركياً.

يبقى أن نذكر بحال العزلة الدولية التي أوقعت أميركا – ترامب نفسها فيها بخروجها من أكثر اتفاق أو معاهدة دولية وتنكرها لقرارات مجلس الأمن وتصرفها خلافاً لقواعد القانون الدولي العام.

أما في الداخل فإنّ أهمّ واخطر ما تواجهه أميركا الآن هو تلك الاضطرابات التي نرى انّ إطلاق اسم «الربيع الأميركي» عليها أسوة بالتسمية الأميركية لما حصل في الشرق الأوسط وأسمي بـ «الربيع العربي» هي تسمية معقولة. هذه الاضطرابات والاحتجاجات التي تكاد تلامس الثورة والتي يرافقها النهب والإحراق والسرقة والقتل والتي تمدّدت الآن خارج مينيابولس (موقع الجريمة ومهد الاضطرابات) لتصل إلى 19 ولاية ولا زالت قيد التوسّع إلى درجة التخوّف من شمولها كلّ الولايات الأميركية الـ 50، ما شكل خطراً جدياً باتت الحكومة الأميركية تخشاه فعلياً جعلها تلجأ إلى فرض إعلان التعبئة في بعض الولايات والاستعانة بالحرس الوطني والجيش في ولايات أخرى، وباتت كلها تشكّل نذر شؤم على أميركا لا يُعرف إلى أين ستودي بالنظام الأميركي الذي يعاني كثيراً أمام تراجع الاقتصاد وتفشي البطالة وإفلاس الشركات واشتداد الغضب الشعبي دون أن ننسى وجود نزعات انفصالية لدى بعض الولايات.

إنّ تراكم هزائم الخارج خاصة في وجه محور المقاومة والصين وروسيا كما تقدّم، مع التخبّط والفشل في الداخل والمعبّر عنه بالفشل في معالجة أزمة كورونا وتفشي البطالة إلى حدّ بات فيه 40 مليون أميركي عاطل عن العمل وإفلاس شركات وإقفال أخرى بما ينذر بوضع اقتصادي صعب يفاقم العثرات الاجتماعية، ثم انفجار الغضب الشعبي إلى حدّ الوصول إلى البيت الأبيض واجتياز الحاجز الأمني الأول أمامه ما أقلق ترامب ودفعه إلى الاختباء في طوابق تحت الأرض وغموض الرؤية في معالجة الأحداث… كلها مسائل تبرّر السؤال هل كيان الولايات المتحدة الأميركية في خطر؟ وهل وحدتها مهدّدة؟ وهل سيتأثر موقعها دولياً بكلّ هذه الأحداث؟

أسئلة جدية لا بدّ من طرحها في ظلّ ما نسمع ونقرأ ونراقب؟ ويُضاف السؤال الآخر هل ستشرب أميركا من كأس ربيعي أميركي خاص بها كما سقت شعوب الشرق الأوسط مما أسمته ربيعاً وكان حريقاً التهم الأخضر واليابس؟ نعتقد ذلك… وعلى أيّ حال انّ أميركا بعد الهزائم الخارجية والانفجارات والعثرات الداخلية لن تكون هي أميركا التي تسيطر على العالم، هذا إذا بقيت موحّدة، وهو أمر نشكّ به.

*أستاذ جامعي – خبير استراتيجي.

America’s enemy is England, not Russia. Historically, Russia has been perhaps America’s main Ally; England remains America’s top enemy, just as during the American Revolution

APRIL 27, 2020

America’s enemy is England, not Russia. Historically, Russia has been perhaps America’s main Ally; England remains America’s top enemy, just as during the American Revolution

by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog

America’s sole enemy during the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) was England. Ever since being defeated in that war, England (controlled by the British aristocracy) has tried various ways to regain its control over America. The British aristocracy’s latest attempt to regain control over America started in 1877, and continues today, as the two countries’ “Deep State” — comprising not only the lying CIA and the lying MI6, but the entire joint operation of the united aristocracies of Britain and the U.S. These two aristocracies actually constitute the Deep State, and control the top levels of both intelligence agencies, and of both Governments, and prevent democracy in both countries. The aristocracy rules each of them. The 1877 plan was for a unification of the two aristocracies, and for the then-rising new world power, American industry, and its Government, to become controlled by the wealthiest individuals in both countries. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had tried to break the back of that intended global-imperialist combine, but he tragically died before he achieved this goal.

America’s second war against a foreign power was the War of 1812 (1812-1815), in which the U.S.A., so soon after its own victorious Revolution to free itself from Britain, tried to go even further, and to remove Britain altogether from North America. There still remained, among Americans, some fear that England might try to retake the U.S.A. The historian, Don Hickey, wrote that “In North America, the United States was the only belligerent that could lose the war and still retain its independence. Since Great Britain’s independence was at stake in the Napoleonic Wars, one might argue that the United States was the only belligerent on either side of the Atlantic in the War of 1812 that had nothing to fear for its independence.” Because King George III was still hated by many Americans, the U.S. aimed to free from Britain’s control the British colonies that remained to the north of America’s border, present-day Canada. Most of the residents there, however, continued to think of themselves as subjects of the King, and so the U.S. effort failed. Furthermore, British soldiers, coming down from what now is Canada, actually did manage to to jeopardize America’s independence: they burned down Washington. It wasn’t the King’s subjects north of America’s border who did this; it was British troops. The King’s army did it. Americans did have real reason to fear King George III. America’s continuing independence was, indeed, at stake in that war. That wasn’t merely the perception of the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson’s Party); there was reality to it.

During a 25 May 2018 phone-call between the Presidents of America and Canada, America’s ignoramus President — Donald Trump — justified tariffs against Canada partially by saying “Didn’t you guys burn down the White House?” However, King George III’s troops had actually done that, on 24 August 1814 (and destroyed the Capitol building on the same day); and not only did Canada not yet exist at that time, but the King’s troops had done this in retaliation for a successful American invasion into the King’s northern territory — which territory was subsequently to win its own partial independence (after the unsuccessful rebellions of 1837-1838, by the King’s subjects there). Though the U.S. won the War of 1812, in the sense of not losing its independence to England, it failed to free Canada. However, two years after America’s own Civil War (1860-1865), Canada finally won a messy partial independence in 1867.

The rebuilding of the British-destroyed U.S. White House was completed in 1817; that of the British-destroyed U.S. Capitol was completed in 1826.

The most celebrated battle in the War of 1812 was at Baltimore’s Fort McHenry, on 13 September 1814, where America’s soldiers hoisted in victory the U.S. flag, which inspired Francis Scott Key to write “The Star-Spangled Banner”. That ode was celebrating what became considered by Americans to have been their country’s second victory against Britain’s imperial tyranny.

England’s next big attempt to conquer the U.S. was during the Civil War, when England was supporting the Southerners’ right to continue enslaving Blacks and to break away from the federal Union for that purpose (to perpetuate slavery). If the South had won, this would not only have considerably weakened the U.S.A., but it would have placed to America’s south a new nation which would be allied with America’s enemy, Britain, the Southern Confederacy.

By contrast against England’s support for slavery, and for the breakup of the United States, Russia was a leading global supporter of the U.S., and of its movement to abolish slavery. Under Tsar Alexander II, the Russian Government opposed not only slavery but also serfdom, and thus became immortalized amongst Russians as “The Great Liberator,” for his ending serfdom, which was, for Russia, what slavery was for America — a repudiated relic of a former monarchic absolutism (that Tsar’s predecessors). When the erudite Cynthia Chung headlined on 16 October 2019, “Russia and the United States: The Forgotten History of a Brotherhood” and wrote there about “Cassius Clay,” she wasn’t mistakenly referring to the famous American boxer Muhammad Ali (1942-2016), but instead, quite correctly, to the individual who is far less well-known today but in whose honor that renowned boxer had originally been named, Cassius Marcellus Clay. The namesake for that boxer was quite reasonably referred-to by Chung as having been “possibly the greatest US Ambassador to Russia (1861-1862 and 1863-1869).” This “Cassius Clay” was, indeed, one of America’s unsung historical heroes, not only because this Kentuckian “Cassius Clay” was an extremely courageous champion of outlawing slavery, but also because he became a great asset to his friend Abraham Lincoln’s war to achieve the goal of emancipating America’s slaves. As Wikipedia’s article “Cassius Marcellus Clay (politician)” says, when describing Clay’s role in the “Civil War and Minister to Russia”:

President Lincoln appointed Clay to the post of Minister to the Russian court at St. Petersburg on March 28, 1861. The Civil War started before he departed and, as there were no Federal troops in Washington at the time, Clay organized a group of 300 volunteers to protect the White House and US Naval Yard from a possible Confederate attack. These men became known as Cassius M. Clay’s Washington Guards. President Lincoln gave Clay a presentation Colt revolver in recognition. When Federal troops arrived, Clay and his family embarked for Russia.[10]

As Minister to Russia, Clay witnessed the Tsar’s emancipation edict. Recalled to the United States in 1862 to accept a commission from Lincoln as a major general with the Union Army, Clay publicly refused to accept it unless Lincoln would agree to emancipate slaves under Confederate control. Lincoln sent Clay to Kentucky to assess the mood for emancipation there and in the other border states. Following Clay’s return to Washington, DC, Lincoln issued the proclamation in late 1862, to take effect in January 1863.[11]

Clay resigned his commission in March 1863 and returned to Russia, where he served until 1869. [3] He was influential in the negotiations for the purchase of Alaska.[12

Thus, this friend of both “The Great Liberator” and “The Great Emancipator” helped them both. As Blake Stillwell well summarized in his 16 October 2015 article “How Russia guaranteed a Union victory in the Civil War”, Ambassador Clay knew and personally shared the deeply shared values between the heads-of-state in both the U.S. and Russia, and he thereby persuaded Tsar Alexander II to commit to join the U.S. in a war to conquer England if England would overtly and actively join the U.S. South’s war against the United States. Tsar Alexander II thus stationed Russian warships in New York City and San Francisco during the Civil War, so as to block England from actively supporting the Southern Confederacy, which England had been planning to do. Probably no single country was as helpful to the Union cause as was Russia, and this was not merely for purposes of power-politics, but very much for democratic and progressive principles, both Lincoln’s and that Tsar’s — their shared Enlightenment goals for the world’s future.

Imperialistic England’s imperialistic foe France was also pro-slavery, but not as big a threat to the U.S. as England was. The way that Michael O’Neill phrased this in his 10 May 2019 “France’s Involvement in the U.S. Civil War” was: “The French government certainly had sympathies for the Confederacy because both regimes were aristocratic, while the North had a more democratic social and economic system that wasn’t as rigidly hierarchical. France’s trade prospects were also hurt because of Northern blockades of Southern ports. France wanted to intervene in order to ensure the trade of cotton, wine, brandy and silk.” This was an instance where the English and French empires were on the same side — against democracy, and for slavery. Every aristocracy is driven by unlimited greed, and this greed drove the French and English aristocracies together, regarding America’s Civil War. Tsar Alexander II was an extremely rare progressive aristocrat — like U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt subsequently also was.

As Chung’s article also noted, the friendly relations between Russia and the United States had started at the time of the American Revolution, and Benjamin Franklin (who then was America’s Ambassador to France) was key to that.

In 1877, the future British diamond-magnate Cecil Rhodes came up with his lifelong plan, to unite the aristocracies of Britain and the U.S. so as to ultimately conquer the entire world. His plan was to be activated upon his death, which occurred in 1902, when the Rhodes Trust began and created the core of a spreading movement at the top levels of finance in both countries, including the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs, a.k.a., Chatham House, in London, and then the Council on Foreign Relations in NYC (RIFA’s U.S. branch), both of which institutions became united with the European aristocracies in the Bilderberg group, which started in 1954, and which was initiated by the ‘former’ Nazi Prince Bernhard of Netherlands, and David Rockefeller of U.S.; and, then, finally, the Trilateral Commission, bringing Japan’s aristocrats into the Rhodesian fold, in 1973, under the aegis of David Rockefeller’s agent and chief anti-Russian strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski. (Nelson Rockefeller’s chief anti-Russian strategist was Henry Kissinger.)

There are also other significant offshoots from the Rhodes Trust — it’s the trunk of the tree, and Cecil Rhodes seems to have been its seed.

Then, during World War I, the U.S. and Russia were, yet again, crucial allies, but this time England was with us, not against us, because Britain’s aristocracy were competing against Germany’s. The Marxist Revolution in Russia in 1917 terrified all of the world’s super-rich, much as they had been terrified by America’s enemy is England, not Russia. Historically, Russia has been perhaps America’s main Ally; England remains America’s top enemy, just as during the American Revolution.the failed revolutions in Europe during 1848, but this in Russia was a revolution for a dictatorship by workers against the middle class (“the bourgeoisie”) and not only against the aristocracy; and, so, it was no Enlightenment project, and it certainly wasn’t at all democratic. Furthermore, Germany during World War I was even more dictatorial than was England. Indeed: Kaiser Wilhelm II initiated the World War in order to maintain and continue the ancient tradition of the divine right of kings — hereditary monarchy (the most retrogressive of all forms of governmental rule, hereditary rule). And Germany was threatening America’s ships, whereas England was not.

At the Versaille Peace Conference after WW I, four influential leaders of the U.S. delegation were intensely pro-British: the extremely conservative pro-aristocracy Democrat and U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, and his two nephews, the extremely conservative devoutly Christian pro-aristocracy Republicans John Foster Dulles, and his brother Allen Dulles, and the devoutly Christian partner of J.P. Morgan, Thomas Lamont. All four supported an obligation by Germany’s taxpayers to pay reparations to French taxpayers so large as to destitute the newly established democratic Weimar German Government. This destitution of Germans — approved by the U.S. delegation — helped to cause the extremist conservative right-wing-populist Nazi Party to come into power against the democratic Weimar Government. The Dulles brothers had many friends amongst the aristocracies of both England and Germany, and became two leaders of the war to conquer Russia, under U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower. Whereas U.S. President Harry S. Truman had sought to “contain” the Soviet Union, the Dulles brothers sought instead to “conquer” it. Both of them had a visceral hatred of Russia — not only of communism. It was a hatred which was widely shared amongst the aristocracies of all empires, especially England, U.S., Germany, and Japan.

U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an exception to the almost universal hatred of Russia amongst U.S.-and-allied aristocracies: he recognized and acknowledged that though Joseph Stalin was a barbaric dictator, Stalin was a deeply committed anti-imperialist like FDR himself was, because Stalin led the Communist Party’s anti-imperialist wing, against Trotsky’s imperialist wing. Stalin advocated passionately for “communism in one country” — the doctrine that the Soviet Union must first clearly establish a thriving economy within the country and thereby serve as a model which would inspire the masses in capitalist nations to rise up against their oppressors; and that only after such a communist model of success becomes established can communism naturally spread to other countries. FDR was absolutely opposed to any sort of imperialism, and he had passionate private arguments against Winston Churchill about it, because Churchill said, “There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements,” in reply to FDR’s “I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.” And, afterwards, FDR said privately to his son Elliott, contemptuously against Churchill, “A real old Tory, isn’t he? A real old Tory, of the old school.” FDR’s post-war vision was for a United Nations which would possess all nuclear and all other strategic weapons, and which would control all aspects of international law, and nothing of intranational law (except perhaps if the Security Council is unanimous, but only as being exceptions). Each of the major powers would be allowed to intervene intranationally into their bordering nations, but only so as to prevent any inimical major power from gaining a foothold next door — purely defensive, nothing else. This would have been very different from what the U.N. became. It’s something that the gullible Truman (who knew and understood none of that) was able to be deceived about by Churchill, and, even more so, by the then-General, Dwight Eisenhower, because both of them were committed imperialists and aimed to conquer Russia — and not only to end its communism. The crucial date was 26 July 1945, when Eisenhower convinced Truman to start the Cold War. Then, on 24 February 1990, U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush established the policy of the U.S. since then: that when the Soviet Union would end its communism in 1991, the U.S. and its allies would secretly continue the Cold War against Russia, until Russia becomes conquered so as to be part of the U.S. empire, no longer an independent nation. This is continuation of Cecil Rhodes’s plan: the U.S. doing the British aristocracy’s bidding to lead in conquering the entire world.

On 14 August 1941, at the time when FDR and Churchill formed the Atlantic Charter and were planning for a joint war against Hitler, they agreed to form the “UKUSA Agreement”, a “secret treaty” between those two countries, which became formalized on 17 May 1943 as the “BRUSA Agreement” and then on 5 March 1946 under President Truman became officially signed, and its contents finally became public on 25 June 2010. It was/is the basis of what is more commonly know as “the Five Eyes” of the Cecil-Rhodes-derived (though they don’t mention that) foreign-intelligence operations, uniting UK and U.S. intelligence as the core, but also including the intelligence-operations of the other Anglo-Saxon English-speaking colonies: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. India and other ‘inferior races’ of English-speaking countries (as Rhodes and Winston Churchill viewed them) weren’t included. For examples: the UK/USA joint effort to produce the death of Julian Assange (and seem likely to succeed soon in doing that) became part of this UK/USA working-together, as have also been the UK/USA sanctions against Russia regarding the trumped-up cases and sanctions against Russia concerning Sergei Magnitsky in 2012 and Sergei Skripal and the “Russiagate” charges against Donald Trump in 2018. This full flowering of the Rhodesian plan is also publicly known as “the Special Relationship” and as “the Anglosphere”.

It’s the U.S. and UK aristocracies, against their own nations — against their own people — but for the essential imperial operations by both U.S. and UK international corporations, which those billionaires control.

This is why all sanctions against Russia are based on lies. Certainly, it doesn’t happen by accident. At each step, in virtually each instance, the U.S. and UK aristocracies are working together on these libels — libels against the actual main foreign ally of the U.S. (UK’s aristocracy has always been the main enemy of the UK’s public, and also against Russia — and against the American people. This is entirely consistent with Rhodes’s plan, which was to use the U.S. in order to expand Britain’s Empire. That is the history of our times.)

This is the ultimate success of King George III’s plan, and it is a profound betrayal of the intentions of America’s Founders, who were passionate anti-imperialists. And so too was FDR. But right after WW II, the imperialists (run by America’s billionaires) took over.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Impeachment and Antisemitism

 BY GILAD ATZMON

An interview with Yonatan Stern, a Jewish Settler and an American patriot

by Gilad Atmon

https://www.unz.com/

A year ago I interviewed Yonatan Stern in a kosher pizzeria in Monticello, Catskills, New York. Yonatan is the man behind Cherev Gidon, an ‘Israeli Tactical Training Academy.’ Yonatan, an American who is also a former Israeli settler, correctly identified the demand for an Israeli-style military school to teach American Jews some of the IDF commando’s essentials for self-defense and the ability to fight back if necessary.

Yonatan was a perfect subject to interview: his views may be radical but they are based upon a sharp, coherent and consistent rationale. He was open in expressing his thoughts, which included some outrageous statements but which all left no doubt that he both meant what he said and said what he meant. I’ve observed that in America 2020, after half a century of the tyranny of correctness, very few Americans are brave enough to celebrate their constitutionally protected liberty to think and express themselves freely and authentically.

I heard from Yonatan, just before Christmas. “Things have been getting hot since we last met,” he wrote, referring to a string of attacks on Orthodox Jews in the NY area. He added, “Anyhow, all this antisemitism has brought me lots of clients so I’m keeping busy.”

This week Yonatan and I returned to the same kosher pizzeria in Monticello where we met before. Yonatan is very upset with Jewish Leftists. He believes that they are set to destroy the Jews, America and the whole world.

“My take on the current impeachment circus is that it is a typical display of subversive leftist Jewish attempts to undermine America from within.” In a manner of speech that is typical of so called ‘anti Semites’ Yonatan, a hard core ultra right wing Jew of the Rabbi Meir Kahane type, wrote to me that the “powerhouse behind this (impeachment) campaign are Jews, very visible Jews. And the worst part is that they are claiming it’s their “Jewish values” that are driving them to do this.”

I asked Yonatan who is a Jew, or rather what is a Jew and what are ‘Jewish values’? “The Jewish people is a nation, we are an ancient nation going back to the Biblical Israelites. But we are also a religion in a sense that we are guided by a religious dogma.” For Yonatan a Jew who is separated from the Torah can no more be called a Jew. Yonatan contends that Jewish liberals are engaged in a fraudulent exercise “pretending that multi cultural values and their misinterpretation of Tikun Olam are intrinsic to Judaism. [In fact] real Judaism of the Torah promotes things which Liberal Jews would consider brutality: such as slavery, polygamy, rape (at a time of a war), animal sacrifice, total prohibition on homosexuality etc.”

His answer surprised me and I asked Yonatan to elaborate on Judaism and slavery. Yonatan’s had no doubts. “Slavery is allowed in Judaism subject to rules of course.” I guess the take home message is that some Jews may oppose slavery however, the opposition to slavery is not a ‘Jewish value.’ They may even oppose slavery despite so-called ‘Jewish values.’

Like President Trump, Yonatan has harsh words on the Jewishness of the Jewish Left. “In reality these are assimilated, pork-eating, sabbath-desecrating fake Jews affiliated with the radical left wing Reform movement who ordain women as rabbis and conduct homosexual ‘marriages’ under a Chuppa. These Hellenist (Greek) frauds represent everything that is evil and ugly about American Judaism and they perpetuate the myth of the hook-nosed subversive Jew being behind every insidious attempt to undermine their host countries.”

It goes without saying that Yonatan doesn’t approve of the Jewish Left and its duplicitous mantra yet, I had to ask Yonatan whether he would be willing to militarily train a female rabbi or a gay cantor.

“The reality is this, these people caused the problem. It will come back to bite them in the end. Now should I come and save them from the trouble they caused me and all the Jews?”

“Their actions are endangering all of us, as many American gentiles see this rightly as an attempt to subvert our republic for which they fought and died, and identify the Jew as the subversive enemy behind it.” It is clear that in Yonatan’s universe, the Left Jew is by far the most dangerous element in Western society in general and in the USA in particular.

This fear of the assimilated and Leftist Jew may sound bizarre to those who are foreign to Jewish culture, history and tradition. The fear of Hellenist (Greek) Jews is as old as Judaism. There is nothing more frightening for rabbinical Jews than the thought that some of their brethren endorse the ethics of Goyim, subscribe to universalism, peace, harmony and equality. Zionism was born to stop assimilation; it promised to take the Diaspora Jews away to Palestine and to make them people like all other people. The anti Zionist Bund, an East European revolutionary Communist Jewish party that was literally born the same year as Zionism (1897), was also an attempt to prevent Jews from joining the ‘Hellenic’ route by offering Jews a tribal path within the context of a future Soviet revolution. Golda Meir thought the real threat to Jewish existence wasn’t the Arab-Israeli conflict but mixed marriages. Yonatan, like every observing Jew, knows that Hanukah is a celebration of the victory of traditional conservative Judaism over the Hellenic Jewish voices that threatened to liberate the Jews from themselves.

I asked Yonatan why Jews seem to be prone to subversive and revolutionary politics. For Yonatan, “there is a subversive and evil element within Judaism even before the Torah was given. There are numerous examples of the above in the Torah of Jews who are living in our midst and subverting our cause.” According to Yonatan Saul Alinsky is a perfect exemplar of such a revolutionary destructive Jew, as is Marx. I asked Yonatan whether Jesus should be added to the list of these subversive Jewish characters. Yonatan avoided the question probably because the wrong answering could jeopardise his wishful future alliance with the Christian Right.

Yonathan wrote to me that “it is usually the most identifiable (the Orthodox Jews ) who are the targets of the understandable antisemitic backlash.” It is people like himself, he wrote, who “are put into the position of having no choice but to fight right wing white Christian Conservatives, people who would be our natural allies under normal circumstances if these Hellenist Jews weren’t disgracing G-d’s name with their evil.”

I felt the need to correct Yonatan and pointed out to him that, at the moment, it isn’t ‘White nationalists’ who have targeted Orthodox Jews. It has been the Black communities in the NYC area who feel ethnically cleansed by the ever expanding Orthodox ghettos. I asked Yonatan what is at the core of this apparently emerging Jew/Black street war? Does it have something to do with Orthodox Jewish communities who may display some unethical tactics?

Yonatan is not impressed with Black Americans. For some reason he sees the clash between Jewish Orthodox and Black communities as a manifestation of a ‘Left’ revolutionary act. I pointed out to Yonatan that there is nothing remotely ‘lefty’ in recent attacks on orthodox communities. Yonatan then expressed some ardent racist views. I quote them not because they are true, as they are not, but to provide an accurate portrayal of Yonathan’s world view. He said that we are dealing with “wild people, they have been in America as long as Whites have been here. They are free of slavery for over 150 years. They enjoy the same freedom as whites, segregation ended 50 years ago… Despite that look where are they now, living on welfare, broken families, using crack, mayhem. Yet look at the Jews, we came over at the late 1800s and early 19th century. And look where we have come, we came poor, with rugs on our backs, we worked in sweatshops. We are now at the head of society. Trump’s son in law is Jewish, the Jews are the biggest bankers, we control the Fed, we control Hollywood, all those lawyers, the best attorneys, the best accountants, all the biggest doctors, we have wealth, we have power, yet this proportionate to our size we are only 2%of the population. Look at the Black man. He is 13% of the population, he for the most part, is living in poverty. They feel a tremendous sense of jealousy towards us which turns into a tremendous blood-thirsty hate.”

I pointed out to Yonatan that the recent attacks in NYC didn’t target Jewish bankers, doctors or lawyers but Orthodox Jews who tend to be poor and dependent on income support. Yonatan thinks this is simply because the Orthodox Jews are easily identifiable as Jews. I pointed to Yonatan that rabbinical communities have used some barbarian expansionist tactics to cleanse Blacks and others from areas they want to expand into such as Kiryas Joel, Crown Heights, New Jersey City etc. Yonatan admitted that this is true. The Jewish orthodox communities do indeed use some “unethical means” to accomplish their goal but, he said, they do not behave that way exclusively to Blacks but use such means against Whites as well. Yonatan seems to be saying that Orthodox Jews do not discriminate against Black people in particular, they are, in general, dismissive of others.

Yonatan believes that “Trump is the best friend the Jews have ever had and he has devoted so much effort to standing up for us and defending us…The least we owe him is to stand up for him against this evil leftist Jewish plot to overthrow the greatest hope America has had in many generations. It is our job to be a light onto the nations and that is exactly what we must do – by fighting our enemy from within, the leftist, multiculturalist, reform Jews.”

When I asked Yonatan whether we should expect an open battle between the so-called ‘real Jews’ and the ‘Leftist’ ones any time soon he said he thought so. Yonatan believes that the so-called Goyim do not have the ability to confront or even to address the symptoms of Left Jews: others don’t even begin to understand the depth of the problem. Only ‘real Jews’ can deal with the culturally invasive menace and eventually save the Jews, liberate America and the rest of the world. America is divided, he said, we are “digging in preparing for a boogaloo,” the coming all out civil war between American patriots who adhere to ‘Judeo-Christian values’ and the so called multi cultural left. In placing this future conflict within the context of the American southern/northern division Yonatan sees himself as a contemporary Confederate platoon.

I ended by asking Yonatan whether he can see that the situation in America in some ways resembles Germany in the 1930s. “Certainly,” he said.


My battle for truth and freedom involves  some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Donate

Once upon a time there were three commentators.

September 06, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

o-STREET-BEGGAR-facebook.jpg

By Francis Clark Lowes

The first wrote a piece about the United States in which he argued that the country was irredeemably stuck in a schizophrenic mind-set formed before the abolition of slavery. This had allowed slavery to continue despite a bill of rights guaranteeing freedom to everyone. The present disproportionate number of blacks in prison was a direct consequence.

This analysis was met with a chorus of disapproval, but the usual pontificators on public morality, many of whom happened to be Jewish, ruled that free speech was a right which took precedence over all others.

The second commentator wrote a piece about the United Kingdom in which he argued that the country had been a failed concept since the act of union tried to mould two quite distinct peoples into one nation. Moreover, the UK was irredeemably flawed by being built on the proceeds of the lucrative slave trade.

This analysis, though getting some support, was widely criticised, but the usual pontificators on public morality, many of whom happened to be Jewish, ruled that free speech was a right which took precedence over all others.

The third commentator wrote a piece about Israel in which he argued that Theodor Herzl’s concept of a Jewish state was inherently inequitable, and that until that concept was changed not only on paper but in the minds of a majority of Jews, there would be no peace.

This analysis provoked a hurricane of protest. But the pontificators, many of whom happened to be Jewish, now joined in; indeed they cheer-led the rumpus. It was left to a few still small voices, among them a sprinkling of Jewish ones, to stand like trees bent double by the wind, and argue that Jews and Israel should not be treated exceptionally.

Needless to say, the third commentator lost his job and has recently been seen begging in the streets of Brighton.

Zionism and Africa / Jews and Blacks

May 09, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

chi-march22-10-20120423.jpg

Manhattan 7.5.2018

A talk by Gilad Atzmon

The other day I learned that the British Zionist pressure group  Campaign Against Antisemitsm, an organisation  that cares about bigotry against one people only,  has launched a new short course.  They teach their supporters  “how to build bridges with natural allies” so they can fight antisemitsm together.  Someone should explain to these ultra Zionist campaigners that ‘natural allies’ do not need bridges to be built. Bridges are only required when is a need to span noticeable obstacles.

CAA’s unusual interpretation of the notion of ‘bridge building’ will help us to grasp today’s topic: Zionism and Africa or more precisely Jews and Blacks.

Jews often brag about their contributions to the Civil Rights Movement. According to some Jewish historians, a large amount of the funds for the NAACP came from Jewish sources – some experts estimate as much as 80%. Dr. King himself is regarded by many Zionists as their historic ally. Jewish sources often quote this  defence of Zionism attributed to Dr. King. “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!”

Howard Sachar begins his article  Jews in the Civil Rights movement, by claiming that “nowhere did Jews identify themselves more forth­rightly with the liberal avant-garde than in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. At the height of the anti-integration effort, in 1957, Rabbi Ira Sanders of Little Rock testified before the Arkansas Senate against pending segregationist bills.”

This would seem a positive moment in Jewish history until we remember that Judaism has sustained ‘segregation bills’ for two millennia. What are kosher dietary rules if not  ‘segregation bills?’ I guess that we have all heard the Judaic and the Zionist attitude toward mixed marriage. Even within the Palestinian solidarity movement, many Jews choose to march within segregated racially oriented political cells (JVP, IJAN etc.)

I guess that CAA’s references to ‘bridge building with natural allies’ may help us to grasp the Jewish attitude to the Civil Rights Movement and solidarity movements. From a Jewish perspective the Blacks of the south were, to a certain extent, a ‘natural ally.’

Seemingly,  some of the greatest voicws of the Civil Rights Movement were Jews. Sachar writes “Jewish participation in the Civil Rights movement far transcended institutional associations. One black leader in Mississippi es­timated that, in the 1960s, the critical decade of the voter-registration drives, ‘as many as 90 percent of the civil rights lawyers in Mississippi were Jewish.’… They worked around the clock analysing wel­fare standards, the bail system, arrest procedures, justice-of-the-peace rulings.”

Probably among  the most famous Civil Rights heroes were the three young  voter registration workers, Jewish New Yorkers, Michael Schwerner and An­drew Goodman co worker, and  James Chaney a Black man from Mississippi. The three were abducted  and mur­dered by Klansmen and local law enforcement officers. This tragic event increased the nation’s awareness of the human crisis in the South.

But I am afraid that this is where the good story ends. Historically the Jewish attitude towards Blacks has been nothing short of a disaster. It is difficult to decide how to enter this colossal minefield.

In Jewish culture the word shvartze (Black, Yiddish) is an offensive term referring  to a low being, specifically a Black person (“She’s dating a shvartze. Her grandmother is probably rolling over in her grave”). The reference to shvartze chaya is a direct  reference to ‘black beast,’ meaning the lowest of the low. Shvartze chaya is also how Ashkenazi Jews often refer to Arab and Sephardi Jews. I guess that at least culturally some Ashkenazi Jews find it hard to deal with the colour black, especially when it comes on people. It is therefore slightly peculiar to witness white Ashkenazi Jews complain about white supremacy. If they are genuinely interested in combating white exceptionalism, maybe they should first uproot those vile symptoms from their own culture. I guess that kicking the racist ball into the goyim’s court is much easier.
 
We witness an anomaly — the same people who played a fundamental role in  the civil rights movement, are themselves instrumental in an historic racist segregation project. The same people who supported the rights of Black Americans are implicated in deep cultural racism.

In order to grasp the Jewish institutional attitude toward Blacks we will review the ADL’s attitude to the Nation of Islam (NOI) in general and Louis Farrakhan in particular. The ADL claims that Farakhan is one of “America’s Leading Anti-Semite.(s)”

NOI according to the ADL, has “maintained a consistent record of anti-Semitism and racism since its founding in the 1930s.” The ADL’s site states that “under Louis Farrakhan, who has espoused and promoted anti-Semitism and racism throughout his 30-year tenure as NOI leader, the organization has used its programs, institutions, and media to disseminate its message of hate.”

“He (Farakhan) has repeatedly alleged that the Jewish people were responsible for the slave trade as well as the 9/11 attacks, and that they continue to conspire to control the government, the media, Hollywood, and various Black individuals and organiaations.”

The question we want to ask at this stage is whether Farakhan’s criticism targets ‘The Jews’ as a people, race or ethnicity or does he actually target elements and sectors within the Jewish universe?  A quick study of Farakhan’s cherry picked quotes provided by the ADL reveals that Farakhan doesn’t really refer to ‘the Jews’ as people. In most cases he refers to segments within the Jewish elite that are indeed politically dominant (AIPAC) and culturally corrosive or at least problematic.

But the question goes further. If the Jews do empathise with Blacks and their suffering why can’t they take a bit of criticism from the likes of Farakhan? If Jews care for the Other, as we are asked to believe, how come all this caring disappears once Farakhan appears on the scene?  Unfortunately, the Jewish supporters of Palestine can operate like the ADL in this regard, occasionally acting as a thought police suppressing any reference to  Jewishness as the driving force in Jewish history and Israeli criminality in particular.

Maybe the CAA’s peculiar understanding of the notion of bridge building is an accurate description of the Jewish political apparatus. What we see is a search for ‘natural allies’ that serve the Jewish cause rather than a humane empathic course towards peace, harmony and a better world. Jewish New Yorker Philip Weiss expressed this sentiment  brilliantly in an interview with me. “I believe all people act out of self-interest. And Jews who define themselves at some level as Jews — like myself for instance — are concerned with a Jewish self-interest. Which in my case is: an end to Zionism.” Weiss supports Palestine because he believes it is good for the Jews. For him the Palestinians are natural allies.  Similarly, Rabbi Joachim Prinz, who as a young German Zionist rabbi sought a potential collaboration with Nazi Germany, ended up as a  leading Civil Rights figure marching alongside Dr. King  supporting human rights. For the late Rabbi Prinz, Dr. King and the civil rights movement were natural allies, they were good for the Jews.

As you surely noticed, I have not mentioned the role of Jews in slavery. This horrendous chapter in human history is not  within my field of study.* But I do see, like the rest of you,  how the Jewish State treats Black refugees. I do see how Israel locks up Blacks for being Black. I grew up in a country that looked down at people with dark skin. When I left Israel in the 1990s, Ethiopian Jews couldn’t donate blood. Jews are probably split on their attitude to Blacks and this is good. But Jewish culture and politics have a lot of ground to cover before they can be considered ethical, universal or even empathic.

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).

* Those who seek answers to questions regarding the salve trade should consider reading Werner Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism or tune themselves to the scholarship of Tony Martin and his writings on the Jews and their role in the salve trade

 

Israeli Satire on African Jews and Slavery

Filed under: Jews, Nazi Israel, Racism, Slavery | Tagged: , | Comments Off on Israeli Satire on African Jews and Slavery

Letter to my American friends

Posted on by martyrashrakat

Letter to my American friends

The Saker

Introduction by the Saker: During my recent hurricane-induced evacuation from Florida, I had the pleasure to see some good friends of mine (White Russian emigrés and American Jews who now consider themselves American and who fully buy into the official propaganda about the USA) who sincerely think of themselves as liberals, progressives and anti-imperialists. These are kind, decent and sincere people, but during our meeting they made a number of statements which completely contradicted their professed views. After writing this letter to them I realized that there might be many more people out there who, like myself, are desperately trying to open the eye of good but completely mislead people about the reality of Empire. I am sharing this letter in the hope that it might maybe offer a few useful talking points to others in their efforts to open the eyes of their friends and relatives.

——-

Dear friends:

During our conversation you stated the following:

  1. The USA needs a military
  2. One of the reasons why the USA needs a military are regimes like the North Korean one
  3. The USA has a right to intervene outside its borders on a) pragmatic and b) moral grounds
  4. During WWII the USA “saved Europe” and acquired a moral right to “protect” other friends and allies
  5. The Allies (USSR-US-UK) were morally superior to the Nazis
  6. The Americans brought peace, prosperity and freedom to Europe.
  7. Yes, mistakes were made, but this is hardly a reason to forsake the right to intervene

I believe that all seven of these theses are demonstratively false, fallacies based on profoundly mistaken assumptions and that they all can be debunked by common sense and indisputable facts.

But first, let me tackle the Delphic maxim “know thyself” as it is, I believe, central to our discussion. For all our differences I think that there are a number of things which you would agree to consider as axiomatically true, including that Germans, Russians, Americans and others are roughly of equal intelligence. They also are roughly equally capable of critical thinking, personal investigation and education. Right? Yet, you will also agree that during the Nazi regime in Germany Germans were very effectively propagandized and that Russians in Soviet Russia were also effectively propagandized by their own propaganda machine. Right? Do you have any reason to suppose that we are somehow smarter or better than those propagandized Germans and Russians and had we been in their place we would have immediately seen through the lies? Could it be that we today are maybe also not seeing through the lies we are being told?

It is also undeniable that the history of WWII was written by the victors of WWII. This is true of all wars – defeated regimes don’t get to freely present their version of history. Had the Nazis won WWII, we would all have been treated to a dramatically different narrative of what took place. Crucially, had the Nazis won WWII, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the German people would have shown much skepticism about the version of history presented in their schools. Not only that, but I would submit that most Germans would also believe that they were free people and that the regime they live under was a benevolent one.

You doubt that?

Just think of the number of Germans who declared that they had no idea how bad the Nazi regime really was. Even Hitler’s personal secretary, Traudl Junge, used that excuse to explain how she could have worked for so many years with Hitler and even like him so much. There is an American expression which says “where I sit is where I stand”. Well, may I ask – where are we sittting and are we so sure that we have an independent opinion which is not defined by where we sit (geographically, politically, socially and even professionally)?

You might ask about all the victims of the Nazi regime, would they not be able to present their witness to the German people and the likes of Traudl Junge? Of course not: the dead don’t speak very much, and their murderers rarely do (lest they themselves end up dead). Oh sure, there would be all sorts of dissidents and political activists who would know the truth, but the “mainstream” consensus under a victorious Nazi Germany would be that Hitler and the Nazis liberated Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists.

This is not something unique to Germany, by the way. If you take the Russian population today, it has many more descendants of executioners than descendants of executed people and this is hardly a surprise since dead people don’t reproduce. As a result, the modern Russian historiography is heavily skewed towards whitewashing the Soviet crimes and atrocities. To some degree this is a good thing, because it counteracts decades of US anti-Soviet propaganda, but it often goes too far and ends up minimizing the actual human cost of the Bolshevik experiment in Russia.

So how do the USA compare to Germany and Russia in this context?

Most Americans trust the version of history presented to them by their own “mainstream”. Why? How is their situation objectively different from the situation of Germans in a victorious Third Reich? Our modern narrative of WWII was also written by victors, victors who had a vested reason in demonizing all the other sides (Nazis and Soviets) while presenting us with a heroic tale of liberation. And here is the question which ought to really haunt us at night: what if we had been born not Russians and Jews after a Nazi defeat but if we had been born Germans after an Allied defeat in WWII? Would we have been able to show enough skepticism and courage to doubt the myths we were raised with? Or would we also be doubleplusgoodthinking little Nazis, all happy and proud to have defeated the evil Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists?

Oh sure, Hitler considered Jews as parasites which had to be exiled and, later, exterminated and he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master Race and whose intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated. No wonder that we, Jews and Russians, don’t particularly care for that kind of genocidal racist views. But surely we can be humans before being Jews and Russians, and we can accept that what is bad for us is not necessarily bad for others. Sure, Hitler was bad news for Jews and Russians, but was he really so bad news for “pure” (Aryan Germanic) Germans? More importantly, if we had been born “pure” Germans, would we have have cared a whole lot about Jews and Russians? I sure hope so, but I have my doubts. I don’t recall any of us shedding many tears about the poly-genocided (a word I coined for a unique phenomenon in history: the genocide of all the ethnicities of an entire continent!) Native Americans! I dare say that we are a lot more prone to whining about the “Holocaust” or “Stalinism”, even though neither of them ever affected us personally, (only our families and ethnicity) than about the poly-genocide of Native Americans. I very much doubt that our whining priorities would have been the same if our ethnicity had been Lakota or Comanche. Again, I hope that I am wrong. But I am not so sure.

Either way, my point is this:

We are hard-coded to be credulous and uncritically accept all the demonization of Nazis and Soviets because we are Jews and White Russians. Careful here, I am NOT saying that the Nazis and Soviets were not evil – they definitely were – but what I am saying is that we, Jews and Russians, are far more willing to accept and endorse any version of history which makes the Nazis and Soviets some kind of exceptionally evil people and that, in contrast, we almost instinctively reject any notion that “our” side (in this case I mean *your* side, the American one since you, unlike me, consider yourselves American) was just as bad (if only because your side never murdered Jews and Russians). So let’s look at this “our/your side” for a few minutes.

By the time the USA entered WWII it had already committed the worse crime in human history, the poly-genocide of an entire continent, followed by the completely illegal and brutal annexation of the lands stolen from the Native Americans. Truly, Hitler would have been proud. But that is hardly all, the Anglo invaders then proceeded to wage another illegal and brutal war of annexation against Mexico from which they stole a huge chunk of land which includes modern Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico!

Yes, all this land was illegally occupied and stolen by your side not once, but TWICE! And do I even need to mention the horrors of slavery to add to the “moral tally” of your side by the time the US entered the war?

Right there I think that there is more than enough evidence that your side was morally worse than either the Nazis or the Soviets. The entire history of the USA is one of endless violence, plunder, hypocrisy, exploitation, imperialism, oppression and wars. Endless wars of aggression. None of them defensive by any stretch of the imagination. That is quite unique in human history. Can you think of a nastier, more bloodthirsty regime? I can’t.

Should I even mention the British “atrocities tally”, ranging from opium wars, to the invention of concentration camps, to the creation of Apartheid, the horrors of the occupation of Ireland, etc. etc. etc.?

I can just hear you say that yes, this was horrible, but that does not change the fact that in WWII the USA “saved Europe”. But is that really so?

To substantiate my position, I have put together a separate PDF file which lists 5 sources, 3 in English, 2 in Russian. You can download it here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByibNV3SiUooWExTNGhMTGF5azQ

I have translated the key excerpts of the Russian sources and I am presenting them along with the key excerpts of the English sources. Please take a look at this PDF and, if you can, please read the full original articles I quote. I have stressed in bold red the key conclusions of these sources. You will notice that there are some variations in the figures, but the conclusions are, I think, undeniable. The historical record show that:

  1. The Soviet Union can be credited with the destruction of roughly 80% of the Nazi military machine. The US-UK correspondingly can be credited with no more than 20% of the Allied war effort.
  2. The scale and scope of the battles on the Eastern Front completely dwarf the biggest battles on the Western Front. Battles in the West involved Divisions and Brigades, in the East they involved Armies and Groups of Armies. That is at least one order of magnitude of difference.
  3. The USA only entered the war a year after Stalingrad and the Kursk battle when it was absolutely clear that the Nazis would lose the war.

The truth is that the Americans only entered the war when it was clear that the Nazis would be defeated and that their real motive was not the “liberation of oppressed Europe” but to prevent the Soviets from occupying all of Europe. The Americans never gave a damn about the mass murder of Jews or Russians, all they cared about was a massive land-grab (yet again).

[Sidebar: By the way, and lest you think that I claim that only Americans act this way, here is another set of interesting dates:

Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: August 6 and 9, 1945

Soviet Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation: August 9–20, 1945

We can clearly see the same pattern here: the Soviets waited until it was absolutely certain that the USA had defeated the Japanese empire before striking it themselves. It is also worth noting that it took the Soviets only 10 days to defeat the entire Kwantung Army, the most prestigious Army of the Japanese Empire with over one million well-trained and well-equipped soldiers! That should tell you a little something about the kind of military machine the Soviet Union had developed in the course of the war against Nazi Germany (see here for a superb US study of this military operation)]

Did the Americans bring peace and prosperity to western Europe?

To western Europe, to some degree yes, and that is because was easy for them: they ended the war almost “fresh”, their (stolen) homeland did not suffer the horrors of war and so, yes, they could bring in peanut butter, cigarettes and other material goods. They also made sure that Western Europe would become an immense market for US goods and services and that European resources would be made available to the US Empire, especially against the Soviet Union. And how did they finance this “generosity”? By robbing the so-called Third World blind, that’s all. Is that something to be proud of? Did Lenin not warn as early as 1917 that “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism”? The wealth of Western Europe was built by the abject poverty of the millions of Africans, Asians and Latin Americas.

But what about the future of Europe and the European people?

There a number of things upon which the Anglos and Stalin did agree to at the end of WWII: The four Ds: denazification, disarmament, demilitarisation, and democratisation of a united Germany and reparations to rebuild the USSR. Yes, Stalin wanted a united, neutral Germany. As soon as the war ended, however, the Anglos reneged on all of these promises: they created a heavily militarized West Germany, they immediately recruited thousands of top Nazi officials for their intelligence services, their rocket program and to subvert the Soviet Union. Worse, they immediately developed plans to attack the Soviet Union. Right at the end of the WWII, Anglo powers had at least THREE plans to wage war on the USSR: Operation DropshotPlan Totality and Operation Unthinkable. Here are some basic reminders from Wikipedia about what these operations were about:

Operation Dropshot: included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union’s industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.

Plan Totality: earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorki, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.

Operation Unthinkable: assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines. This represented almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time. (…) The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers.

[Were you aware of these? If not, do you now wonder why?]

I am not making these things up, you can look it up for yourself on Wikipedia and elsewhere. This is the Anglo idea of how you deal with Russian “allies”: you stab them in the back with a surprise nuclear attack, you obliterate most of their cities and you launch the Nazi Wehrmacht against them.

I won’t even go into the creation of NATO (before the WTO – known in the West as the “Warsaw Pact” – was created in response) or such petty crimes as false flag terrorist attack (Operation Gladio).

[Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio or the August 1980 “Bologna massacre”, the bombing of the Bologna train station by NATO secret terrorist forces, a false-flag terrorist attack (85 dead, over 200 wounded) designed to discredit the Communist Party of Italy? If not – do you now wonder why you never heard of this?]

The sad reality is that the US intervention in Europe was a simple land-grab, that the Cold War was an Anglo creation, as was the partition of Europe, and that since WWII the USA always treated Europe as a colony form which to fight the “Communist” threat (i.e. Russia).

But, let’s say that I am all wrong. For argument’s sake. Let’s pretend that the kind-hearted Americans came to Europe to free the European people. They heroically defeated Hitler and brought (Western) Europe peace, prosperity, freedom, happiness, etc. etc. etc.

Does this good deed give the USA a license for future interventions? You both mentioned WWII as an example and a justification for the need for the USA to maintain a military large enough to counter regimes such as the North Korean one, right? So, let me ask again,

Does the fact that the USA altruistically, kindly and heroically liberated Europe from both the Nazis and the Soviets now grant the moral legitimacy to other, subsequent, US military interventions against other abhorrent, aggressive or evil regimes/countries out there?

If you reply “no” – then why did you mention it as a justification?

If you reply “yes” – then please forgive me for being so obtuse and ask you for how long this “license to militarily intervene” remains valid? One year? Five years? Maybe ten or even seventy years? Or maybe this license grants such a moral right to the USA ad aeternam, forever? Seriously, if the USA did liberate Europe and bring it peace and happiness, are we to assume that this will remain true forever and everywhere?

I also want to ask you this: let’s say, for the argument’s sake, that the moral license given by the US participation in the war in Europe is, truly, forever. Let’s just assume that, okay? But let me ask you this: could it be revoked (morally, conceptually)? Say the USA did something absolutely wonderful in Europe. What about the subsequent horrors in southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle-East. How many murdered, maimed, occupied, terrorized, bombed and otherwise genocided “non-West Europeans” would it take to outweigh the putatively “happily liberated” Europeans which, according to you, grant the USA the license to intervene? Even if the US in Europe was all noble and pure, do the following seventy years of evil mass murder worldwide really count for nothing or does there come a point were “enough is enough” and the license can be revoked, morally speaking, by people like us, like you?

May I point out to you that your words spoken in defense of a supposed need for the USA to maintain a military capable of overseas operations strongly suggest that you believe that the USA has a moral right (if not a duty!) to conduct such operations, which means that the post WWII atrocity-tally of the USA is not, in your opinion, sufficient to elicit a “enough is enough” reaction in you. Are you sure that you are comfortable with this stance?

In theory, there could be another reason to revoke such a moral license. After all, one can have the moral right to do something, but not necessarily the capability to do so. If I see somebody drowning in a flood, I most certainly have the moral right to jump in the water and try to save this person, do I not? But that does not mean that I have the strength or skills to do so. Right? So when you say that the USA needs to maintain a military capable of protecting friends and allies from rogue and dangerous regimes like the one in North Korea, you do imply that besides having the right to extend such a protection the USA also has the capabilities and the expertise to do so?

Really?

And what is the evidence for that, may I ask?!

I asked you to name me a single successful US military intervention since WWII and you could name none. Good! I agree with you. The reality is that every single US military operation since WWII has resulted in a disaster either on the humanitarian, political and military level (often on all of them combined). Even Grenada was a total (military) failure! Also, do you see who sits in the White House today? Do you really want The Donald in charge of protecting “our friends and allies” and are you confident that he has the skillset needed to do this competently? Or Hillary for that matter? Even Sanders has a record of defending catastrophic military operations, such as the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 which, you guessed it (or not), ended in abject defeat for the Israelis and untold civilians horrors in Lebanon. But forget the President, take a look at US generals – do they inspire in you the belief that they are the kind of people who can be trusted to skillfully execute a military intervention inspired by moral and ethical reasons?! What about US “Congresspersons”? Would you trust them? So where do you see honest and competent “saviors of others” in the US polity?

Did you notice that there was no Islamic State in Iraq before the US invasion? Or did you notice that ever since the US declared a war on ISIS the latter has been getting stronger and stronger and taking over more countries. Yes, of course, once the Russians got involved ISIS began suffering defeat after defeat, but all the Americans had to say about the Russian intervention was to denounce it and predict it would fail. So why is it that the Russians are so good at fighting ISIS and the Americans, and their allies, so bad? Do you really want the Americans in charge of world security with such a record?!

Is insanity not repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results?

Now I hear the reply you gave me to this point. You said “yes, mistakes were made”.

Mistakes?!

I don’t think that millions of murdered people, including hundreds of thousands of children, are “mistakes” (how would you react if somebody conceded to you that Hitler and Stalin made “mistakes”?). But there is something even more insidious in this notion of “mistake”.

How would you define “success”?

Say the US armed forces were not only good at killing people (which they are), but also good at winning wars (which they ain’t). Say the USA had been successful in not only invading Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in fully pacifying these countries. Say the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been successfully defeated, their economy had bounced back, and democratic regimes put in power: capitalism everywhere, 100 channels on each TV, McDonalds in every Afghan villages, gay pride parades in downtown Kabul, gender-neutral toilets in every mosque, elections every 4 years or so and not a single shot fired, not a single bomb going off? Would that be a “success”?

I pray to God and hope with all my heart that your reply to this question is a resounding “no!!”. Because if you answered “yes” then you are truly messianic genocidal imperialists. Yup, I mean that. Why? Because your notion of “success” is the spiritual, psychological and cultural death of an ancient civilization and that makes you, quite literally, an mortal enemy of mankind as a whole. I can’t even imagine such a horror. So I am sure that you answered “no!!” as every decent human being would, right?

But then what is a “success”? You clearly don’t mean the success as defined by your rulers (they would enthusiastically support such an outcome; in fact – they even promise it every time over and over again!). But if their idea of “success” is not yours, and if you would never want any other nation, people or ethnicity to ever become a victim of such as “successful” military intervention, why do you still want your rulers with their satanic notion of “success” to have the means to be “successful” in the future? And that in spite of the fact that the historical record shows that they can’t even achieve any type of “success” even by their own definition, nevermind yours?!

Did you notice that nowhere in my arguments above did I mention the fact that the USA has never asked people (as opposed to local Comprador elites) whether they wanted to be saved by Uncle Sam or not? Neither did they ask the American people if they wanted to go to war, hence all the well-known false flags from the “remember the Maine”, to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor, to the “Gulf of Tonkin incident”, to September 11th: every time a lie had to be concocted to convince the American people that they had to go to war. Is that really people power? Is this democracy?!

Are there people out there, anybody, who really favor US military interventions? Yes, I suppose that there are. Like the Kosovo Albanians. I suspect that the Afghan Tajiks and Hazara were pretty happy to see the US bomb the crap of the Taliban. So there might be a few cases. Oh, and I forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis came, hardly much of an example). But it is pretty safe to say that in reality nobody wants to be liberated by Uncle Sam, hence the wordwide use of the “Yankee go home” slogan.

This letter is already way too long, and I will forgo the listing of all the reasons why the USA are pretty much hated all over the planet, not by the ruling elites, of course, but by the regular people. And when I say “the USA” I don’t mean Paul Newman, Mark Twain, Miles Davis, Quentin Tarantino, James Taylor or the Bill of Rights or the beautiful country called “the USA”. But the regime, as opposed to any one specific government or administration in Washington, the regime is what is truly universally hated. I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere, not even in France, Greece or Latin America. But the hate for the Empire is quasi universal by now. Only the political elites whose status, power and well-being is dependent on the Empire do, in fact, support the Empire and what it stands for. Everybody else despises what the USA stands for today. And every military intervention only makes this worse.

And you want to make sure this continues? Really?

Right now the US is desperately trying to save al-Qaeda (aka IS, ISIS, Daesh, al-Nusra, etc.) from defeat in Syria. How is that for a moral stance after 9/11 (that is, if you accept the official narrative about 9/11; if you understand that 9/11 was a controlled demolition in which al-Qaeda patsies were used as a smokescreen, then this makes sense, by the way).

By the way – who are the current allies the US are so busy helping now?

Do these really strike you as allies worth supporting?!

And what are the American people getting from that? Nothing but poverty, oppression, shame, hatred, fear and untold physical, psychological and moral suffering.

These are the fruits of Empire. Every Empire. Always.

You mentioned that every time you see a veteran you thanked him for his service. Why? Do you really think that he fought in a just war, that his service is something he can be proud of? Did he fight for his people? Did he defend the innocent? Or was he an occupier in a foreign land and, if he saw combat, did he not kill people who defended their own land, their families and their way of life? What exactly do you thank that veteran for? For following orders? But is that not something the Nuremberg trials specifically condemned as immoral and illegal?

Do you remember how you told me that xxxxx’s Marine husband lived in a nice house with all their material needs taken care of? You added “compare that to Russian servicemen”. Well, you clearly are not aware of how Russian soldiers live nowadays, under your hated Putin, but that is besides the point. The question which I wanted to ask you then and which I will ask you now is this: is the comfortable lifestyle granted to US Marines good enough a reason to be a Marine – that is being part of the very first force called in to murder innocent people and invade countries? Do you even know what Marines did to Fallujah recently? How much is a human soul worth? And it is really your belief that being a hired killer for the Empire is an honorable way of life? And should you think that I am exaggerating, please read the famous essay “War is a Racket” by Marine Brigadier General Smedley Butler, who had the highest rank a Marine could achieve in his time and who was the most decorated Marine in history. If war is a racket, does that not make Marines professional racketeers, hired thugs who act as enforcers for the mobsters in power? Ask yourself this: what would be the roughly equivalent counterparts of the US Marines in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? To help you answer this question, let me offer a short quote from the Wikipedia entry about the Marine Corps: (emphasis added)

The Marine Corps was founded to serve as an infantry unit aboard naval vessels and was responsible for the security of the ship and its crew by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions and defending the ship’s officers from mutiny; to the latter end, their quarters on ship were often strategically positioned between the officers’ quarters and the rest of the vessel.

Does that help you identify their Nazi or Soviet counterparts?

Of all people, is it not we, Jews and Russians, who ought to recognize and categorically reject the trappings of Empire and all the rationalizations used to justify the subservient service to Empires?

I believe that history shows beyond any doubt that all Empires are evil, inherently and essentially, evil. They are also therefore equally evil. Shall I explain why?

Do you know what crimes is considered the ultimate, supreme, most evil crime under international law? It is not genocide, or crimes against humanity. Nope, the ultimate crime is the crime of aggression (that, by the way, makes every single US President a war criminal under international law, think of it!). In the the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson, the crime of aggression is the ultimate crime because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil” of all the other war crimes. Well, to paraphrase Jackson, imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil of all empires. Guantanamo, Hiroshima, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Gladio and all the rest, they “come with the territory”, they are not the exception, they are the norm.

The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays this outcome and allows this abomination to bring even more misery and pain upon millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say “enough is enough”? What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?

The Saker

Say NO to Pyramids

Posted on by samivesusu

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

Jewish Survival Strategies: An Interview with Gilad Atzmon

Posted on by samivesusu

May 26, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA:  In this interview, Aedon Cassiel (Counter-Currents) focuses on the most problematic and controversial aspects in my work. We spoke about Jewish power in the context of race, biology, genes and eugenics. We delved into Jewish survival strategies, controlled opposition, the identitarian dystopia and nationalist nostalgia. We also looked at The Bell Curve and cognitive partitioning. Cassiel didn’t cut me slack. He criticised my work form right wing vintage. I must admit that I had a lot of fun with his questions. 

By Aedon Cassiel

https://www.counter-currents.com

In your work, who do you consider yourself to be speaking to? If you don’t have a specific audience in mind, then my question is: if only one group of people could hear your message, who would you choose, and what would you have them do about it?

This is important to me. I do not intend to speak to people of any specific persuasion. I am not an activist and have zero interest in political involvement. I am engaged in an intellectual search. Jews fascinate me – their troubled history, their survival strategies, their overrepresentation in media, politics, banking, the Manhattan Project, the list of the one hundred worst landlords in New York City, academia, and their dominance in political lobbying. I am trying to identify the cultural roots at the core of all that. In short, I am interested in the metaphysics that forms the Jew rather than the Jew himself. I am after culture and ideology.

The final third of Being in Time focuses on the idea of “controlled opposition” – specifically, on the idea that Jews tend to both lead and manage criticism of Jews, even of criticism promulgated by other Jews, which has the effect of pushing non-Jews out of the sphere of the debate. Are your efforts another form of attempting to create a controlled opposition? Why or why not?

Thanks for raising this crucial point. If Jewish survival strategy is as sophisticated as I try to suggest, then you and others must take extra caution with Jewish ideologists and ideologies. And yes, I suppose this applies to me, too. My work must be subject to criticism, including the criticism the book itself applies, and hopefully it will stand the test of reflexivity.

Being in Time is now available on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com  &  here. 

Being in Time is now available on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com  &  here

What do you mean when you say that Jews “are certainly not a race, nor even an ethnicity”? What do you understand these two terms to mean? Is it that Jews consist of too many different unrelated groups to be fairly considered as a single collective, or do you mean to suggest that race and ethnicity are meaningless categories in general?

Despite the fact that many Jews insist that they belong to one race and share one father, it is more likely that Jews have not formed a single continuum as far as ancestry, genetics, or biology are concerned. However, it is clear to me that despite the fact that Jews do not form a racial continuum, their politics are always, and I really mean always, racially oriented.

You ask whether I believe that race and ethnicity are meaningless categories in general? Not at all. However, I am not an evolutionary scientist or an anthropologist, and the study of race or ethnicity isn’t my domain. I dig into some philosophical questions having to do with Jewish identification.

You discuss at length the sociological implications of extensive cognitive partitioning in Jewish society over time, and as a historical cause of this phenomena you talk about the practice of selective breeding in Jewish rabbinical culture. In fact, this is one of the key points to which your work repeatedly comes back. Yet, you seem to want to shy away from claiming that genetic influences are part of the explanation behind why these patterns persist. How could the cognitive partitioning in Jewish society involve genealogy without involving genes? It seems odd to specifically identify breeding patterns as being responsible for this development, and yet – as you seem to – deny that heredity is the method of transmission. What, then, do you think is the mechanism behind this phenomena’s historical persistence?

I have no doubt, as I state in Being in Time, that the European Jewish rabbinical meritocratic system can be understood as a eugenic project. I would be delighted to find out that an evolutionary scientist has decided to look into my theoretical model and produce a scientific study that would verify or refute my theoretical assumptions. Kevin MacDonald has produced the most important work on this topic to date, and the gross animosity he is subject to suggests that he is an Athenian truth-teller – a critical philosophical mind.

You prefer to talk about “ability” as a general term rather than using IQ as a specific instance or measurement of ability. What theories do you have about what is at the core of the superior average “ability” of Jews?

In my work I do not provide facts or statistics. I am raising issues and you, the reader, my listener, are the facts. I produce an interpretation or analysis of a given situation, a set of problems in our current reality, and it is down to you to examine it, play with the ideas, and eventually make a judgment.

I am troubled by IQ measurement without regard to scientific debate over how to measure IQ. “Ability” can be judged by a person’s achievements or merits. John Coltrane achieved more than any other saxophonist. I do not need to see his IQ results. Would Donald Trump score a higher result than Hillary Clinton on an IQ test? I doubt it somehow. Yet he was certainly more “able” to win the election. The reason I refer to ability is because for me, the crucial insight made by Richard Herrnstein and The Bell Curve was that they discerned that America was heading towards a cognitive partitioning. Herrnstein was an academic genius with significant ability. The Bell Curve could have saved the American people, but the book was effectually burned by the favorite “Left” icons: people like Noam Chomsky, academic fraudster Stephen J. Gould, and others. I allow myself to argue that Gould, Chomsky, and those others who trashed The Bell Curve bear direct responsibility for the dystopia in which we live. For me, the issues of the validity of IQ measurement and comparisons between races were side matters. The Bell Curve’s prophetic warnings about cognitive partitioning addressed a topic that has become the core of the oppressive reality in which we live.

Would you say that it’s rational for Jews of higher “ability” to want to keep their society focused towards increased cognitive partitioning?

I find it hard to verify whether it is the result of any conscious decision. What I argue in Being in Time is slightly different. I contend that since America and the West have evolved into cognitively divided environments, and since (Ashkenazi) Jews are accustomed to these conditions, it is hardly surprising that the Jewish Ashkenazi elite is prominent.

In the book, you frequently express a wish to see a return to manufacturing. I agree that this has to be a part of the picture, but presumably you wouldn’t advocate sending academics out to work in factories and fields, for example. So in your view, what precisely would the full dissolution of cognitive partitioning entail, in practical terms? What would we have to do, and how long would it take, and what would the main difficulties be?

I believe that the structure of society will change radically. I do not think that society needs millions of unemployed Gender Studies graduates. For society to be functional, production and agriculture must be reinstated. Higher education must be free for those who are qualified. A functional society must decide what are its primary needs, e.g., how many new doctors are needed, how many engineers, philosophers, feminist scholars, or saxophonists? Academia should be set to provide this education for free and at the highest possible level. This would mean planning. This also suggests that academia wouldn’t continue to operate as a self-serving industry. And yes, if industry, manufacturing, and production are starting to roll, we may find some very intelligent people involved. I do not see this as a negative development. Quite the opposite; society will once again be diverse for real. Isn’t that what the progressives have been promising us for decades?

How extensive do you think the historical influence of identity politics would have been in an American society that never invited Jews in?

Good question, but unfortunately I have no answer. However, I would mention that identity politics operates as a cosmopolitan, revolutionary ideology. In other words, you do not need to be present in a place to spread the ideology.

Would American society have freed the slaves, or given women the vote as quickly, without the influence of Jews? Would feminism have become as radical and divisive?

We have to be careful here. We have to differentiate between political acts that unite us as humans and those which break us up into tribes. The abolition of slavery was an American political project that was partially motivated by ethical reasoning. The same applies to women’s rights. However, radical feminism and lesbian separatism are as separatist as Jewish identity politics (Zionism as well as “anti”). They are biologically-oriented identitarian thoughts that are set to maintain a fragmented, sectarian social environment.

Without identity politics, would black-white relations hold as much tension as they do today? And if Jews both helped press the legitimate form of early identity politics to achieve their aims faster, and held on by the skin of their teeth as identity politics outlived its purpose and became toxic, how can we even begin to analyze the net impact of these two diverging phenomena?

I guess that this is exactly what I attempt to do in Being in Time: I try to dissect the corrosive factors that broke us into sectors.

Your analysis seems to be that Jews have been a leading force in promoting identity politics as a conscious or subconscious means to divide and fracture society in order to normalize the sense of homelessness throughout society that they feel, to ensure that no one else is allowed to have any stronger sense of “belonging” than they do. If the root behind the effort to promote this kind of division is the Jewish sense of homelessness, then why isn’t giving Jews a home – to take away that underlying feeling of homelessness – not a viable answer to the situation?

I actually believe that allocating a national homeland for the Jews was a great idea. I argue that early Zionism was a consistent and coherent movement that was highly effective in its ability to diagnose the Jewish problem and cultural symptoms. Yet, the failure of Zionism suggests that planet Earth may not be a suitable place for such a homeland. Zionism has proven that, despite its initial promise to turn the Jews into “people like all other people,” the Israelis didn’t manage to develop an empathic notion of otherness. Their treatment of the Palestinians proves this point beyond doubt. Israel also fails to love its neighbors. In fact, along with its dedicated Jewish lobbies (AIPAC, CRIFF, CFI, etc.), it relentlessly pushes for global conflicts (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc.). Let me make it as clear as I can, though I am accused by some Zionists of reopening the “Jewish question”: I fully acknowledge that I do not have a solution for the problems above, nor am I going to try to solve these problems.

Let’s talk about how intentional you think these Jewish tendencies towards fomenting division are. For instance, Tim Wise is an anti-racist activist who travels around lecturing about giving up white privilege, and challenging everyone else to give up their privileges as he has given up his own. Wise never openly identifies as a Jew, and he speaks about himself as if he were of white European origins. Is it meaningful to talk about someone like Tim Wise, who is of Jewish descent but identifies himself neither religiously nor politically as a Jew or as Jewish?

In The Wandering Who?, I restricted my analysis to those who identify themselves primarily as Jews. This was a relatively easy task, and it helped to clarify that the Zionist and the so-called “anti” are one. In Being in Time, I extended my scope. I am, once again, talking about the Athens/Jerusalem dichotomy. Jerusalemites always know what is kosher and who is treif (basket of deplorables). Progressives behave as a bunch of Jerusalemites who subscribe to secular chosenism. They attribute to themselves a special sense of superiority and at the same time look down on the so-called “reactionary.” Tim Wise and other prog-preachers should self-reflect. He should ask himself why he thinks in racial categories. He should wonder why he subscribes to binary thinking that resembles the Jew/Goy, Kosher/Treif. Can he love his “white” neighbor? While Jerusalem is a form of obedience, Athens is a task, it is a hard job. It involves constant dynamic conceptual shifting intellectually, mentally, spiritually, and ethically.

Do you think someone like Tim Wise is either consciously aware of, or consciously intending, to create the divisive outcomes caused by his style of identity politics? To what extent is any of this conscious?

I really do not know. My role as a philosopher is to refine the questions rather than dictating answers. I certainly believe that these are the kind of questions that Wise should ask himself and that others are entitled to ask of him. In fact, these are the kind of questions each of us ought to ponder.

This question isn’t as focused inside your main line of argument as my others are, but it crossed my mind as I was reading. Is there any reason why Jewish influence over divisive forms of feminism, for example, would be as significant as it was, and yet Jews have not – or to my knowledge, they haven’t yet – co-opted the so-called men’s rights movement, or men’s rights activism? Why would involvement in feminism serve Jewish interests, but not involvement in MRA ideologies?

Great question. Otto Weininger insisted that the Jewish man was actually a woman. Maybe this is the answer to your question. Maybe the reason I decided to stop being a Jew was because I didn’t want to be a woman. I probably have to look into that for a while.

 

10 Reasons Trump Should Not Strengthen U.S.-Saudi Ties

Posted on by michaellee2009

Human rights abuses and funding terrorism, for starters.

By Medea Benjamin

May 17, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  Donald Trump has selected Saudi Arabia as the destination for his first trip abroad, strengthening U.S. ties to a regime that is fueling the very extremism, intolerance and violence that the US government purports to eradicate. Here’s 10 reasons why the United States should not be closely allied with the Saudi kingdom.

    1. The Saudis export an extremist interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism, around the globe. Over the past three decades, Saudi Arabia has spent about $4 billion per year on mosques, madrassas, preachers, students, and textbooks to spread Wahhabism and anti-Western sentiment. Let’s not forget that 15 of the 19 fanatical hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Saudis, as was Osama bin Laden himself.
    2. The Saudis fund terrorism worldwide. A Wikileaks-revealed 2009 cable quotes then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying, “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide … More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Lashkar e-Tayyiba and other terrorist groups.” In Syria the Saudis are supporting the most extreme sectarian forces. And while the Saudi government condemns ISIS, many experts, including 9/11 Commission Report lead author Senator Bob Graham, believe that ISIS is a product of Saudi ideals, Saudi money and Saudi organizational support.
    3. The government represses religious minorities. Trump says he is promoting tolerance, but this theocratic Sunni regime is based on repressing the Shia minority and non-Muslims. It is the only country in the world to ban all churches, and atheism is a capital offense. Year after year, the U.S. government’s own Commission on International Religious Freedom says Saudi Arabia commits “systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom.”
    4. Free speech and free association are forbidden in the kingdom. Criticizing the Saudi regime can lead to flogging, long jail sentences or even beheading. Tragic examples are Raif Badawi, languishing in prison for blogging; attorney Waleed Abulkhair, serving a 15-year sentence for defending human rights; and Ali al-Nimr, arrested as a minor and now on death row for nonviolent dissent.The regime is the most misogynist, gender-segregated country in the world. Women are not even allowed to drive and must live under a guardianship system that gives men authority over the most important decisions in their lives.
    5. There is no political freedom in Saudi Arabia. While most of the world’s monarchies have evolved to lessen the role of royalty, Saudi Arabia remains one of the world’s last absolute monarchies.TheSaud family picks the king, who then has ultimate authority in virtually every aspect of government. There are no national elections and political parties are banned, as are unions and most civic organizations.
    6. They have engaged in a catastrophic war in Yemen. In March 2015, the Saudis launched a bombing campaign in Yemen that has targeted schools, hospitals, markets, weddings and funerals. The war has resulted in acute malnutrition and disease, leaving a Yemeni child dying every 10 minutes. Instead of supporting the bombing, the US government should be pushing a ceasefire and negotiations.
    7. Saudi Arabia has one of the highest execution rates in the world. Scores of people are killed each year after being convicted of various nonviolent charges that range from adultery, apostasy, drug use and sorcery. The executions are usually carried out by public beheading.
    8. The Kingdom primarily functions on the backs of mistreated foreign laborers. Of the nation’s 30 million people, some 10 million are foreigners. Workers from poor nations seek economic gains within Saudi Arabia, but are often lured under false pretenses and then not allowed to leave the country without permission from their employer. Female migrant workers, treated like indentured servants, often face physical and sexual abuse.
    9. Saudi Arabia helps maintain the world’s destructive dependence on oil. Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of oil in the world. With its vast potential for solar energy, Saudi Arabia could lead the world in renewable energy. Instead, the economy remains almost entirely dependent on oil and on the international level, Saudi Arabia works with the United States to oppose global climate agreements that would affect oil profits.

If the Trump administration truly wants to find a way out of the wars in the Middle East and make the United States safer from terrorists, it would do well to stop arming, aiding and abetting the ruthless Saudi regime.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of the peace group CodePink. Her latest book is Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection (OR Books, September 2016).

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

See also

Trump to unveil plans for an ‘Arab NATO’ in Saudi Arabia: When President Trump arrives in Riyadh this week, he will lay out his vision for a new regional security architecture White House officials call an “Arab NATO,” to guide the fight against terrorism and push back against Iran.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Making America great… again?

Posted on by martyrashrakat

May 16, 2017

by Ghassan KadiMaking America great… again?

The more pre-election, post-election and even post-inauguration promises that President Trump breaks, the harder he makes it for himself to “Make America Great again”. But this narrative herein is not based on the political rhetoric and broken promises, rather, it is about a hypothetical scenario that questions if America is realistically able to bring Trump’s slogan to fruition.

“Make America Great Again” is a catch phrase that implies a restoration process of a bygone station of greatness. So before one explores the chances of success of such an ambition, one ought to go back to the basics of how and when America was great in the first place.

Admittedly, America has historically been a country of dreams for many. The pop culture of the 1960’s has even had songs about wanting to live in America and surfing USA. The dream has been realistic and fathomable, especially for Europeans who wanted to seek a better life, and thus the flow of migration began as soon as settlement began, and that flow was later on mirrored by the rest of the world, and it did not stop as yet.

But historically also, America was never a dream for its native people; quite the contrary. The influx of white migrants into America has resulted in one of the greatest, bloodiest and definitely the longest lasting genocides that spanned for over four whole centuries.

As for the young African men and women, even boys and girls, who were raided and stolen from their tribes and villages, taken away from their parents, loved ones and friends, to be sold and traded as slaves, put to hard labour, raped and killed, there was nothing for them to dream for at all in regard to America.

A dream for some and a nightmare for others, it would be hard to say that defining America as a dream has ever been a description that has been ubiquitously endorsed during its early-mid stages of nation-building. Did the global consensus change later on?

As the new nation that became known as the United States of America became independent in the late eighteenth century, another century later, it suffered from a brutal civil war and the new nation was not really able to stand on its feet and have its place on the global scene until the union was saved and Lincoln managed to pass his 13th amendment.

As a result, America prospered, and later on, late in the nineteenth century, America became the biggest global economy, and in hindsight, the few decades that followed up until WWI, America came the closest ever to being great at different levels. President Woodrow Wilson made it clear that the USA did not join the war for any gain of territory or to build an empire. He was instrumental in setting up the “League of Nations”, the predecessor of the UN.

All the while ignoring that the 13th amendment did not stop racial segregation and we shouldn’t, ignoring that racial inequality persisted and we also shouldn’t, was this short period, the few decades spanned in between the presidencies of Lincoln and Truman enough to classify America as a great nation?

To answer this properly, we must define greatness from a humane perspective. After all, if we allow ourselves to base greatness on wealth, we will have to accept that the Rothschilds, the Soroses and the Rockefellers are the greatest people on earth, but are they? Who is a greater person George Soros or Jonas Salk who invented the anti-polio Salk vaccine and donated it to the world and refused to take any royalties?

The real greatness of people and nations ought to be gauged by their contribution to humanity, easing its pain, spreading knowledge, spearheading liberation and enlightenment, and not by their wealth.

Or is greatness a subject of might?

The post-WWII era in which America was elevated to the level of the world’s first nuclear power and most powerful nation, has left behind a legacy of wars that began in Korea and went on unstopped to Syria and counting, and has left a trail of destruction, tens of millions of civilians killed, mostly from impoverished developing countries. Economies were destroyed, infrastructures decimated, which again begs the question, how and when exactly was America ever great?

Whilst America did offer great opportunity for a great number of select people for a great number of years, based on the proper and relevant criteria of greatness, it can be fair to say that America was never really great.

Surely, many people were attracted to America to go and live there and partake in the big “American Dream”, be able to buy a Chevy, buy a house in the suburbs and send their kids to the best schools and universities in the world, all the while have the best doctors and hospitals at their beck and call. But in reality, what is the percentage of Americans who were able to afford those luxuries even during the years of economic boom?

Whilst it might be true to say that in the 1950’s – 1970’s or so, America might have had a living standard that was higher than most other nations, the standard is shrinking at an alarming rate. With nearly 50 million Americans currently on food stamps, it becomes imperative to realize that today’s USA is a country that is wrought with poverty.

But poverty is not America’s only current problem, and when Trump claims that he wants to” Make America Great Again”, assuming he means it, one wonders if he is simply talking about rebuilding America’s financial prowess.

So if Trump’s take on greatness stops with money, how far can the best ever financial reform process go? Not that there is any sign of it coming from the Trump administration, not that we can see that he is keeping his word by putting America first and stopping all wars, but we must remember that we are looking at a hypothetical situation here, one that has nothing to do with Trump.

In other words, is America able to become great again if Trump was indeed serious about his promise?

The formal and declared American debt stands at nearly $20 trillion dollars, and if calculated on a per capita basis, the figure amounts to $60,000 per every man, woman, and child. But this debt is the tip of the iceberg. With collapsing infrastructure like roads, dams, river levees, schools, airports etc, the restoration of those public facilities constitutes overhead costs that are not budgeted for. They are simply ignored and allowed to decay and rot. These are referred to as “unfunded liabilities”.

It is hard to put an accurate figure on the value of those unfunded liabilities and the estimates vary greatly from a low of $150 trillion to a high of $350 trillion. At the higher estimate figure, the individual debt balloons to nearly $9 million, again, for every man, woman and child. But even at the lower end, the per capita figure is shyly short of $4 million.

When we make balance sheets we have to look not only at liabilities, but also at assets. The estimate of America’s total assets is another elastic figure that also varies from $300 to $550 trillion. That said, if the liabilities figure is indeed in the vicinity of the high $350 trillion figure and that of assets is in the vicinity of the low $300 trillion, then America could well and truly be literally insolvent.

We must remember here that even if the high $550 trillion figure is the correct figure of assets, it does not truly mean much because much of the sub-estimates are based on untapped natural and human resources and are based on today’s value of commodities that can easily crash.

Apart from material assets, there was a time when people around the world talked about “the latest thing from America”. America was the world centre of research and development and innovation in all fields of science and technology, but today’s America does not produce enough engineers, doctors and scientists who can bear the load of a techno-financial revolution that can take America out of the trouble it is facing. When we look today at developments such as China’s massive ultra-fast railway, we can foresee that we are not far from talking about “the latest thing from China”.

On the other hand, the slick, “low budget”, and highly advanced Russian military technology has given America a run for its money. The Russians have been playing their game very smartly, exposing the Americans to a taste of what’s up their sleeve, and –God forbid- in the event of a major escalation between the two super powers, America may find itself with bases and fleets exposed as sitting ducks facing an invisible enemy. It is highly likely that the Russians are not trying to “show off”; as it were, but they are sending strong and clear messages of deterrence to their “American partners”.

Back to economy, it seems likely, as a matter of fact we can safely say that it is highly probable that the demise of the American economy has gone too far and beyond repair. It is also possible that Trump has come to this realization after his inauguration, and that after reaching this realization, he made his U-turn on his promises on the basis that all he has left up his sleeve is a stash of nukes and a mighty war machine.

To reconsider the definition of greatness, does President Trump believe that might alone brings greatness and that by escalating the global bullying role of the United States of America he is going to “Make America Great Again”?

America is certainly a nation that has the highest military budget, largest navy and more off-shore military basis than the rest of the world combined, it has had the world’s biggest economy for many decades and continues to enjoy this status, but has never been a great nation that has spread knowledge and wisdom to the rest of the world. It has used its military might in the past to pillage poor countries and its current financial woes are literally impossible to resolve.

But when it comes to military matters, what is pertinent is that most, if not all, American military ventures have failed to achieve their objectives. After reaching a stale-mate in Korea, a total defeat in Vietnam, after two decades into the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, America is still incapable of gaining the upper hand on the ground.

So if the military is the only trump card left up Trump’s sleeve in order to “Make America Great Again”, on what grounds is he basing his assumption that he can confront and subdue Russia and China combined given that the 125,000 strong American army that invaded Iraq in 2003 was not even able to control the streets of Baghdad?

Ironically, Obama and Trump have both won their campaigns using slogans that are based on desperation; from “Yes We Can” to “Make America Great Again”, the slogans were effectively used to lure in voters who cognize that America is in deep trouble and needs a saviour. Obama has failed and left America with twice the official debt that he inherited on his inauguration day, and Trump will not be able to do much, because like a rusty old car, America is too far gone, and I feel sorry for the good people of America, and there are many of them, including some very good and dear personal friends.

Gilad Atzmon on Muhammad and Friends (Nation of Islam)

Posted on by samivesusu

Being a guest on Munir Muhammad’s TV show is always the highlight of my American tours. We spoke about everything, Israel, Palestine, Jewish power, poverty, Trump and the workless class…

https://youtu.be/oOwjGi3KUgo

To catch Gilad in the USA gilad.co.uk

Announcement Of Nationally Coordinated Prisoner Workstoppage September 9, 2016

Posted on by mala114

Judaism and Black Skin

Posted on by samivesusu

By Gilad Atzmon

The above Hebrew news item reports on the hierarchy of Goyim within the Judaic universe. Apparently Black skin is bad but fortunately Chinese eyes are Kosher.

The reports tells the story of a rabbinical Jew who wanted to divorce his wife because he married her unaware that she was of Chinese origin. He complained to the rabbi that their children inherited Asian eye features.  The Rabbi ruled that Chinese eyes are not a defect, unlike Black skin which is.

One of his Rabbinical students asked the Rabbi, what would be the Rabbinical attitude in a case in which the children were born Black.  The rabbi answered that the ruling would have been different because Blacks are cursed by the Curse of Ham.

The Curse of Ham refers to an edict issued by the biblical Noah. In the Book of Genesis, Ham sees his father naked and drunk in his tent. Noah finds out and curses Ham the father of the  Canaanites. Some people of the Abrahamic religions believe Blacks to be the descendants of Ham.  The “curse of Ham” has been used by some to justify racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry.

It has been argued that contemporary Judaism strongly disagrees with the racist interpretation of the Curse of Ham. But the contemporary  Orthodox Rabbi quoted above quite clearly endorses the most reprehensible racist interpretation of the Curse of Ham. He clearly believes that dark skin is a ‘defect’ because it is the outcome of a curse.

Professor Tony Martin produced a scholarly examination of the Curse of Ham, and as a result of his work, he was subjected to an orchestrated Jewish onslaught. His conclusions were spot on as there is a theological Judaic racist bigotry towards black skin. The Rabbi quoted above is very clear on that point. This bigotry towards Blacks is reflected in the Jewish State’s attitude toward African refugees and Ethiopian Jews. Professor Martin suggests that the Curse of Ham helps explain the prominence of Jewish merchants within the slave trade. This bigotry against dark skin explains Zionism’sattitude towards the Palestinians and also explains the discriminatory Ashkenazi attitude towards the Mizrahi Jews in Israel and beyond.

ON POLICE BRUTALITY, “BLACK ON BLACK VIOLENCE” AND HEGEMONIC JEWISH-WHITE SUPREMACIST DISCOURSE

Posted on by uprootedpalestinians

malcolm x painting

by Jonathan Azaziah

Fuck the Blue Bacon. Was just watching CNN and one of the propagandists said that cops all around America feel like they’re “under siege”. I kid you not. The heavily armed thugs with unlimited political protection, machine guns and tanks feel like THEY are being besieged, huh? And y’all wonder why I make it a point to bring up the fact that all of the USA’s top police departments are trained by the usurping Zionist entity’s IOF, Mossad and Aman, those other gangs of bloodthirsty psychopaths who swear up and down that they’re “victims” as they murder Palestinian innocents in ritualistic Halakhic massacres with global impunity.

That being said, while I’m not going to cry over spilled pork grease in Dallas–in fact, I’ll probably drink a delicious organic Black Cherry Cream Soda in celebration of it, because again, fuck the pigs–let’s not kid ourselves y’all. This was not an act of Black Resistance carried out in retribution for the brutal killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile; this looks, smells and feels like a false flag attack designed by the system to in fact UNDERMINE Black Resistance and redirect the narrative to “outrage” over dead swine and “empathy” with the families of the dead swine instead of focusing on wanton, hyper-militarized police violence against Communities of Color and the Zionization of these very same cops who view Black and Brown Folk as “enemy populations” that must be occupied–yeah, we’re ALL Falasteeni now, Black brothers and sisters especially. The alleged shooter was ex-military (and the other uncaught shooters were too, most certainly) and more than likely being run by the FBI, the CIA, the ADL or all of the above in one capacity or another with a single strategic objective in mind: incite a race war and trigger martial law countrywide, specifically in the “dark” areas. We know the game and we know the devils who write the rules of the game as they go along. Pitting Black and White “Goyim” against each other in a monstrous bloodletting has long been a goal of the Jewish Power Configuration and though it remains to be seen, this tremendously fishy event, which is eerily reminiscent of that other horror in Dallas, Mossad’s assassination of JFK, could be the catalyst. The Nation of Islam has been warning people about this for decades; don’t fall for the okey-doke.

And don’t fall into the trap of the hegemonic discourse (which includes fake, de-radicalized, nonviolent “counter” narratives) either. Don’t let the Zionist media and the Judaized White Liberal “social justice warriors” who can’t stop quoting MLK at his most Judeophilic run this shit when it should be the sons and daughters of Malcolm X (R.A.), Muhammad Ali (R.A.) in his heyday, Kwame Ture and Queen Assata Shakur doing the talking and the educating. Every time this happens, EVERY SINGLE TIME, the narrative switches from killer cops to “Black on Black Crime”. The racist crackers shriek hysterically about Blacks killing each other, and the Judaized White Liberals along with the colonized Persons of Color deflect, or attempt to justify it, or perhaps are clever enough to ask “What about White on White Crime?” and proceed with a diatribe about how crime is based on demographics and proximity, but ultimately, all these discussions are bullshit. Gigantic, steaming, fly-and-roach-and-rat-infested piles of bullshit. Know why? Because they’re going ’round and ’round the mulberry bush without anyone getting surgical with it and cutting right into the heart of matters, regardless of who might get offended. What is the heart of matters you ask? THAT SO-CALLED “BLACK ON BLACK CRIME” FALLS ON THE HEADS OF THE JEWS AND THEIR CRACKER PARTNERS TOO.

Just as we condemn the crimes of the Takfiri terrorist scourge across our region as the crimes of ‘Israel’ for it was indeed ‘Israel’ that created ISIS and its ilk, the killing, chaos and destabilization throughout Black communities that come in the form of gang wars over territory, drugs and guns, along with rampant abortion and fatherlessness, is a malicious, genocidal, horrifically supremacist scheme going back to the “end” of Jim Crow. Black folk ain’t just wake up one morning and say, “YO B! LET’S BE ON SOME TOTAL FUCKSHIT AND DESTROY OUR COMMUNITIES ENTIRELY FROM THE INSIDE OUT”. No. The systematic evisceration of African-Americans has been ENGINEERED by the same evil men that have turned the Arab-Islamic world into a nightmare. You see, “Jimmy C” ain’t die with Black folk getting the right to vote, “Jimmy C” simply became COINTELPRO, and COINTELPRO slowly but surely became the New Jim Crow via the inauguration of the Prison Industrial Complex, but it too, never died. Who brought drugs, specifically cocaine (and even more specifically crack) and heroin, into Black slums all over the USA? Who pumped guns into these areas? Folk in the projects have no damn ports and air fields. Indeed, it was the CIA, CIA, CIA, CIA again and in recent years, the Russian-Jewish mafia has filled the void left by the American-Jewish and Italian mafias which were, for the record, also partnered with the CIA in drug distribution and gat-running throughout poor areas of Color. These various degrees of poison didn’t just fall out of the sky although the Jewish-controlled MSM and all of its cracker talking-heads would certainly like you to believe that this is the case. Gary Webb, an actual White Knight, was murdered by the CIA for bringing these devastating truths about The Company’s abyssal role in drug trafficking to light.

Going a step further, this savage, racist conspiracy needs to be seen in a historical context. Black people went from the Transatlantic Slave Trade, a Jewish enterprise from soup to nuts, to the plantations, to Jim Crow, with the one bright spot in between being the establishment of Black Wall Street in Greenwood, Tulsa, Oklahoma which was burned to the ground by White supremacist terrorists egged on and financed by Organized Jewish Interests–see “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews Volume 2” for a full overview–to the COINTELPRO regime which wiped out Malcolm X (R.A.), the Black Panthers and MLK as he was abandoning his Judeophilia and becoming more militant and geopolitical, to the New Jim Crow. There never was a healing process. It’s just been a B-LINE from one hell to another for the last half millennia.

And just like the Arab-Islamic World which has been colonized, raped, pillaged and destabilized by Zio-Imperialism, the Black community in America is then chastised by the very same forces who committed the most egregious acts of inhumanity against their people to “get over it”, or “get it together”, or “do better, slavery ended a while ago”, or “stop complaining”, or “stop being so backwards”, or, my personal favorite, “we’re post-race now”. Let White Folks of all different ethnicities and tribal affiliations be put in chains, sold at auctions and worked on plantations for a few hundred years before being corralled into ghettos that are policed by trigger-happy bigots trained to think the people they’re supposed to be “serving and protecting” are animals and then pumped full of narcotics, sterilizers, alcohol and plenty of guns. Let that happen and see how they like it when someone tells them to “get over it”.

Alton Sterling and Philando Castile weren’t exceptions to the rule but reflections of an ongoing 500-year tragedy. I think of my own friends who were murdered in cold blood by the pigs from the 81st precinct (Bedstuy); I think of another of my homies who was gang-raped by Blue Bacon from the 79th precinct (also in Bedstuy); I think of Akai Gurley, Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima, Sean Bell and little Gavin Cato, who was slaughtered by an Orthodox Jew that the pigs protected and then the Brooklyn DA Charles J. Hynes, a degenerate and pedophile-defender long in the pay of Chabad Lubavitch, helped exonerate. The problem is White Supremacy, yes, but also the Jewish Supremacy that it is now subordinate to; run your mouth as much as you want about the crackers and bathe in the massive mainstream coverage you receive, but as soon as you talk about religious/cultural Jewish hatred of Black Folk, or Jewish wealth and influence and how it negatively affects the Black community, or Jewish crimes against Black Folk, ‘Israeli’ false flags, ‘Israeli’ ties to US cops, or ‘Israeli’ crimes against too many peoples of Africa to count, watch how quickly your “radical White allies” turn their Jewishness on and start reprimanding you for “anti-Semitism”. Malcolm X (R.A.) could smell a Jew concerned solely about Jewish interests posing as a “White liberal concerned about Black struggles” from a mile away, it’s time all of us, Black, Arab, Muslim and otherwise learn to do the same.

The problem is that whether Blacks are grown men or children, whether they’re armed or unarmed, whether they’re with their families or chilling by themselves, they get treated as “inherently dangerous” and gunned down brutally, while demented White killers like the KKK/Apartheid South Africa-enthusiast Dylan Roof get taken to Burger King after massacring Black Folk in a church. The problem is the police who operate like a secret club in which members hurt ALL TYPES of civilians, especially those of Color, and stick together no matter what, especially when crimes are committed, not a law enforcement agency seeking to preserve order for all people, regardless of race. The problem is that rightist Whites think that there is absolutely nothing political about the current plight of Black folks–as well as Arabs/Muslims for that matter–and it’s all based on “biological inferiority”, which is ripped right from a hodgepodge of warped, atrocious, Judaic-developed pseudo-sciences, that leftist Whites think Blacks are just their stooges to implement whatever idiotic colonial-feminist agenda is on deck at the moment, and that Jews don’t want Black Folk to achieve the Anti-Parasitic Consciousness held by Ture and Malcolm (R.A.) because then all their efforts to prevent Black Autonomy from coming to fruition will go up in smoke. Hence why there can be no “unity” with any of these people.

No doubt all of this is uncomfortable. It’s meant to be. Awakenings always are. But it isn’t even the least bit as uncomfortable as it is for the grieving families of Black men and women gunned down and assailed all over the country either by racist, genocidal, ‘Israeli’-trained pigs in Louisiana and Minnesota, or in saddening intra-communal violence plotted, orchestrated, designed and exacerbated by the gleeful descendants of slave traders on Chicago’s South Side. Solidarity, love and salaams to all my brothers, their Queens and their seeds across AmeriKKKa. Death to White Supremacy. Death to Jewish Supremacy. And fuck the Blue Bacon every day of the week.

Traffickers abusing refugee children in French camps: UNICEF

Posted on by martyrashrakat
Press TV
This picture shows refugees standing among shelters at the “New Jungle” camp in the northern French town of Calais on May 27, 2016. ©AFP
This picture shows refugees standing among shelters at the “New Jungle” camp in the northern French town of Calais on May 27, 2016. ©AFP

Refugee children in notorious French camps have been sexually exploited and forced to commit crimes by traffickers, who promise them passage to the UK, a UNICEF report says.

An excerpt from a research by the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) indicates that young refugees in infamous refugee camps in the northern French ports of Calais and Dunkirk, suffer a disturbing range of abuses at the hands of traffickers.

The research is due to be published in full on Thursday.

According to the report, children, most of them from Syria and Libya, told the researchers that human traffickers force them to work tirelessly and commit crimes such as opening lorry doors to enable adults to be smuggled across the Channel to Britain.

A 16-year old Syrian boy, who was stuck in France without his family for seven months, said “the worst part of my journey was being in Calais because most people there were subjected to violence and humiliation.”

“Every day people would try to find ways of leaving. My friends and I tried to get on a train to get away– I saw two friends die under that train,” he was quoted as saying.

Refugees stand in line to receive food from an organization in Calais on May 18, 2016. ©AFP

 

The Calais camp is known as the “Jungle” due to the appalling living conditions of asylum seekers there.

Thousands of refugees are massed in the “Jungle,” some for months, as they try to cross the Channel to reach Britain.

British Home Secretary Theresa May is expected to face questions from lawmakers on Monday to describe the progress made on the government’s promise to fast-track the process of taking in unaccompanied child refugees.

Last month, Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to speed up family reunification, but the government has said it could take up to seven months to receive the first children.

Citizens UK, a charity that works to resettle refugees, says only 150 children in Calais have the right to enter Britain because they have families in the country.

It estimates that at the current rate it would take a year for all 150 to be reunited with their families.

French authorities demolished the southern part of the Calais refugee camp on March 10, 2016. © AFP

‘Save kids from French jungle’

Meanwhile, a number of Syrian children recently reunified with their families in Britain have written an open letter, which is also backed by UNICEF, to the UK government, calling on London to take their “friends out of danger.”

The children, who described themselves as the lucky ones, wrote that they will never forget the “horrific months” they spent in northern France or the friends they have left behind.

UNICEF’s UK deputy executive director, Lily Caprani, also criticized the UK government for “moving far too slowly” in bringing unaccompanied children to the country.

“I’ve met some of the unaccompanied children in Calais and have seen the terrible conditions they are living in,” said Caprani.

“By taking immediate action for these children, the government can take a crucial first step to show it is serious about its recent commitments to refugee children,” the UNICEF official added.

Help Refugees, another UK charity for refugees, said in April that 129 unaccompanied people had gone missing from the “Jungle” shortly after French police demolished the southern part of the camp in March.

Police forcibly evicted thousands of people from the site using tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannon.

Currently, there are around 4,946 at the Calais refugee camp, around 500 of whom are children.

Reports said in March that more than three quarters of refugees and asylum seekers living in the Calais refugee camp had been subject to mistreatment at the hands of French police.

UK: Thou shalt not blame Jews for slavery or Holocaust

Posted on by martyrashrakat

Earlier this month, UK’s Labour party suspended its senior Afro-Jewish activist Jackie Walker as result of allegations of ‘antisemitism’ from London-based Israel Advocacy Movement. Ms Walker is a supporter of party’s new leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Walker wrote on her Facebook page (read below) in February that as a person of mixed heritage, her (Jewish) ancestors were involved in both the Nazi Holocaust and the slave trade. “Millions more Africans were killed in the African Holocaust,” she wrote, apparently equating the African slave trade with the Nazi Holocaust, the trade-mark reserved only for the sufferings of the Jews.

After internal investigation of the charges, Jackie Walker, was readmitted to the party this week. Walker is also affiliated with Jews For Justice For Palestinians.

I am not a racist, but I robustly defend my right and the right of others to speak openly and frankly about matters of grave political and historical importance,” Walker told BBC.

News of Ms Walker’s reinstatement was condemned by the pro-Israel Campaign Against Antisemitism watchdog. Its director of communication Jonathan Sacerdoti, said the annoucement called in to question the party’s inquiry into antisemitism.

Ms Walker’s suspension came on the same day as that of councillors and former Mayor of Newport, Iraqi-born professor Miqdad Al-Nuaimi and Scottish Terry Kelly and just days after three others were suspended.

All six followed those of MP Naz Shah and former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who claimed in a radio interview that Adolf Hitler supported Zionism and European Jewish immigration to Palestine.

London’s new Mayor, Pakistan-born Sadiq Khan, former MP from Labour party while paying his respect to the ‘Six Million Died’ on very first day in office, assured UK’s Organized Jewry that fighting hatred towards 325,000 British Jews will be his No.1 priority.

Walker’s partner Graham Bash wrote on May 5:

As a Jew (all my life) and Labour Party member (48 years) I am outraged at the way allegations of anti-Semitism have been used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel and undermine Jeremy Corbyn as my party’s leader. I know what anti-Semitism is. I was brought up to learn how the Jewish East End fought with the dockers against Mosley’s fascists at Cable Street. I was told at school how it was a pity that Hitler didn’t finish off the job of murdering all Jews. And very quickly I learned what it was like to be made to feel an outsider. It was hardly surprising that I started going on anti-fascist demos in my late teens and very soon afterwards joined the Labour Party, which I remain a member of to this day.”

THE COUP AGAINST DILMA ROUSSEFF IS A ZIONIST COUP; WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

Posted on by martyrashrakat

brazilians for dilma

by Jonathan Azaziah

Massive, fiery protests for democratically elected, criminally ousted Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff?! What?! You ain’t gon’ see this in the Zionist media! And why would you? The Zionist media, and the entire Jewish-Zionist-‘Israeli’ globe-holding cabal, have been the key driving force in implementing the coup against Dilma, but yet, as usual, NOBODY is delving into these connections and bringing them to light.

The first Brazilian woman to head the state was overthrown in a totally illegal “regime change” operation and not even DAYS after, an ‘Israeli’ financial terrorist and squatter from occupied Haifa, Ilan Goldfein, took over Brazil’s central bank. The parasitic Zionist usurper welcomed the coup and said that it will have a “stabilizing effect” on the economy, despite the fact that spending cuts, an increased retirement age and other punishing neoliberal hellishness are about to wreak havoc on the poor. In fact, Brazil’s economic situation is in shambles to start with largely because of the scheme Judaic gazillionaire monster George Soros launched when he deliberately tanked Petrobas with his stake-reduction last year. Not content with the mere smashing of the Brazilian economy however, Soros, in all his “color revolution” deviousness, had his Open Society Institute pump all kinds of dough into Vem Pra Rua (To The Street) and the Free Brazil Movement, the two biggest groups that led the protests against Dilma. And let us not forget the Zionist-dominated putschist organizations known as the NED and USAID, which worked alongside these Sorosites as they always do.

But it gets deeper and even more disturbing. An ‘Israeli’ start-up company–a euphemism for a Mossad-Shabak-Aman intelligence-gathering operation–called StoreSmarts, utilizing technology known as SmartLok, has been at the forefront of generating the count of anti-Dilma, anti-PT, anti-Bolivarian demonstrators on the streets and has been promoted heavily by the Zionist-Brazilian media for its “innovative” methods. In other words, these ‘Israeli’ spies manipulated data for their cancerous entity’s geopolitical interests and repackaged a few thousand oppositionist demonstrators into a “MILLIONS-STRONG, revolutionary, anti-corruption people’s uprising” and the devilish mainstream press ate it up like a side of beef with a baked potato. Beyond this damning revelation, there has been extensive involvement in the anti-PT protests from the Brazilian Jewish community at large, who are all part of the upper-middle-class and upper-class of the country and thus tied to its financial, social and political “elites”, going back three years ago.Jewish-Zionist groups like Hillel, Habonim Dror and Chazit Hanoar, whose members invoke their Judaism as a motivating factor in their attack on PT and quote the Talmud to prove it, have been out to depose Dilma from day one and are indeed leaders in this ‘soft power’ US-‘Israeli’ aggression.

And then of course there is the media itself, led by Brazil’s premier mainstream television platform, Globo, which Dilma’s supporters have exclusively lashed out against for being primarily responsible for the putsch. Globo hasn’t just exaggerated the numbers of the anti-PT demonstrators based on ‘Israeli’ StoreSmarts’ false data, but propagandized that there were ZERO pro-PT protests countering the “regime change” plot at all, therefore manipulating Brazilians first and foremost as well as other media outlets worldwide. Who owns Globo you ask? The Marinho family, a gang of crypto-Jewish billionaires with a longstanding Zionist-Imperialist agenda going back to the coup against João Goulart in 1964. Whichever direction the Marinho clan sends the coverage on a certain event, Brazil’s other press outlets, also owned by Jews as well as crypto-Jewish moneymenwith likely ties to the Zionist entity, ultimately follow.

One could speculate if Dilma’s government didn’t reject an ‘Israeli’ settler leader as the artificial ‘Tel Aviv’ regime’s ambassador, or if it had made itself more bendable before the Anglo-Zionist project for Latin America, maybe this coup wouldn’t have occurred. But such thoughts would be exercises in futility. What happened, happened, and now it’s time to call it what it is, A ZIONIST COUP, like Ukraine before it, and do whatever is necessary to counter the hasbara in the alternative media sphere to present it as anything but. Globo, Soros, Hillel, Habonim Dror, Chazit Hanoar, StoreSmarts, the NED, USAID, Ilan Goldfein, these are the hateful Talmudic heads and hands behind the downfall of Dilma Rousseff, the evisceration of Brazilian democracy and the impending destruction of Brazil as a functioning state.

The Brazilian people should dig deep into their past for answers, to the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s, when Dutch and Portuguese Yahoud, ‘kings’ of the Jewish-dominated Transatlantic Slave Trade, came as colonizers to their land and brought with them African-Muslim slaves whom they tortured and dehumanized on their sugar plantations. The colonization and the slavery is happening all over again, only in this instance it’s in the form of Zionist neoliberalism. Will Brazilians go quietly into the night? Or will they rise up like the heroes of the Malê Revolt and take back their dignity? We certainly pray for the latter. And we also pray for the swift overturning of this Zionist coup before things in Brazil become too far gone, and too far Judaized to counteract.

UK – Jews and African Slavery

Posted on by martyrashrakat

Rehmat

On Thursday, UK’s labour party suspended Jackie Walker, vice-chairwoman of Momentum movement over posting historical truth about the “African Holocaust” and Jews as “chief beneficiaries of African slavery at sugar plantation.”

Ms Walker has claimed that she and her partner are both of Jewish descent and are actively involved in anti-racism campaign.

Ms Walker’s claim is not based on her hatred towards Jews, but on historical facts, which like Jewish collaboration with Hitler and Mussolini – the Zionist mafia doesn’t want public to know that their Jew ancestors played a major role not only in African slavery but also in White slavery in the past. In fact, White Christian women from Russia and Ukraine are still used as sex-slaves in Israel, reported by The Times of Israel, November 29, 2015.

Jews owned, insured, and financed slave ships and outfitted them with chains and shackles for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. They were auctioneers, commission merchants, brokers, and wholesalers, keeping the slave economy oiled with money, markets, and supplies (here).

Dr. Raphael in his 1983 book, Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History, said:

Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. “This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the ‘triangular trade’ that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750’s, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760’s, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760’s and early 1770’s dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent (here).

American Jewish academic and author, Dr. Norman Finkelstein, in a recent interview he gave to Cambridge-based Jewish political researcher, Jamie Stern-Weiner claims that the current witch-hunt of Labour Party by the pro-Israel Jewish-mafia is to discredit the party leader Jeremy Corbyn and destroy the pro-Palestine movement in the UK.

Finkelstein also agreed with former London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s controversial comment, Hitler was a Zionist because both the Nazis and Zionist Jews did cooperate with each other over the transportation of German Jews to British-controlled Palestine.

“The Zionists and Nazis fond a degree of common ground around the emigration/expulsion of Jews to Palestine. It was a paradox that, against the emphatic protestations of liberal Jews, including sections of the Anglo-Jewish establishment, antisemites and Zionists back then effectively shared the same slogan: Jews to Palestine. It was why, for example, the Nazis forbade German Jews to raise the swastika flag, but expressly permitted them to hoist the Zionist flag. It was as if to say, the Zionists are right: Jews can’t be Germans, they belong in Palestine. Hannah Arendt wrote scathingly about this in Eichmann in Jerusalem, which is one of the reasons she caught hell from the Jewish/Zionist establishment,” Finkelstein said.

Minister Farrakhan explain below the victimization of Blacks by the Organized Jewry.

« Previous PageNext Page »
%d bloggers like this: