The Middle East Agenda: Oil, Dollar Hegemony & Islam in Imperialism

By Professor Francis A Boyle

May 11, 2019 “Information Clearing House” –  Assalamu’alaikum. Dr. Mahathir, Mrs. Mahathir, distinguished Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Little has changed in the imperialist tendencies of American foreign policy since the founding of the United States of America in seventeen eighty-nine. The fledgling United States opened the nineteenth century by stealing the continent of North America from the Indians, while in the process ethnically cleansing them and then finally deporting the pitiful few survivors by means of death marches (à la Bataan) to Bantustans, which in America we call reservations, as in instance of America’s “Manifest Destiny” to rule the world.

Then, the imperial government of the United States opened the twentieth century by stealing a colonial empire from Spain — in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, then inflicting a near-genocidal war against the Filipino people. While at the same time, purporting to annex, the kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the native Hawaiian people to near-genocidal conditions from which they still suffer today. All in the name of securing America’s so-called place in the sun.

And today at the dawn of the twenty first century, the world witnesses the effort by the imperial government of the United States of America to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Moslem states and peoples, surrounding central Asia and the Persian Gulf under the pretext of fighting a war against international terrorism or eliminating weapons of mass destruction or promoting democracy, which is total nonsense.

For the past two hundred and sixteen years, the imperialist foreign policy of the United States of America since its foundation, has been predicated upon racism, aggression, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, war crimes and outright genocide. At the dawn of the third millennium of humankind’s parlous existence, nothing has changed about the operational dynamics of American imperial policy. And we see this today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and what appears to be an illegal attack upon Iran.

Now the assigned topic today is The Middle East Agenda : Oil, Dollar Hegemony and Islam. So, I’m only going to limit my comments to that subject. We have to begin the story with the Arab oil embargo in 1973. As you know in 1967, Israel launched an illegal war of aggression against the surrounding Arab states, stole their land and ethnically cleansed their people. But eventually Egypt offered a Peace Treaty to Israel, which Israel rejected and the Egyptians and the Arab states decided then to use force to recover their lands.

Israel almost collapsed, the United States and Europe came to their support by providing weapons and in reaction the Arab states imposed an oil embargo on the United States and Europe, and brought their economies to their knees. Whereupon, the then U.S Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger threatened them and said: This will never happen again, and if you do, we will prevent it. And it was not just a threat. The United States government then at that time, planned, prepared and conspired, to steal the oil of the Persian Gulf. They did not have the military capability to do this at that time, to carry out the Kissinger threat, which was also then repeated by the Ford administration, and the Carter administration under Harold Brown and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

So they put into planning an interventionary force, designed expressly for the purpose of stealing Arab oil fields, and that was called the Rapid Deployment Force. And it took ten years of training, planning, positioning, and supply to build that interventionary force of that capability and eventually it was called the U.S. Central Command. The purpose of the U.S. Central Command is to steal and control and dominate the oil and gas resources of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. And that’s exactly what the U.S. Central Command proceeded to do in the Bush Sr. war against Iraq, their first military expedition.

And as we know, that war exterminated probably two hundred thousand Iraqis. Half of them innocent civilians. Simply wiped out in a bombing campaign and a military expedition of unprecedented dimensions. But remember, it took fifteen years for the Pentagon and three different administrations both Republicans and Democrats to get the capability to do this. And then, when that genocide or conflict was over, what happened? The United States carved Iraq up into three pieces with their air force, the so-called no-fly zones, a zone for the Kurds in the North, a zone for the Shi’ah in the South, and the Sunni in the middle. Why? To destroy Iraq as an effectively viable state.

In his book, Clash of Civilizations, Huntington from Harvard who advised the Pentagon and advised the State Department pointed out that the only Arab state with the capability to lead the Arab world and challenge the United States and Israel was Iraq. And so Iraq had to be destroyed, to maintain the domination of the United States and its proxy, Israel. And remember after 1973, whatever it was before then, Israel is nothing more than a catspaw of the United States. They do what America tells them to do! Otherwise Israel is nothing more than a failed state.

In addition then, to destroying Iraq as a state, carving it up into three pieces, was the decision to debilitate and destroy the Iraqi people. And so they continued the genocidal economic sanctions on the people of Iraq, that my colleagues, Denis Halliday, Hans Von Sponeck, so courageously resisted and finally resigned from the United Nations as a matter of principle, calling them by what they really were: genocide. The United States and Britain maliciously and criminally imposed genocidal sanctions on the people of Iraq, that killed approximately 1.5 million Iraqis, all of whom were innocent civilians.

And when U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and later Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the five hundred thousand dead children, she said that she thought the price was worth it. Now, I could have taken that statement to the International Court of Justice, and filed it against the United States as evidence of genocidal intent against the people of Iraq in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention. And indeed I offered to do so to the then President of Iraq, but for whatever reasons he decided not to take these claims to the International Court of Justice.

And now, as you see, he is on trial in a total kangaroo court proceeding in Baghdad that is completely controlled and dominated by the United States government. So, 1.5 million Iraqis died as the result of these genocidal sanctions. And then came September 11. And we know for a fact that the Bush Jr. administration knew that a major terrorist attack was going to be launched on the United States. And they let it happen anyway deliberately and on purpose. Why? They wanted a pretext for war. And not just one war but for a long war which they are talking about today.

Indeed, from my research the war plans drawn up by the Pentagon for the war against Afghanistan were formulated as early as 1997.Enormous military forces fielded by that same U.S. Central Command, were already in and around and surrounding the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean before September 11. This war had been long-planned against Afghanistan. And armed, equipped, supplied, trained and war-gamed and ready to go. They just needed the pretext and that was September 11. Why? The United States wanted access to the oil and natural gas of Central Asia.

That had been a Pentagon objective since at least before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. And the 9/11 attack gave them the pretext to make this major grab for the oil and gas of Central Asia. And they are there today with their bases, with their troops, in the surrounding countries in Central Asia. And of course in the process, obliterated, we don’t even have an estimate of the Muslims in Afghanistan who were killed in the air bombardment, twenty, twenty five thousand, maybe more, and tens of thousands of others starved to death and still suffering today.

But that, as we know from all the records was only the first step in the process. They wanted to finish the job in Iraq. And so immediately after September 11, Bush ordered Rumsfeld to update and operationalize the plans for attacking and invading Iraq. It had nothing at all to do with weapons of mass destruction. We in the peace movement in America had been saying that all along. The United Nations had determined there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. These were lies designed to scaremonger the American people and Congress into supporting an illegal war of aggression, a Nuremberg crime against peace, against Iraq. And they told whatever lies and broke what international laws they had to break in order to attack Iraq.

And today the estimate, again we don’t know. Perhaps two hundred thousand people in Iraq had been killed outright by the United States, Britain, their allies, in Iraq. And again, most of them civilians. Clearly if you add up what United States government has done to Iraq from August of 1990, when it imposed the genocidal economic embargo until today. The United States and Britain have inflicted outright genocide on the Muslim and Christian people of Iraq and they are predominately Muslim as we know.

Now comes the third step in the Pentagon’s pre-existing plan, to control and dominate the oil and gas resources of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. It sounds a bit like the plan that Hitler and the Nazis had in the 1930s. Does it not? First go into Austria, then go into Czechoslovakia, then go into Poland. So first Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Iran. Iran is going to be the next victim of these outright criminals unless you and I can stop them.

Right now there are three aircraft carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf. And whenever they had put three aircraft carrier task forces over there, it’s always to prepare for an attack. And according to Seymour Hersch, the award winning journalist, it will probably be an aerial bombardment, along the lines of what they did to Yugoslavia in 1999. As you remember there, seventy eight days of aerial bombardment by the United States and NATO with no authorization from the Security Council. Clearly illegal. Killing again, we don’t know the exact number outright, four to five thousand innocent civilians. And targeting civilian infrastructure, all up and down, from which the people still suffer today. The use of depleted uranium ammunitions, with consequent outbreaks of cancer are documented today.

So this is what, is being planned right now as we speak; an attack upon Iran. Using jet fighter aircraft, fighter bombers, on these three aircraft carrier task forces, using cruise missiles on submarines. Of course Israel will be involved and have a role to play, doing exactly what the Americans tell them to do. In addition, it appears that if they attack Iran, they will also attack Syria. Yesterday, if you heard President Bush’s press conference in Vienna, he threatened Syria, right? There’s no other word for it. He threatened Syria.

These Neo-Conservatives want to take out Syria as a favour to Israel. Remember, many of these Neo-Conservatives are affiliated personally and professionally with the Likhud Party in Israel and Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut, the man who exterminated twenty thousand Arabs in Lebanon, most of them, not all of them were Muslims. And in addition, slaughtered two thousand completely innocent Palestinian women, children and old men at Sabra and Shatila. Ariel Sharon, the man who went to Haram Al-Sharif, the third holiest site in Islam, where Muhammad, (Peace Be Upon Him) ascended into heaven, and desecrated the Haram on September 28th, 2000, and deliberately provoked the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada and has inflicted death and destruction on the Palestinian people since then. Close to thirty seven hundred Palestinians since then alone have been killed….most of them shot down like dogs in the street, and what has the Muslim world done about this?

My Palestinian friends tell me that they are worried that the government of Malaysia might recognize Israel and establish diplomatic relations with Israel. I certainly hope this is not true. We must treat the criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the same way the world treated the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa.

If the United States attacks Iran, they will probably attack Syria with the Israeli air force and they will attack Lebanon to take out the Islamic resistance movement in southern Lebanon – Hezbollah that defended the legitimate rights of Lebanon and the Lebanese people and expelled the invading longstanding occupying Israeli army that had the full support of the United States government for over twenty years.

So they could attack Iran, Syria, Southern Lebanon and inflict yet another round of ethnic cleansing on the suffering Palestinian people. Remember Sharon and Likhud believe that Jordan is Palestine. And they want to drive as many Palestinians as possible out of their homes and into Jordan.

So if the United States as reported by Hersh and other reliable sources, goes ahead and attacks Iran, we could see warfare erupt all the way from Egypt to the border with India. This whole area convulsed in warfare. And who will be the primary victims of this war? Muslims. The United States could not care less about Muslim life. Look at the demonisation and victimisation of Muslims that we have seen inflicted by the United States and its surrogate, Israel. Look at Guantanamo, where six hundred Muslim men have been treated like dogs in a kennel. Pretty much the way the Nazis treated the Jews. Look at Abu Ghraib and the sadism and sexual exploitation and perversion of Muslims by their American captors. And the same thing has been done in Baghram in Afghanistan. And when Professor Sharif Bassiouni, the U.N. special rapporteur filed the Report with the Security Council against U.S. practices in Afghanistan, the Americans had Kofi Annan fire him. Just as they had Kofi Annan fire Mary Robinson, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, when she protested what was going on down in Guantanamo.

The United States could not care less about Muslim life. And the same is true for the genocidal apartheid regime in Israel. They would be happy to use nuclear weapons against Iran. They would be happy to break the taboo of Hiroshima and Nagasaki against Muslims in Iran. It would create no problem at all for them. Indeed, I went to school with these Neo-Conservatives at the University of Chicago. Wolfowitz was there, ChalabiKhalilzadShulsky, all the rest of them. I went through the exact same programme. Their mentor, Professor Leo Strauss. And who was his teacher in Germany and his sponsor? Professor Carl Schmitt who went on to become the most notorious Nazi law Professor of his day, justifying every atrocity that the Nazis inflicted on everyone. We must understand that these Neo-Conservatives are in fact Neo-Nazis. They have espoused the Nazi doctrine of Schmitt and Strauss and Machiavelli and Nietzsche, the “superman.” They are the supermen, and the Muslims are the scum of the earth.

Now, I do not believe the United States will initially start bombing Iran with nuclear weapons. But if things get out of control they are fully prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons. And here in our materials, you have the Pentagon’s Joint Publication 3-12, which you can get on the internet…. just do a Google search and read it. And you will see there dated March 15, 2005; nuclear, tactical nuclear weapons have been fully integrated into United States conventional forces.

So if Iran were to defend itself, human wave attacks, whatever, they will be happy to use nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. Remember, these Neo-Nazis, Neo-Cons want to break the taboo of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They want to use tactical nuclear weapons, to be able to say to the rest of the world, you do what we tell you to do or else look what we did to the Iranians!

It’s a very serious situation. And this could even get further out of control. Remember that before Bush invaded Iraq, President Putin of Russia said that if he invades Iraq he could set off World War Three. Well, I interpreted that as an implicit threat. Even the famous American news broadcaster Walter Cronkite said that if Bush invaded Iraq he could set off World War Three. Two weeks ago we had the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; China, Russia and Iran. So again, if Bush were to attack Iran, he very well could set off a Third World War, a nuclear war. And that is where you come in:

“This is what I can do. These are my talents. These are my professional qualifications. These are my skills. This is my cheque book. Let me help. Let me prevent, let me help prevent a nuclear war, a possible final, cataclysmic Third World War.”

Thank you, shukran.

ARAB STRATEGY FORUM: Political Systems in the Arab World in 2020:

Moving Towards Reform and Development

 

by Professor Francis A. Boyle

IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE COMPASSIONATE, THE MERCIFUL

Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen.

The demand by the Bush Jr. administration and its Zionist neo-conservative operatives for democratization in the Arab world is a joke and a fraud that is designed to pressure, undermine, and destabilize Arab governments and states at the behest of the genocidal Israeli apartheid regime, and to pursue America’s continuing campaign for outright military control and domination of the Gulf oil and gas resources that the United States government launched in direct reaction to the Arab oil embargo of the West in 1973. For over the past three decades American foreign policy toward the entire Middle East has been determined by oil and Israel, in that order.

The United States government will seek direct military control and domination of the hydrocarbon resources of the Arab and Muslim world until there is no oil and gas left for them to steal, using Israel as its regional “policeman” towards that end. Oil and Israel were behind both the Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. wars against Iraq. And now Bush Jr. is threatening to attack Syria, Lebanon, and Iran in conjunction with the genocidal apartheid regime in Israel. As the oil and gas in the Arab and Muslim world proceed to run out, the United States and Israel will become even more predatory, aggressive, destructive, and genocidal toward Arab and Muslim states and peoples.

The Bush Jr. administration and its Zionist neo-conservative operatives could not care less about democracy in the Arab world. In fact, Bush Jr. and his Neo-Cons are all trying very hard to build a Police State in the United States of America that we lawyers are vigorously opposing. What the Bush Jr. administration and its Zionist neo-conservative operatives really want in the Arab world are quisling dictators who will do their dirty work for them and the genocidal Israeli apartheid regime against the wishes and prayers of the Arab people for democracy, human rights, the rule of law, constitutionalism, as well as for the liberation of Palestine and Al Quds.

Those will be the predominant facts and trends that the Arab world will have to confront between now and 2020. It was not my assignment here today to advise Arab states and the Arab people how to counteract this anti-Arab and anti-Muslim agenda by the United States and Israel. But certainly the sacred Koran and the divinely inspired teachings of the Prophet Mohammed – May Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him! – shall guide you and protect you during this most difficult period in the history of the Arab Nation, the Arab People, Arab States, and Islam.

Shukhran.

Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010).

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

“The Holocaust” Is a Myth That Conceals Our Shame

 • APRIL 15, 2019

Most of the time ‘history’ is institutionally engaged in concealing our shame.” —Gilad Atzmon

I love the words, music, and soul of my Israeli-born truth jihadi brother Gilad Atzmon. In fact, I enjoy his company so much that just about every year I take up the largely thankless task of organizing a public event for him here in Israeli-occupied Madison, Wisconsin. Last year the local Israeli Occupation forces got Gilad banned at the last minute from Wil-Mar Community Center. The director refunded our money and told us, in so many words, that Wil-Mar’s obligatory suppression of free speech was all about the Benjamins. So we directed people down the block to the Orton Park rotunda, the local equivalent of Hyde Park Speakers Corner.

One of Gilad’s most memorable lines was: “History exists to conceal our shame.” Citing Lyotard, who asserts that the real historian’s task is to unveil the shame, Gilad has analyzed such events as the Balfour Declaration. According to Gilad, the official history of the Balfour Declaration as a magnanimous gesture by the powerful British toward the oppressed Jews exists to conceal the shameful truth: It is the Britons (not to mention the Palestinians) who were and still are oppressed by the Zionist Jews, not the other way around.[1] This truth is shameful to both Britons and Jews. It is shameful to Britons that they have allowed themselves to be used in such degrading fashion. It is even more shameful that they have been unable to face the awful reality for 100 years and counting. Likewise, it is shameful to Zionist Jews that they have profited mightily by posing as the oppressed, when in truth they are the oppressor. And of course there is the shared British-Jewish shame at enabling and perpetrating the Palestinian Holocaust.

Now some might argue that Gilad’s analysis is correct insofar as it uncovers British shame. The Brits, after all, are the world’s leading experts in hyper-politeness and its shadow, shame, which emerges into the light when polite pretenses fail.

But the Jewish Zionists, the argument continues, are utterly shameless. Their intelligence agency’s motto is “By way of deception thou shalt do war.” How shameless is that? About as shameless as the Lavon Affair, the USS Liberty massacre, and 9/11, that’s how shameless. The Zionists’ one-word slogan (and future epitaph) is chutzpah, a word whose definition is: “That quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.” Like the psychopath, the guy with chutzpah always plays the victim, especially when he is victimizing others.

French historian Laurent Guyénot analyzes Jewish-Zionist shamelessness rather brilliantly in his article “Israel, the Psychopathic Nation.” (For the full story, read his masterpiece From Yahweh to Zion.) Guyénot notes that this psychopathic shamelessness is orchestrated by a manipulative, profiteering tribal elite. Most ordinary Jews are not aware that their collective behavior is so shamelessly psychopathic. Guyénot’s insight helps us understand how Zionist Jews, like Britons, are being manipulated by the lying, shame-concealing historiographers.

The notion that “’history’ is institutionally engaged in concealing our shame” obviously applies to the Holocaust. This fact is admitted, even highlighted, by official historiographers. But they look only at one side of the story.

The Official Story: “Holocaust Denial” Conceals Nazi Shame

Defenders of orthodox Holocaust history claim that holocaust revisionists conceal their shameful sympathy with Nazis who killed six million Jews. This is in fact the main argument against “holocaust denial” in such books as Shermer and Grobman’s Denying History and Deborah Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust. That this argument is an empty ad-hominem with no relevance to the empirical issues in question does not seem to have occurred to these authors.

The reductio ad absurdum of “Holocaust denial conceals the shame of the gas chambers” is Keith Kahn-Harris’s Denial: The Unspeakable Truth. The author claims that “Holocaust denial is not just eccentricity; it is an attempt to legitimate genocide through covert means. Denials of the harmfulness of tobacco, of the existence of global warming, and other denialisms, are, similarly, projects to legitimate the unspeakable.” This suggests a very useful all-purpose argument, suitable for any occasion or topic: “Anyone who disagrees with me does so to conceal their secret love of mass murder.” The next step: “Anyone who disagrees with me is a mass murderer and should be executed.” A fine excuse to kill your opponents en masse! This would be funny if they weren’t already locking people in maximum security prisondestroying YouTube livelihoods, and burning books because the individuals so targeted had the temerity to disagree with the likes of Keith Kahn-Harris. It may be only a matter of time before the executions commence. One hopes they will try to use Nazi-style hydrogen cyanide gas chambers, which would drastically limit their ability to actually kill significant numbers of dissidents.

But Kahn-Harris, Lipstadt, Shermer and Grobman, and other gatekeepers are not entirely wrong. There is a grain of truth somewhere in those vast, arid sand dunes of ad hominem bullshit. It is true that some people of German heritage like Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf, and Monika Schaefer voice their own versions of history in part to dispel the guilt and shame that the sacred narrative of the Holocaust has laid on the heads of the German people. Monika Schaefer speaks eloquently about this legacy of shame in her masterful YouTube Sorry Mom I Was Wrong About the Holocaust, which should have have been awarded “best foreign short documentary” at the Oscars, but instead won her a year in maximum-security lockup.

If it is partly true that some Holocaust revisionists spin their histories to conceal or absolve shame—and I personally believe that National Socialist Germany’s treatment of Jews among others was in fact shameful, regardless of the extent to which the conventional history of the Holocaust may be false or exaggerated—it is obvious that the conventional story is “institutionally involved in concealing our shame.” By focusing so relentlessly on the metaphysical evil of the big-H Holocaust, our cultural custodians conceal the at least equally shameful behavior of World War II’s victors.

“The Holocaust” Conceals the Shame of World War II

The real Holocaust, of course, was the war itself. 70 million people were massacred, two thirds of them civilians. Those nearly 50 million civilians were singled out for extermination on the basis of their ethnicity, just as surely as a vastly smaller number of Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs may have been by the Reich. When the Allies firebombed Dresden, which was not a military target, more than 100,000 innocent civilians were deliberately burned to death for the crime of being German. Centuries of German cultural achievement, too, went up in flames. Now that is a real holocaust: a gratuitous burnt offering.

And Dresden is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Anyone who honestly explores the history of the deliberate Allied firebombings of civilians, the respective treatment of prisoners by both sides, the atrocities against Germans during the invasion and occupation of their homeland, the firebombings and nuclear bombings of Japanese civilians, the brutal torture that elicited false confessions from “Nazi war criminals,” and so much more, will inevitably conclude that, as Pogo might say, “We have met the Nazis and they are us.”

Not convinced? Listen to my interviews with:

For those who would rather read than listen, I recommend Ron Unz’s “American Pravda: Post-War France and Post-War Germany” and more generally the excellent collection of World War II articles at Unz.com. And concerning the shameful way the US was hoodwinked into joining the demonic bloodbath euphemistically known as World War II, Gore Vidal’s novel The Golden Age offers more truth, disguised as fiction, than most supposedly nonfictional histories.

We Americans, of course, are not the only ones who recount dubious histories of World War II to conceal our shame. Russia, too, demonizes Hitler and bans “holocaust denial” to hide its own shameful Stalinist history and its own war crimes against Germans. Japan minimizes both its own crimes and the crimes committed against it—the former for obvious reasons, the latter to save face in light of seven decades of shamefully abject submission to its criminal civilian-nuking occupiers. France pretends that most 1940s Frenchmen were partisans of the “heroic resistance” and that only a tiny minority supported the “evil Nazi collaborator Pétain,” when the reality was precisely the opposite.

What broader conclusions might we draw about the role of history as a shame-concealment mechanism? Our best guide along these dark and twisted paths is René Girard, the recently-deceased Stanford professor who taught that all culture is based on a murder and a lie. The primordial murder, according to Girard, is the lynching of a scapegoat. This act of human sacrifice forms the basis of every culture, the foundation of every myth. It occurs when the group’s mimetic-desire-driven rivalries get so out of hand that mass mayhem is in the offing. Suddenly the group turns in unison against a scapegoat—usually a marginalized or powerless figure—and murders them. Shared blood-thirst, murderous exaltation, and guilt solves the rivalry problem and re-unites the group. But the unifying blood-guilt cannot be admitted to. The reality is too tawdry and horrible. So a myth—a sacred lie—gradually takes shape around the memory of the victim. Surely the victim must have had some sort of miraculous sacred power, since (by being murdered) the victim has solved the rivalry problem and brought unity and cohesion to the group! Soon a monument is designated or erected in honor of the “sacred victim,” who eventually becomes a minor or even major deity, to be propitiated in annual sacrificial rites that commemorate and disguise the original act of primordial slaughter.

Every culture is held together by foundational myths based on this template. Pagan gods are just distorted memories of slaughtered scapegoats. The Abrahamic religions sublimate sacrifice by asking Abraham and his descendants to stop scapegoating and sacrificing their children (a ubiquitous practice in the ancient Mediterranean and elsewhere) and to kill and roast a sheep instead. Christianity goes one step further and makes Christ the scapegoat to end all scapegoats and the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. (That didn’t work out too well, did it?) In all of the above cases, foundational sacred stories, a.k.a. myths, arise to explain how the society in question began, and to justify its current ways.

Secular mythologies, too, are rooted in repressed memories of sacrifice and blood-guilt. The foundational myth of the Enlightenment, with its deities of reason, progress, and tolerance, grows out of the sacrificial bloodletting of the Wars of Religion and the accompanying witch-burnings and heretic-huntings. The foundational American myth of the Revolution and its Founding Fathers conceals the shame of equally horrific fratricidal bloodletting of a scale and ferocity that most Americans today have never heard about—because the “history” taught in our schools exists precisely to erase that shame. Likewise with the Civil Rights mythologies that emerged from the oceans of gore spilled in the Civil War.

Girard’s theory explains the otherwise inexplicable “sacred victim syndrome.” Why is Arlington Cemetery so sacred, especially on Memorial Day?[2] Why are people who ask questions about 9/11 silenced by screams of “You’re insulting the victims”?[3] And why is it sacrilege and blasphemy, punished by maximum-security-prison time in many leading Western countries, to question the sacred six-million-victim Holocaust?

Differences between political cultures are largely based on the degree of divergence of their foundational mythologies. For Zionists, Jews in general, and the sacred six million in particular, are eternally sanctified victims, in whose name the most appalling excesses are legitimate and necessary. For Palestinians, by contrast, the martyrs murdered by the Zionists, emblematic of all displaced and thus “sacrificed” Palestinians, are the sacred victims at the foundation of the political mythos of Resistance.

Similarly, for Americans, the nearly 3000 people murdered on 9/11/2001 are sacred victims who deserve honor and commemoration on each anniversary of “Black Tuesday.” (The 9/11 sacrificial rites, designed by Philip Zelikow and other specialists in “the creation and maintenance of public myths,” were engineered to bring about this convergence of Israeli and American mythology.) Non-Westerners, especially Muslims, are more likely to remember Madeleine Albright’s comment that America’s murder of half a million Iraqi children under the Clinton regime was “worth it.” Many are aware that the US has killed 27 million Muslims in the continuing holocaust set off by 9/11. For them, it is America’s victims, not its victimized, who are more notable as well as vastly more numerous.

If, as Girard said, all culture is based on murder and lies, can we ever stop killing and lying? Marxists think a materialist utopia would do the trick. But murderous and uncontrollable mimetic-desire-driven envy is ubiquitous, even (especially) among those whose material needs are fully satisfied.

Liberal-progressive types seem to think that exposing relatively harmless bits and pieces of their own culture’s shameful histories might help. Take Howard Zinn—please! When liberal progressives reveal the shame of slavery and oppression of women, they are really buttressing the modern secular-progressive myth that celebrates the “progress” that “we” have supposedly made—concealing our shameful slaughter of 27 million Muslims in the 9/11 wars on the grounds that “they” oppress women, adhere to traditional religion, and in other ways remind us of our own hated, barbarous ancestors. If people like Zinn really wanted to stop their own countries from murdering millions, they would attack and annihilate the myths of the Holocaust and 9/11. But that is the furthest thing from their minds. Why? Because they are complicit in the murder of millions, and they desperately desire to conceal that complicity.

Likewise all of the supposed “identification and sympathy with victims” displayed in today’s fashionable deification of sexual deviance serves to cover our ongoing mass murders of dozens of millions of real victims. By casting homosexuals, an economically privileged class, as sacred victims, we conceal our shameful massacres, displacements, and exploitations of the genuinely poor and downtrodden (most of whom don’t care much for homosexuality) including those in our own country. It seems that the scam of leveraging fabricated or exaggerated victimhood for tribal solidarity and profit, which should have been copyrighted by the Jews, has now been subjected to multiple copyright infringements—which would certainly make for an interesting and revealing series of lawsuits. But even the ADL doesn’t have quite that much chutzpah.

If Marxism and secular-progressive materialist liberalism can’t solve the murder-and-lies problem, whatever possibly could? Traditional religion seems to have a mixed record. Though Girard argued that Christianity exposes the scapegoating mechanism (“Oh shit! We just lynched God!!”) and is responsible for all of the alleged progress in humanitarianism since then, the historical record does not really bear this out. Still, it must be admitted that real Christians, like the Mennonite, Amish, and Quaker farmers here in western Wisconsin, excel at eschewing participation in America’s periodic orgies of sacrificial carnage. Likewise, real Muslims, unlike secularized Uncle Toms and obscurantist Wahhabis, are blessed with unusually peaceful souls and communities, as anyone who has lived among them knows.

Ultimately it is the mystical dimension of traditional religion that holds the most hope for overcoming the murderous lies at the heart of human nature and culture. The mystics have a novel interpretation of sacrifice: Instead of materially murdering the Other, we must learn to spiritually sacrifice the Self. The Sufis call this fana’, the annihilation of the ego (the Self that Commands Evil). This spiritual self-sacrifice liberates us from desire, the goal of Buddhist teaching as well. Those who have achieved such an overcoming-of-self enjoy the freedom to reject the desire-driven Girardian scapegoating mechanism, and step outside of its myth-based cultural constructs into the light of al-Haqq: an Islamic term that translates as Truth, God, Reality.

Notes

[1] One obvious example of Jewish power and British powerlessness is the ongoing witch-hunt against Jeremy Corbyn and the non-Zionist wing of the Labor Party. Another was related to me by Gilad Atzmon himself: When he fled Israel and arrived in London, Gilad, despite his anti-Zionism, was born Jewish, and therefore able to plug into the local Jewish network and make lots of easy money playing rigged games in London real estate. There was so much kosher money available, Gilad said, that he eventually had to quit in order to save his soul and his sanity. Obviously nobody of any other ethnicity could land in London nearly penniless and friendless and receive such a lavish sinecure on a silver platter. But well-connected Jewish nepotism networks exist everywhere where wealthy Jewish communities are established, offering Jews power and privileges that non-Jews do not enjoy.

[2] Answer: Because we still sacrifice our children—only now in wars instead of on bloody altars—and are lying about it, as we must if we are to live with ourselves.

[3] And why have the forces of repression been so successful at deplatforming alternative media using the “insulting the victims” ploy? Those figures in the alternative media who have come off as insensitive in the way they talk about alleged victims and survivors at Sandy Hook and elsewhere have provided their opponents with a perfect excuse to silence critical voices in general.

Rand Paul Tells Pompeo: You Have No Permission for War with Iran

By Staff, Agencies

US Senator Rand Paul on Wednesday warned the Trump administration not to go to war with Iran, at least not without getting permission from Congress.

Paul spoke directly to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He asked Pompeo if the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which allowed US troops to fight entities responsible for the 9/11 attacks and associated forces, included Iran.

Pompeo declined to directly answer the question, saying he’d defer to lawyers, but claimed that there is “no doubt there’s a connection” between the Iranian government and al-Qaeda, the terrorist group behind the 2001 attacks.

“You do not have the permission of Congress to go to war with Iran,” Paul responded, while chiding Pompeo for trying to deflect the question. “Only Congress can declare war.”

Pompeo was testifying before the Republican-controlled committee, a session that came the same week President Donald Trump blacklisted Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The hearing was supposed to focus on the Trump administration’s proposal to slash the State Department budget by about a fourth. But lawmakers from both parties have dismissed the Trump administration’s budget proposal, saying it was a non-starter the way past such Trump plans have been.

Instead they zoomed in on other subjects, from the administration’s strategy in Afghanistan to its struggles to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons.

The great fraud of National Zionism

The great fraud of National Zionism

March 21, 2019

[This article was written for the Unz Review]

The Defining Event for the USA

There is no doubt that the 9/11 false flag (now even admitted (by direct implication) by NIST!) was a watershed, a seminal event in our history. While millions (or even billions) watched in horror as the twin towers burned, a small group of Mossad agents stood nearby and danced in overwhelming joy. Why exactly were these Israelis dancing? Surely there was more than just Schadenfreude in this spontaneous expression of euphoria?  Considering that these three dancing Israelis were just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, we can rest assured that there were many more folks dancing in joy that day, especially in Israel.

Why were these Mossad agents so blissful?  The answer is obvious: 9/11 put the following notions front and center of the concerns of most people in the USA:

  • We are under attack and in grave, imminent, danger
  • Islam wants to destroy our way of life
  • Those who did 9/11 also want to destroy Israel
  • We need to ask the Israelis to share their “expertise” in dealing with Islamic terrorism
  • Draconian laws and new police powers need to be passed to protect us from mass murder
  • If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists

Almost a decade before 9/11, in 1992, Francis Fukuyama had explained to us that history itself was coming to an end while Samuel P. Huntington explained to us in 1996 that we were witnessing a “clash of civilizations.” This kind of “scholarly” research created the perfect political background to an already rather disquieting perception of the upcoming Year 2000. In 2001, when all hell broke loose, the general public was already well prepared for it (just like the AngloZionist elites who had already prepared the huge “Patriot Act” long before the Twin Towers came down).

9/11 was as much the culmination of a significant preparatory effort as it was the trigger for a decade or more of wars.

Still, all this immense effort into shaping the West’s perceptions was not good enough to hammer the sufficiently hysterical mindset into most people, in spite of the best efforts of the legacy Ziomedia to explain to us that Bin Laden decided that “we” were next in line for some kind of horrible (possibly nuclear) terrorist attack. Inside the USA the constant fear-mongering of the legacy Ziomedia did induce the suitable hysterical panic, while in the rest of the world things were not going quite as well. Especially not in Europe (which was vitally needed as a fig-leaf to pretend like the GWOT was not a US-Israeli thingie, but that there was a large “coalition of the willing” formed of the best and brightest countries out there). Something else, bigger and better, was needed and, sure enough, it was found: a mass exodus of poorly educated immigrants, the vast majority of them from Muslim countries.

While the (totally fictional and therefore totally unsuccessful) GWOT was petering out, the AngloZionists directed their stare at Libya and its leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi had warned that unless Europe was willing to pay Libya to contain the many millions of African refugees, a major catastrophe would happen. He explained that “Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European, and even black, as there are millions who want to come in“, “we don’t know what will happen, what will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans” and “we don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.

The AngloZionists heard his message loud and clear and proceeded to immediately (and illegally!) overthrow and brutally murder Gaddafi (it is still unclear how many Israelis were dancing the day Col. Gaddafi was murdered).  Almost exactly a decade after 9/11 the Zionists finally had their “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor,” but this time the victim was the entire European continent.

The defining event for Europe

The effect of what can only be called an “invasion” of immigrants was huge, to say the least.  Even before this latest invasion began, Europe had already suffered many negative consequences from previous waves of emigres (Romanians, Gypsies, Albanians, Tunisians, Moroccans, Algerians, sub-Saharan Africans, Turks, Tamils, Kurds, Latin-Americans (during the US-sponsored terror years in Latin America), etc.  and even before them there were the Spanish, Portuguese and Italians (who, at least, all superbly adapted to their new place of residence).  But that new wave was much bigger and much more dangerous than any previous one.  A huge, massive, immigration crisis resulted in most European countries.

Can you guess what the Europeans felt?  They felt that:

  • We are under attack and in grave, imminent, danger
  • Islam wants to destroy our way of life
  • Those who did Charlie Hebdo and all the other terrorist attacks in Europe also want to destroy Israel
  • We need to ask the Israelis to share their “expertise” in dealing with Islamic terrorism
  • Draconian laws and new police powers need to be passed to protect us from mass murder
  • If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists

Sounds familiar?

If it does, it is because it is.

In terms of methods and means, 9/11 and the invasion of Europe by hordes of immigrants could not be more different. But in terms of results, they achieved very similar outcomes.

Russians and Muslims, which do you fear most?

The election of Trump was something so totally unexpected by the AngloZionists (and for Trump himself too!) that it caught everybody completely off-guard. In their typically infinite arrogance, the Neocons were darn sure that Hillary would win and they would be left in total control of the USA, but the American people decided to show them a big, collective, middle finger and vote for the “unthinkable” and “impossible” candidate. And since the Neocons could hardly blame Trump’s victory on Bin Laden or al-Qaeda, they quickly came up with the “Russian interference” canard which had the added beneficial side-effect that it could justify spending even more money on war against a very real and powerful Russia than on war against a rather nebulous “al-Qaeda”. The fact that Russia has no reason to attack anybody, least of all the USA made no difference here. All that was needed to “prove” (under the “highly likely” “Skripal standard of evidence”) that the Russians are a terrible threat was to come up with the absolutely ridiculous Skripal false flags combined with a few imaginary chemical attacks by “animal Assad.” And, of course, when the USA suffered it’s latest military debacle in Syria, the Neocons could also blame it all on Russia. As they say, “one hand washes the other.” Initially, the Russian boogeyman looked even sexier than the Islamist one, but then with Putin and Russia steadfastly refusing to take any of the many baits tossed at them, the “Islamic” threat became sexier again. After all, Russians are (mostly) White and (mostly) Christian, so they are not that scary. But Muslims?! Ask a typical westerner what he knows about Islam and you will be treated to a long list of evils, some based in reality, others entirely imaginary. Besides, the Muslim world is so big and so diverse, that it is effortless to find horrible things about it, even real ones! The lie here is primarily one of omission. Specifically, two things are never said:

  1. That Takfirism is a minority strain of Islam and long before killing all the “infidels” and “Christians” the Takfiris first want to kill any and all Muslims (the vast majority) who dare to disagree with their interpretation of Islam.
  2. That all the Takfiri terrorist groups are federated, organized, financed, trained and even protected by the AngloZionist Empire (as seen many recent times in Syria when the US protected, transported, treated, resupplied, and even coordinated the various al-Qaeda franchises in Syria). That was also true for Chechnia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

This last point is so important that I will repeat it again: to the degree that there is an “Islamic threat” to the West, it is a “threat” fully and totally created and controlled by the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire. You want proof? There are many, but my favorite one is the passports which are found next to the smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers or the passport left in the car right before the Charlie Hebdo attack. How nice it is of the “Islamic terrorists” to make darn sure that they are quickly and “convincingly” identified! There is also the “minor” fact that all those “Islamic terrorists” apparently have ties with western security services (heck, some even traveled to Israel!). As for the lifestyle of these “Islamic terrorists”, in each case they are anything but Islamic (which the legacy Ziomedia and various Zionist “experts” always explain as part of a “deceptive tactic” not to be noticed in spite of the fact that every one of those so-called “Islamic terrorist” was, of course, not only “noticed” but even actively “developed” by western security services!).

The 21 century hydra

The real nature of the threat faced by mankind is rather well illustrated by this image which I found somewhere on the Internet.   Not convinced?  Try this thought experiment.  For a few minutes, simply assume that Wahhabism=Imperialism=Zionism and then see if the world we live in makes sense to you.  Next, assume that Wahhabism is sui generis, that imperialism is something the pesky Russians are guilty of, and that Zionism is absolutely wonderful.  Now see if the world we live in makes sense to you.

Unless you are severely challenged, the correct model is rather obvious, I think.

Of course, like all slogans or conceptual shortcuts, Wahhabism=Imperialism=Zionism grossly simplifies a much more complex reality and takes a few intellectual “shortcuts”. But at its core, it is a crude but fundamentally correct interpretation of the world we live in. The only thing I would add to that list would be an “=terrorism” at the end.

So what about Russia in all this?

Russia is self-evidently the only country on the planet which can turn all of the USA into radioactive ashes in just a few hours. But there is much more to Putin’s Russia than just military power. For one thing, what Russia can do to the USA, the USA can do to Russia. So there is an ugly, but so far stable, balance of terror between the two countries. In economic terms, Russia’s economy (soon to be roughly about the size of Germany’s) is dwarfed by the vast Chinese economy and Russia is not, therefore, a credible economic competitor. Politically, things are a bit more complicated: Russia is popular with many nations worldwide, but a majority of governments will bow to the World Hegemon every time Uncle Shmuel slams his fist on the table, right? Well, not really. The case of the US aggression against Venezuela is compelling as the US failed to get any legitimate regional or global organizations to back the attempt at overthrowing the Venezuelan government. True, this is primarily due to the genuinely fantastic incompetence of the Neocons who in their crazed zeal found nobody better to pick than Elliott Abrams to lead the attack against Venezuela (does that stupid choice also remind you of the time when the Neocons suggested Henry Kissinger as the head of the 9/11 Commission? The Neocons really don’t realize how offensive and even ridiculous they appear in the eyes of the rest of mankind…). Still, it is rather clear that under the Presidency of Donald Trump the US influence and power in the world have declined truly dramatically – so much for making anything at all “great again”. Well, except Trump’s ego, of course, which was already huge even before the election). Now let’s add it all up.

In military terms, while Russia has a much superior conventional capability, in terms of nuclear forces the USA and Russia keep each other in check by both having the capability of vaporizing the other side even after riding out a first strike (hence the redundancy of nuclear weapons systems).  Here we have a draw.

In economic terms, the US economy dwarfs Russia’s.  Advantage USA.

In political terms, Trump ain’t too popular (or credible), but neither is Putin (although he, at least, is taken seriously).  Another draw, but with another advantage for the USA.

So what’s the big deal with Russia?  Surely, nobody in the White House seriously believes that the Russians hacked the DNC, that they stole the elections, that they poisoned Skripal or that they plan to invade the Baltics and Poland.  That kind of nonsense is just the vulgar “political prolefeed” for those who still pay attention to the legacy Ziomedia.

No, the real threat posed by Russia is a civilizational one.

Putin’s Russia as a civilizational threat

I need to clarify why I speak of “Putin’s Russia.” The reason for that choice of words is that modern Russia is not the Russia of the 1990s or even the Soviet Union. And neither is modern Russia the same Russia as before 1917. Next, I want to stress that Putin’s Russia is a project, a moving target, a partially realized potential – but not yet a stable, finished “product” (in the past I wrote about these issues, herehere and here).  Still, we can see a number of very interesting phenomena taking place in Russia.

First, the overwhelming majority of the Russian people reject the Western-style “democracy” and its so-called “values.” After almost two decades of gross violation of every single norm, the West pretended for centuries to stand for the credibility and reputation of itself as a source of moral or political inspiration, and now it has become roadkill. Mind you – the Russians very much want real people power, real “democracy” if you will, just not of the western model. They want their own, uniquely Russian democracy.

Second, Russia is openly and systematically denouncing the absolute hypocrisy of the AngloZionist Empire.  The historical speeches of Putin in Munich or at the UN come to mind.

Third, Russia is at least partially a Muslim country too! She does not have a Muslim majority, and Islamic customs and traditions are mostly kept only by a minority of Muslims (just like Christian traditions are held by a majority of nominally “Orthodox” Christians). The point here is this: for Russians, Muslims are not some type of “scary aliens” who will invade your village and destroy your way of life. Historically, Russia has had terrible relations (including 12 wars) with Turkey, and rather bumpy relations with other Muslim countries (I think of Iran here). But Russians have also lived in peace with their Muslim neighbors for centuries, and they are acutely aware of that. Which means that Russians have a much broader spectrum of experiences with Muslims and Islam, some good, some bad and some absolutely horrible. But what Russians know and which makes them so dramatically different from most people in the West is that peaceful cohabitation with traditional Islam is very much possible. It all depends on the specific type of Muslim you are dealing with.

Finally, while Christianity is still struggling in Russia, there is no doubt that most Russians prefer the traditional values found in Christianity to the kind of “everything goes” or, even more so, the “everything has its price” which forms the “spiritual” core of the West’s post-Christian materialistic society. This is why most Russians are clearly “gender-differentiated” – men look and act like men, women look and act like women, and the various LGBTTQQIAAP_________ (add more letters if you are so inclined, that will be more “inclusive”) are told to hold their “pride parades” elsewhere.

These are some (there are many more!) reasons why Russia should not be considered part of Europe, at least not in a civilizational sense of the word. Of course, Russia is partially European geographically, and most Russians look “White” (albeit that whiteness hides a huge genetic diversity). Some particularly ignorant observers believe that Russia is European because Russia is Christian. This completely overlooks the “minor” detail that Latin (and later Reformed) Christianity had lost all connections with the rest of the Christian world during much of the Middle-Ages while the Christian Roman civilization continued to exist far away from barbaric Europe, first in Byzantium and later in Russia and other Orthodox countries.

Besides, the modern West is not Christian at all, not Latin and not Reformed, it is post-Christian and, I would argue, anti-Christian. Thus, even if Russia was a paragon of traditional, Patristic, Christianity – this would in no way affect the dynamics in the West, neither with the various Christian denominations (which, by Patristic standards cannot even be called “Christian” any more) nor with the overwhelming majority of atheist/agnostic materialists who have lost even a vague sense of right/wrong or even true/false.

There are, of course, millions of Russians who lost their original Russian cultural and spiritual roots. A person like that is called a “вырусь” (vy-rooss) in Russian. Thankfully, many (most?) of them have emigrated (to the West, of course) and they are therefore not very influential nowadays.  But we often see their hostile comments under pro-Russian or pro-Putin articles.  Many of these folks made good careers in the 1990s and are angry at Putin for terminating that bonanza.  Others hate Putin because they were found useless and ditched as soon as the Eltsin gang lost power.

True, the Russian elites (as opposed to the common people) have been profoundly westernized for the last 300+ years. With Putin in power this has dramatically changed. There is still a powerful 5th column in Russia, but the keys to real power are held by Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignist supporters in the armed forces, the security services and, most importantly, in the general public. And so far, they are holding firm, and while there are regular ups and downs, all in all, Russia is doing amazingly well and is headed in the right direction. I would even argue that theirs is the only viable direction!

So why do the western elites hate (and fear) Russia so badly?  Let’s look into what kind of values the West truly stands for today.

21st-century western values are not your grandfather values for sure!

Here we need to come back to 9/11 and the invasion of Europe by an immense flow of refugees.  These are just two instances in which the people in the West felt directly attacked and whether 9/11 was a false flag or not, or whether the Empire triggered the refugee crisis by militarily attacking the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (that was the official name of Libya) is irrelevant.

What matters is that the people in the West felt attacked by a vicious and most dangerous enemy: Islam.

There were other, no less significant “attacks” on the very core of Western identity. For example, I don’t believe that the term “cultural Marxism” makes any sense *at all*, but it does describe a real phenomenon. Ditto for the profusion of pushy and even aggressive “minorities” of all kinds who demanded not only equal rights but even special privileges. In the legacy Ziomedia, we saw an apparently never-ending hunting season against Whites, against men, against heterosexuals, against Anglos, and against Christians. Needless to say, the attack on White Anglo-Saxon Christian heterosexual males was (and still is) relentless. A majority of people in the West were told that they are guilty of this or that historical injustice or crime, that their traditions and beliefs were evil and that they out to be ashamed of their identity on all levels. Of course, there have been many horrible and outright disgusting chapters in the history of the western civilization, but unless you believe in collective and/or inherited guilt, that hardly justifies the kind of hatred and contempt which the (pseudo-) “liberal” elites constantly express against anything traditional.

If the election of Trump was a huge slap in the face of the Neocons, the reaction of the Neocons to this event was a massive slap in the face of the American people. What began with Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” soon turned into a long list of ridiculous accusations (including, my personal favorites: Ron Paul is a “Putin’s best friend,” Rand Paul a “Russian stooge” and Tulsi Gabbard a “Putin puppet“).

Frankly, this kind of constant bashing of everything traditional is nothing else but a type of mental rape of the western cultural identity. A reaction to this kind of onslaught was inevitable.  The only question was which form it would take.

Understanding National Zionism – a primer

It took the form of what the French philosopher Alain Soral called “National Zionism.” Here is how Soral explains this ideology:

There is a huge surge of what is called national-Zionism, that is, to bring nationalists to Zionism. For me, this is a fundamental contradiction in this amalgam of Muslims equal to Daesh, basically in France in Muslim equal to scum equal to Daesh equal to Palestinians and therefore the good Frenchman if he wants to get out of the shit in which these people have put him, must support Israel and not take offense and accept the disproportionate power that the Jewish community embodied by the CRIF has over France and that is the supreme scam.  This is politically unacceptable, morally unacceptable, strategically stupid. This is what I call national-Zionism and this is the fundamental struggle today. We must refuse this scam, refuse the nationalism in Kippa. And that’s not for that, all of a sudden, we would become pro-Muslim to come back to your question.

We must treat the issue of the world seriously, that is to say that immigration is very, very problematic today and the Muslim issue is a follow-up to the immigration issue. (…)  They do absolutely nothing against immigration. This is a certainty, so if we want to be against the Islamization of France, we must take the problem at the right end, that is, resolve the migration issue. To resolve the migration issue, we must regain political power over those who have the power and who have brought us to this point today and who have fought with all their strength, with all their strength, against our borders, against identity.

I would remind you that the last cover of Elisabeth Lévy’s magazine, Causeur, the title, is “anti-French ideology” which would also be favourable to Islam or Muslims. I would remind you that this is the opposite of the title of Bernard Henri Lévy’s book. So we have a Lévy that responds to a Lévy whose book was “The French ideology” which was at the time to say that French was intrinsically fascist and anti-Semitic.

So in 20 years, we have gone from the problem being Catholic French, French and today, no, finally the problem is Muslim immigrants. But those who declared war on the native French in the 70s and 80s are the same today who tell us, let us be friends to fire those who were put in your face and educated against you. Because that’s what national-Zionism is all about, making friends with the people who are the cause of all our problems and who for 2500 years have been systematic and fierce anti-nationalists except for their own nation called Israel. So that’s clear.

Another French author, Youssef Hindi, explained the role of the USA in this new ideological paradigm:

We see the return of the idea of “nation.” The EU is in a state of crisis. A part of the American Establishment, particularly Donald Trump, is trying to implement the implosion of the European Union. We are witnessing a resurgence of nationalism: like in the USA, Russia, GB and also in Italy. It is falling apart on all sides. Thus, the strategy is as follows: to always stay a step ahead, assert control over this new European patriotism and nationalism. Therefore, from the Right Jews elites’ perspective, it is absolutely essential to retain control over this European patriotism and nationalism by amalgamating it with the state of Israel.

I never believed that the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire were very intelligent, that is a Hollywood myth, but they indeed are clever, and when they realized that a nationalistic blowback was inevitable, they decided to simply take control of it. This is the brilliant simplicity of the logic of National Zionism. It goes something like this:

I, we, my family and my country are all under attack by rabid religious fanatics who will never cease until they kill all those who don’t agree with them and destroy our way of life. In this struggle for our very survival, we need to turn to those who fought that enemy for decades and who have developed the most sophisticated anti-terrorist methods and means: the Israelis. Furthermore, Israel is like a small island of European democracy in an ocean of violent and chaotic brutality. Heck, Israel is part of Europe, really, it even participates in the Eurovision! Unlike us, the Israelis are proud, and they don’t hesitate to defend their culture, religion, and values, why don’t we do the same? They even have the right to bear arms! Jews are White, like us, and we share a common Judeo-Christian heritage which places a duty upon us all to support Israel, especially against the Iranian Mollahs who have publicly sworn to kill all Jews and wipe Israel off the map. Last but not least, Islam is a threat to our civilization and Muslim immigrants must be either re-educated to fit into our society or sent back home. Those who disagree with any of the above are either anti-Semites, Putin agents, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, terrorist sympathizers or terrorists themselves.

Let’s take a few well-known US public figures associated with conservatism or the Alt-Right: Alex Jones, Paul James Watson, Jordan Peterson, Steve Bannon or even Donald Trump himself. Have you ever heard these “defenders” of western tradition or “Christian values” have anything critical to say about Israel, Israeli policies or Zionism? The exact same phenomenon can be observed in France where putatively “conservative,” and “patriotic” folks such as Eric Zemmour or Marine LePen are using the frustration of the French people with the regime in power to channel that frustration into a hatred of Islam and everything Muslim. These folks are also the promoters of what has become known as “Christian Zionism” which worships everything Jewish and/or Israeli and which believes that Christians and Jews have “almost” the same religion. Let’s take Steve Bannon as an example.

This is the face of the new “conservative West”…

Here is an article entitled “Steve Bannon drafting curriculum for right-wing Catholic institute in Italy” which sure makes Bannon look like some kind of very conservative and traditionalist Christian.  The same article also mentions Cardinal Raymond Burke, as “a leading Vatican conservative”. According to Cardinal Burke, this institute’s missions is “to promote a number of projects that should make a decisive contribution to the defense of what used to be called Christendom”.  This “right-wing Catholic institute” is run by a Christian Zionist, Benjamin Harnwell who declared that the younger generation across the Western world was on a “long slide” into darkness. His Institute is working to resist by “trying to prop up one of the major pillars of Western civilization – what used to be called ‘Christendom’ – and that’s the recognition that man is made in the image and likeness of God.” So far, this also looks very nice. The problem is that Bannon, Burke, and Harnwell have all sold out to Israeli interests and the ideology which they are promoting is not traditional Christianity at all, but this nonsensical and amorphous idea of “Judeo-Christianity.” This is why the Latin website “Media Catholiques Infos” correctly concludes by saying “Such a high place of Christianity deserves better than to serve as a springboard for National Zionism under the guise of an “academy for the defense of the Judaeo-Christian West.”

The sad truth is that these pretend-traditionalists have all been co-opted by the Israel lobby and that they are being used to brainwash the folks in the West to see Islam as a foe when, in reality, the real foe of the West is Zionism as Zionism is the force which is responsible for both 9/11 and the massive flow of immigrants into Europe. As for the Papacy, it has been in bed with Talmudic and Kabbalistic rabbis for many centuries (just read Michael Hoffman’s superb book, the 700 pages long “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome”) and not just since Vatican II (as some Latins naively believe!).  It is therefore not surprising that Bannon says about “Catholic” universities that they are “the foundational institutions of the Judeo-Christian West.”

Marine le Pen tells the Israeli media that the National Front is like a “shield” protecting French Jews

France does not have the equivalent of a Steve Bannon.  But it does have a functional equivalent in the person of Renaud Camus whose very politically-correct biography you can read on Wikipedia.  Even a cursory read-through that entry will immediately reveal the profoundly Zionist worldview of Camus which can be further established, if needed, by reading about Camus’ “Great Replacement” theory; you might also want to compare this to the “Eurabia” theory of the Israeli author Bat Ye’or (aka Gisele Littman).

All this paranoid and racist nonsense can be summed up in a short sentence: led by Zionists the White Christian West will rise again!

If it weren’t so ugly and tragic, it would actually be funny (especially to see the Latins and the Talmudists in bed with each other after centuries of mutual hatred). But in reality, there is nothing funny about the colonization of the western minds by the Zionist parasite. It might even end up with a nuclear war.

The US Alt-Right and the French National Front as the useful idiots of AIPAC and CRIF

I am personally convinced that the entire Alt-Right movement has been created by the US deep state and that it is still run by it. The purpose of the Alt-Right and the National Front is to offer a nationalistic and pseudo-Christian alternative to any kind of real traditionalism or any kind of real Christianity. On the rank and file level you will find a lot of anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist and even anti-Jewish sentiments amongst Alt-Righters and National Fronters, but on the leadership level, it is wall to wall Zionist. To get a feel for this Zionist (pseudo-)patriotism just take a look at these propaganda images:

 A sample of Zio-patriotic propaganda

By taking control of the key nationalist movements in the West the Zionists have given themselves a “dream opposition”: that is an opposition which they fully control; which they can poke a little from time to time when there is the need for some kind of anti-Semitic incident; but which they can also mobilize against anybody daring to oppose Israel or Zionism.

In this context Russia becomes the ultimate threat for very good reasons:

First, Russia is completely rejecting the unipolar world model and, together with China, Russia wants a multi-polar world in which relations between states are ruled by international law.

Second, Russia cannot be militarily threatened and neither can China, by the way.  The RAND Corporation finally admitted that much.

Third, thanks to the various sanctions against Russia, Russia is gradually withdrawing from the AngloZionist controlled markets. You could say that the main effect of all the sanctions has been to make Russia stronger, more independent and closer to the goal of full sovereignty.

Fourth, Russia is not only openly rejecting the AngloZionist civilizational model, but she also denounces its absolute hypocrisy. In particular, the Russian people are rejecting the West’s materialism, in particular in its turbo-capitalist variant. While not officially endorsing socialism as such, Russia does declare herself a “social state.”

Fifth, Russia is taking the polar opposite approach to Islam, to what we see in the West.  Unlike the Empire, Russia is serious about killing as many Takfiris as possible no matter where they are.  But, unlike the Empire again, Russia sees traditional Islam as a vital ally against the Takfiri rot and Russians don’t think of Muslims as “aliens” at all.

Last but not least, Putin’s Russia has made patriotism (i.e., love for one’s country) a central element of the social and political culture while categorically rejecting any form of nationalism or, even more so, racism. “White Pride” is about as popular in Russia as “Gay Pride” would be.

You could say that the gradually emerging new Russian ideology is the polar opposite of National Zionism.  No wonder the Neocons hate Russia so much!

The French Yellow Vests got it right: National Zionism is anti-Russian!

Conclusion: National Zionism is a gigantic fraud

There is no other way of putting this: National Zionism is a gigantic fraud.  It is also the rising political ideology of the West, and that presents a major risk for our entire planet. I often hear naive folks saying “what is your problem with Zionism?!  all it wants is a safe homeland for Jews too!  What is wrong with that?!“.

I addressed this issue in some detail here, so I will simply say here that Zionism, whether of the national or the anti-national type, separates mankind into two qualitatively different categories: Jews and non-Jews (ironically, it shares this fundamental belief with National-Socialism. It’s just that the hierarchical scale is reversed, that’s all).  Next, it assumes that all non-Jews are at the very least potential “anti-Semites” and thus Jews need to do two things to remain safe. First, create a Jewish homeland and, second, secure enough Jewish power in literally all the countries on the planet to be ready should the goyim (literally “nations” but in the Talmudic context it carries exactly the same meaning as the German Untermensch: subhuman) come down with unpredictable (by definition) and unexplainable (by definition) cases of “anti-Semitism”.  In contrast, Jewish lives and, especially, Jewish blood acquire a profound soteriological meaning: Jewish life is infinitely precious because 1) Jews will “repair” the world (tikkun olam) and 2) because the Moshiach will be born from a Jew and become a world leader accepted by all nations. A (somewhat secularized) variation of this philosophy is that all Jews form a “collective Moshiach” and that all the “nations” will accept their power and rule with gratitude as this will usher the final and everlasting era of milk and honey. Finally, Talmudic/Pharisaic “Judaism” teaches that Jews “represent” mankind before God and God before mankind (yeah, modesty if not their forte). Next time you hear some Israeli politician going bonkers about spilled “Jewish blood” just remember this info, and it will all make sense. Ditto for when some other (or even the same) Israeli politician demands some gruesome revenge, terrible retribution or promises to kill some huge number of enemies. This kind of “Purim talk” only makes sense once you realize how deep and fundamental Talmudic/Zionist racism really is.

So what constitutes “enough power”? Simple: once the people of a country lose control of their government and the sovereignty of their country is gone, then the Zionists will feel they are safe. This theory is 1) racist 2) paranoid 3) sociopathic and, frankly, just plain silly. But this is what the Talmudic worldview produces in a secularized society. A critical assumption of this worldview is that any form of nationalism or even patriotism is dangerous (by definition) unless it is Jewish or Israeli, at which point it is laudable and benevolent (again, by definition). Thus, besides being many other things, Zionism is also a theory of power based on a zero-sum game. Of course “zero-sum” might sound benign until you remember that it implies a total struggle to the end, a total, absolute defeat of the other, a destruction of all your enemies. Not something helpful in a multi-polar world with lots of nuclear weapons.

National Zionism is a fraud and an extremely toxic and dangerous one. Any supposed patriot or nationalist who fails to recognize that, is at best poorly informed and, at worst, a useful idiot for the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire.

The Yellow Vests in France got it. Occupy Wall Street, or the Tea Party did not. I suspect that many Trump voters also got it, but they were betrayed by Mr. MAGA. Will Rand and/or Ron Paul recognize this danger? What about Tulsi Gabbard? Frankly, I don’t know. But if they don’t, other Americans eventually and inevitably will.

We might even see a US version of Yellow Vests one day, who knows?

The Saker

PS: for the latest National-Zionist induced stupidity, see here: https://www.rt.com/news/454428-us-israel-golan-recognize/

Spare Me U.S. Tears For Jamal Khashoggi – This Excuse For Trump-bashing Ignores The CIA’s Past Crimes

A generation ago, the CIA’s ‘Operation Phoenix’ torture and assassination programme in Vietnam went way beyond the imaginations of the Saudi intelligence service. And have we forgotten about the thousands of Muslims still perishing under our bombs and missiles and mortars?

By Robert Fisk

December 06, 2018 “Information Clearing House” –     Can I be the only one – apart from his own sycophants – to find the sight of America’s finest Republicans and Democrats condemning the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia for murdering Jamal Khashoggi a bit sickening? “Crazy”. “Dangerous”. A “wrecking ball”. A “smoking saw”. These guys are angry. CIA director Gina Haspel, who was happy to sign off on the torture of her Muslim captives in a secret American prison in Thailand, obviously knew what she was talking about when she testified about Mohammed bin Salman and the agony of Jamal Khashoggi.

US government leaks suggest that Haspel knew all about the shrieks of pain, the suffering of Arab men who believed they were drowning, the desperate pleading for life from America’s victims in these sanctuaries of torment in and after 2002. After all, the desperate screams of a man who believes he is drowning and the desperate screams of a man who believes he is suffocating can’t be very different. Except, of course, that the CIA’s victims lived to be tortured another day – indeed several more days – while Jamal Khashoggi’s asphyxiation was intended to end his life. Which it did.

A generation ago, the CIA’s “Operation Phoenix” torture and assassination programme in Vietnam went way beyond the imaginations of the Saudi intelligence service. In spook language, Khashoggi was merely “terminated with maximum prejudice”. If the CIA could sign off on mass murder in Vietnam, why shouldn’t an Arab dictator do the same on a far smaller scale? True, I can’t imagine the Americans went in for bone saws. Testimony suggests that mass rape followed by mass torture did for their enemies in Vietnam. Why play music through the earphones of the murderers?

But still it goes on. Here’s Democrat senator Bob Menendez this week. The US, he told us, must “send a clear and unequivocal message that such actions are not acceptable on the world’s stage”. The “action”, of course, is the murder of Khashoggi. And this from a man who constantly defended Israel after its slaughter of the innocents in Gaza.

So what on earth is going on here? Perhaps the “world’s stage” of which Menendez spoke was the White House – an appropriate phrase, when you come to think about it – where the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has been no stranger. Yet when at least one recent US presidential incumbent of that high office can be considered guilty of war crimes – in Iraq – and the deaths of tens of thousands of Arabs, how come American senators are huffing and puffing about just one man, Mohammed bin Salman, who (for a moment, let us set aside the Yemen war) is only being accused of ordering the murder and dismemberment of one single Arab?

After all, world leaders – and US presidents themselves – have always had rather a soft spot for mass murderers and those who should face war crimes indictments. Trump has infamously met Kim Jong-un and invited him to the White House. We are all waiting for Rodrigo Duterte to take up his own invitation.

Obama lavished hospitality at the White House on a host of bloody autocrats – from Gambia, Burkina Faso and Cameroon – before we even recall Suharto, whose death squads killed up to half a million people; and Hosni Mubarak, whose secret police sometimes raped their prisoners and who sanctioned the hanging of hundreds of Islamists without proper trials, and his ultimate successor, Field Marshal-President al-Sisi, who has around 60,000 political prisoners locked up in Egypt and whose cops appear to have tortured a young Italian student to death. But Giulio Regeni wasn’t murdered in an Egyptian consulate. This list does not even include Ariel Sharon, who as Israeli defence minister was accused by an Israeli inquiry of personal responsibility for the massacre of 1,700 Palestinian civilians at the Sabra and Chatila camps in Beirut in 1982.

So what is this “clear and unequivocal message” that senator Menendez is rambling on about? The message has been clear and unequivocal for decades. The US “national interest” always trumps (in both senses) morality or international crime. Why else did the United States support Saddam Hussein in his attempt to destroy Iran and his use of chemical warfare against Iran? Why else did Donald Rumsfeld plead with Saddam in December 1993 to allow the reopening of the US embassy in Baghdad when the Iraqi dictator (a “strongman” at the time, of course) had already used mustard gas against his opponents? By the time Rumsfeld arrived for his meeting, more than 3,000 victims had fallen amid Iraqi gas clouds. The figure would reach at least 50,000 dead. Which is, in mathematical terms, Jamal Khashoggi times 50,000.

Yet we are supposed to recoil with shock and horror when Haspel – who might herself have a few admissions to make to senators on other matters – suggests that America’s latest favourite Middle Eastern tyrant knew about the forthcoming murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Does Menendez think that Saddam hadn’t signed the death sentences of thousands of Iraqi men and women – which, as we know from his later “trial”, he did – before meeting Rumsfeld? Or that Duterte, who has compared himself to Hitler, doesn’t sign off on the killing of his murdered drug “suspects”? Or that Suharto had absolutely nothing to do with half a million murders in Indonesia?

It’s instructive, indeed, that the thousands of innocents killed in the Yemen war, an offensive undertaken by Mohammed bin Salman himself with logistical support from the US and UK – and it doesn’t need Haspel to tell us this – hasn’t exactly left US senators shocked. Just another bunch of Arabs killing each other, I suppose. Starvation didn’t get mentioned by the senators emerging from Haspel’s closed hearing. Yet the senators know all about the mosque bombings, wedding party bombings, hospital bombings and school bombings in Yemen. Why no tears for these innocents? Or is that a bit difficult when the US military – on every occasion by accident, of course – has bombed mosques, wedding parties, hospitals and schools in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria?

No, the shock and horror and the need for full disclosure about the Saudis is primarily about Trump, and the need to tie him in to the cruel murder of a Washington Post journalist and US resident whose gruesome demise has been blamed by the American president upon a “vicious world”.

But there is something more than this, the appalling fact – albeit only a folk memory, perhaps, for many with scarcely any institutional memory at all – that 15 of those 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, that Osama bin Laden was a Saudi, that George W Bush secretly flew bin Laden family members out of the US after 9/11, that the Saudis themselves are heir to a blighted, rural, cruel version of Sunni Islam – based on the pernicious teachings of the 18th century Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab​ – which has inspired the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Isis and all the other killer cults whom we have proclaimed to be the West’s Enemy No 1.

Nailing Mohammed Bin Salman to a crucifix – a method of execution favoured by the Wahhabis – is an easy kill for US senators, of course. You hit the president and smash those unhappy historical details all in one fell swoop.

But don’t bank on it. Oil and arms are a potent mix. Old Abd al-Wahhab’s home is protected in a new tourist haunt in the suburbs of Riyadh. Come to think of it, the national mosque of Qatar – hostile to rapacious Saudi Arabia but another recipient of US weapons and a supporter of Islamist forces in Syria and Iraq – has a capacity for 30,000 souls, was built only seven years ago and is named after Abd al-Wahhab himself.

This is the dangerous world in which America and its allies now tread, disdainful of the thousands of Muslims who perish under our bombs and missiles and mortars – proxy-delivered by those we should distrust – ignorant of the religious currents which rumble on beneath our feet and beneath the House of Saud. Even the virtually useless information Haspel learned in the CIA’s “black centres” could have told senators this. If they had bothered to ask.

This article was originally published by  The Independent ” 

 

Thanking vets for their “service” – why?

The Saker

November 15, 2018

Thanking vets for their “service” – why?

[This article was written for the Unz Review]

Depending on the context, the small word “why” can be totally innocuous or it can be just about the most subversive and even sacrilegious word one can utter.  This is probably why I love this word so much: it’s ability to unleash tremendous power against all sorts of sacred cows and unchallenged beliefs.  So,today I want to ask everybody why so many people feel the need to thank veterans for their “service”?

But first, let’s debunk a few myths:

First, let’s begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that US Americans don’t like wars.  That is totally false. US Americans hate losing wars, but if they win them, they absolutely love them.  In other words, the typical US reaction to a war depends on the perceived outcome of that war. If it is a success they love it (even if it is a turkey-shoot like Desert Storm). If it is a deniable defeat (say the US/NATO air operations against Serbian forces in Kosovo or the total clusterbleep in Grenada) they will simply “forget” it. And if it is an undeniable defeat (say Iraq or Afghanistan) then, yes, indeed, most US Americans will be categorically opposed to it.

 

Next is myth #2: the truth is that no US serviceman or woman has fought a war in defense of the USA since at least WWII (and even this one is very debatable considering that the US forced Japan to wage war and since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan). Since 1945 there has not been a single situation in which US soldiers defended their land, their towns, their families or their friends from an aggressor. Not one! All the wars fought by the USA since 1945 were wars of aggression, wars of choice and most of them were completely illegal to boot (including numerous subversive and covert operations). At most, one can make the argument that US veterans defended the so-called “American way of life,” but only if one accepts that the said “American way of life” requires and mandates imperialist wars of aggression and the wholesale abandonment of the key concepts of international law.

Finally, there is the ugly dirty little secret that everybody knows but, for some reason, very few dare to mention: the decision to join the (all volunteer) US military is one primarily based on financial considerations and absolutely not some kind of generous “service” of the motherland for pure, lofty, ideals.  Yes, yes, I know – there were those who did join the US military after 9/11 thinking that the USA had been attacked and that they needed to help bring the fight to those who attacked the USA.  But even with a very modest degree of intelligence, it should have become pretty darn obvious that whether 9/11 was indeed the work of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda or not (personally I am absolutely certain that this was a controlled demolition) – this atrocity was used by the US government to justify a long list of wars which could not have possibly had anything to do with 9/11. Hey, after all, the US decided to attack Iraq (which self-evidently had nothing to do with 9/11) and not the KSA (even though most of the putative hijackers were Saudis and had official Saudi backing). Besides, even if some folks were not smart enough to see through the lies and even if THEY believed that they joined the US military to defend the USA, why would the rest of us who by 2018 all know that the attack on Iraq was purely and solely based on lies, “thank” veterans for stupidly waging war for interests they cannot even identify? Since when do we thank people for making wrong and, frankly, immoral decisions?!

Veterans of foreign wars? Wait, I was not aware that there were any other types of vets!

Now let’s look at another basic thing: what is military service? The way I see it, military personnel can roughly be split into two categories: those who actually kill people and those who help those who kill people kill people. Right? If you are a machine gunner or a tank driver, then you personally get to kill people. If you are a communications specialist, or a truck driver, or an electrician, you don’t get to kill people yourself, but your work is to make it easier for those who kill people to kill people. So I think that it would be fair to say that joining a military, any military, is to join an organization whose main purpose is to kill people. Of course, that killing can be morally justifiable and, say, in defense of your country and fellow citizens. But that can only be the case if you prepare for a defensive war and, as we all know, the USA has not fought such a war for over 70 years now. Which means that with a few increasingly rare exceptions (WWII veterans) ALL the veterans which get thanked for their service did what exactly? If we put it in plain English, what fundamental, crucial decision did ALL these veterans make?

In simple and plain English, veterans are those who signed up to kill people outside the USA for money.

Sorry, I know that this sounds offensive to many, but this is a fact. The fact that this decision (to join an organization whose primary purpose is to murder people in their own countries, hundreds and thousands of miles away from the USA) could ALSO have been taken for “patriotic” reasons (i.e. by those who believed in what is most likely the most lying propaganda machine in history) or to “see the world” and “become a real man” does not change the fact that if the US military offered NO pay or benefits, NO scholarships, NO healthcare, etc. then the vast majority of those who claim that they joined to “serve” would never have joined in the first place. We all know that, let’s not pretend otherwise! Just look at the arguments recruiters use to convince people to join: they are all about money and benefits! Need more proof? Just look at the kind of social groups who compose the bulk of the US military: uneducated, poor, with minimal career prospects. The simple truth is that financially successful folks very rarely join the military and, when they do, they usually make a career out of it.

As somebody who has lived in the USA for a total of 21 years now, I can attest that folks join the military precisely for the same reasons they enter the police force or become correctional officers: because in all those endeavors there is money to be made and benefits to enjoy. Okay, there must be, by definition, the 1% or less who joined these (all violent) careers for purely lofty and noble ideals. But these would be a small, tiny, minority. The overwhelming majority of cops, correctional officers and soldiers joined primarily for material and/or financial reasons.

By the way, since that is the case, is it not also true that the soldier (just like the cop or the correctional officers) has ALREADY received his/her “gratitude” from the society for their “service” in the form of a check? Why do folks then still feel the need to “thank them for their service”? We don’t thank air traffic controllers or logging workers (also very tough careers) for their service, do we? And that is in spite of the fact that air traffic controllers and logging workers did not choose to join an organization whose primary goal is to kill people in their own homes (whether private homes or national ones) which is what soldiers get paid for.

Let me repeat that truism once again, in an even more direct way:

veterans are killers hired for money.  Period.  The rest is all propaganda.

In a normal sane world, one would think that this is primarily a moral and ethical question. I would even say a spiritual one. Surely major religions would have something relevant and clarifying to say about this? Well, in the past they did.  In fact, with some slight variations, the principles of what is called a “just war” have been known in the West since at least Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.  According to one source they are:

  • A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
  • A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
  • A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
  • A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
  • The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
  • The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
  • The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Modern religions for war

(Check out this article for a more thorough discussion of this fascinating topic)

Now Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas are hardly heroes of mine, but they are considered as very authoritative in western philosophical thought. Yet, when checked against this list of criteria, all the wars fought by the USA are clearly and self-evidently totally unjust: all of them fail on several criteria, and most of them (including the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan) fail on all of them!

But there is no need to go far back into the centuries to find authoritative western thinkers who clearly denounce unjust wars.  Did you know that the ultimate crime under international law is not genocide or crimes against humanity?

Robert H Jackson

Nope, the supreme crime under international law is the crime of aggression. In the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Robert H. Jackson, the crime of aggression is the supreme crime because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil” of all the other war crimes.  He wrote:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

So from the 4th century through the 20th century, the people of the West always knew what a just war was, and they fully understood that starting such a war is the supreme evil crime under international law. But this goes beyond just major wars. Under international law, the crime of “aggression” does not only refer to a full-scale military attack. Aggression can be defined as the execution of any one of the following acts:

  • Declaration of war upon another State.
  • Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.
  • Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.
  • A naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State.
  • Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.

Finally, it is important to note here that by these authoritative legal definitions, every single US President is a war criminal under international law! This, in turn, begs the question of whether all the wars fought by US soldiers since 1945 were indeed waged by a legitimate authority (as mentioned by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas above)? How can that be when the Commander in Chief himself is a war criminal?

Let’s sum it up so far:

we have folks who agree to become killers (or killer-assistants), who do that primarily for financial reasons, who then only participate in illegal and immoral wars of aggression and whose commander in chief is a war criminal.

And they deserve our gratitude why exactly?!

Maybe because so many veterans have been hurt, maimed, traumatized? Maybe because once they leave the armed forces, they don’t get the social and medical support they need? Perhaps merely because wars are horrible? Or maybe because the veterans were lied to and deceived? Or maybe because some (many?) of them did try to stay human, honorable and decent people in spite of the horrors of war all around them? When we think of the horrendous unemployment, homelessness and even suicide figures amongst veterans, we cannot but feel that these are people who have been lied to, cheated and then discarded like a useless tool. So maybe saying “thank you for your service” is the right thing to say?

Nope! These are all excellent reasons to feel compassion and sympathy for veterans, yes. But not gratitude. There is a huge difference here. Everybody, every human, and I strongly believe every creature deserves compassion and sympathy. But it is one thing to say “I feel compassion for you” and quite another to say “thank you for what you did” because that implies that the deed was a moral, good, ethical deed, and that is entirely false.

Major General Smedley Butler put it best when he wrote:

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war, a few people make huge fortunes.

If we agree that war is, indeed, a “racket” and that it is conducted “for the benefit of the very few” then it would make sense for these “very few” to express their gratitude to those whom they hired to enrich them.  And, in fact, they do.  Here is the best example of that:

Corporation for war

(well, that at least makes sense!)

Of course, Google is no more dependent on wars of aggression than any other US corporation.  The very nature of the US economy is based on war and has always been based on war.  The so-called “American way of life” but without wars of aggression has never been attempted in the past, and it won’t be attempted for as long as the USA remains the cornerstone of the AngloZionist Empire and the world hegemony it seeks to impose on the rest of mankind.  But until that day arrives the “American way of life” will always imply wars of aggression and the mass murder of innocent people whose only “sin” is to dare to want to live free and not be a slave to the Empire.  If you believe that those who dare to want to live free in a truly sovereign country deserve to be murdered and maimed, then yes, by all means – thank the veterans from the bottom of your heart!

But if you don’t believe this, offer them your compassion, but not your gratitude for their crimes.

The Saker

NYT: Uproar Over Dissident Rattles Saudi Royal Family, King Has No Capacity To Handle Crisis

 

 

Ben Hubbard, David D. Kirkpatrick

As international outrage grew at Saudi Arabia over the apparent killing of the Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, an alarmed King Salman dispatched a senior royal to address the matter with Turkey’s president.

Prince Khalid al-Faisal returned home from Ankara with a bleak message for the royal family: “It is really difficult to get out of this one,” Prince Khalid told relatives after his return, one of those family members recalled this week. “He was really disturbed by it.”

Saudi Arabia is facing perhaps its greatest international crisis since the revelation that its citizens planned and carried out the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Members of the ruling family are increasingly worried about the direction of the country under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the 33-year-old favorite son of King Salman and the kingdom’s day-to-day ruler.

But unlike 2001, when the royal family came together to protect its collective interests, this time that may not be possible. Instead, there is deep concern, as royals search, so far in vain, for a way to contain the crown prince, who has consolidated power so completely that nearly everyone else is marginalized.kha

The one person who could intervene is the king himself, but senior princes have found it nearly impossible to bring their concerns to the 82-year-old monarch, and some doubt he is fully aware of what is happening or willing to change course.

“The king has no capacity to handle it,” said an employee of a senior prince, speaking on condition of anonymity like others in this article because of fear of repercussions.

Speaking of Crown Prince Mohammed, he said, “He is No. 1 and No. 2.”

Since the Saudi state was founded in 1932, the royal family has at times been torn by disagreements, even an assassination. But the thousands of princes and princesses who make up the House of Saud have ultimately found ways to preserve the dynasty. There was simply too much at stake to let family rifts get in the way of lavish lifestyles, exorbitant allowances and unrivaled privileges.

Then came Crown Prince Mohammed — young, brash and eager — who has systematically dismantled the system of consensus that kept the peace for decades.

With all the power in his hands, the crown prince also abandoned the traditional Saudi foreign policy style that used quiet, behind-the-scenes deal making and checkbook diplomacy. Instead, he moved aggressively, launching a disastrous military intervention in Yemen; kidnapping the Lebanese prime minister; and rupturing relations with Qatar and Canada. Meanwhile, he marketed a new Saudi Arabia abroad in which a dynamic economy would boom and women would drive.

That pitch won over fans who saw him as exactly the kind of leader the kingdom needed to shake off its conservative past. Among those fans was the Trump administration, which made him the pillar of its Middle East policy.

But his rise irked many of his cousins, who now fear the worst as they helplessly watch the kingdom’s reputation become toxic.

Turkish officials have said a 15-member hit team from Saudi Arabia was waiting for Mr. Khoshoggi and dismembered him inside the consulate. It seems unlikely that such an operation could have been undertaken without the crown prince’s knowledge.

Such a prospect has created something the prince’s relatives thought they’d never see: a problem they cannot buy their way out of. And none appear willing or able to match the young prince’s Machiavellian tactics.

“They aren’t a particularly draconian bunch,” said another longtime associate of the royal family, describing the philosophy of some princes as, “We just want to eat burgers and go on foreign holidays.”

Associates of the royal family say that senior princes don’t have the access to King Salman that they had to previous kings, making it hard to voice concerns. Some princes cannot enter the royal court or the king’s palace unless their names have been placed at the door ahead of time, one member of the royal family complained.

Otherwise, they see the king at official events where it is considered bad form to raise thorny issues or they visit him at night when he is playing cards, also a bad time for serious talk.

At the same time, Prince Mohammed has been scrambling to mitigate the damage. One Western adviser said that even he had been taken aback by the outrage.

“He was in real shock at the magnitude of the reaction,” the adviser said.

The palace turmoil has been reflected in Saudi Arabia’s shifting explanations for what happened to Mr. Khashoggi. For weeks, the government officials insisted that he had left the Istanbul consulate shortly after he arrived and they had no idea of his whereabouts.

Early Saturday, Saudi state-run media said Mr. Khoshoggi had been killed in a fistfight inside the consulate and that 18 unidentified Saudis were being held in connection with his death. It was the kingdom’s first admission that Mr. Khoshoggi was dead.

The crown prince has steadfastly rejected the pleas of Wall Street executives to postpone an investor conference he is scheduled to host next week in Riyadh, even as one after another participant has canceled because of the scandal, including United States Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Instead, the crown prince formed a crisis committee of representatives of the intelligence agencies, Foreign Ministry and security services to update him throughout the day on the latest in the Khashoggi scandal. He has recalled his younger brother, Prince Khalid bin Salman, the ambassador to Washington, accelerating plans to name him as a kind of national security adviser to bring order to what largely has been an ad hoc policy process.

The royal court has threatened to retaliate against any moves taken against the kingdom, suggesting it might use its influence on the oil markets as leverage over the global economy. One closely allied commentator suggested that sanctions against the kingdom could push it and the Muslim world “into the arms of Iran.”

The terse announcement early Saturday that Khashoggi died inside the consulate during a fight appeared to be part of a strategy of acknowledging his death but shifting the responsibility away from the crown prince.

Officials were known to have been weighing whether to blame Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, the deputy head of intelligence and a confidant of the young prince. People with knowledge of the plan said it would accuse General Assiri of having orchestrated a plot intended to capture Mr. Khashoggi but that it ultimately killed him — an explanation the Saudis hope will help to shield the crown prince from further recriminations.

On Saturday, General Assiri was removed from his post, state media reported, along with at least three other high-level officials. It was not made clear whether the dismissals had any connection to the Khashoggi case.

While Saudi Arabia was traditionally ruled by senior princes who divided major portfolios and made big policy decisions by consensus under the king, many of those once once-powerful princes have seen their power cut. Some have been removed from prominent posts. Others were locked in the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton last year on accusations of corruption made by Crown Prince Mohammed. Still others and their families are banned from travel and too scared they might be arrested to speak up.

Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the previous crown prince and counterterrorism czar, remains under virtual house arrest. He, his wife and their two daughters found out earlier this year that their Saudi bank accounts had been drained, a relative said.

The sons of the former king, Abdullah, who died in 2015, have been neutralized. One was removed as the head of the National Guard, accused of corruption and stripped of assets, including the horse track he inherited from his father. His brother, a former governor of Riyadh, is detained, as is another son of another former king. Yet another brother is hiding out in Europe, scared that he could be kidnapped and sent home.

That leaves only the crown prince’s father, King Salman, to check his power.

“There is one person inside Saudi Arabia who can challenge Mohammed bin Salman and it is the king,” said Joseph A. Kechichian, a scholar at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh.

But the king must consider not only the stain of the Khashoggi issue on his son’s reputation, but also how to continue the reform program known as Vision 2030 that the crown prince has begun, Mr. Kechichian said.

Others question whether the king’s health allows him to grasp all that is happening.

“One worries about the mental state of King Salman,” said Madawi al-Rasheed, a visiting professor at the London School of Economics and author of many books on Saudi Arabia. “Is he really in a position to make these decisions at this late age?”

Removing such a powerful crown prince could prove hugely disruptive, and few princes would want the job with a resentful Mohammed bin Salman scheming against his replacement. But one Western diplomat with long experience in the kingdom suggested that the king might check the young prince by reducing his power, perhaps redistributing control of the security services to other respected princes.

“The brand has been irreparably tarnished — domestically they really do need to do something to rein MBS in,” the diplomat said, referring to the crown prince by his initials. “They need to do something to corral him.”

One of the few with the stature to urge the king to make such a shift might be Prince Khalid, who flew to Ankara to see the Turks. A son of the late King Faisal and now governor of Mecca Province, Prince Khalid, 78, is esteemed in the family as measured and intelligent. That the king sent him on such a touchy mission indicates that he already has the monarch’s trust. His half brother, Prince Turki al-Faisal, was a longtime friend and patron of Mr. Khashoggi in the decades when he worked in the Saudi establishment before he turned critical of Crown Prince Mohammed.

Some foes of the crown prince have hoped for a challenge for the throne from the king’s brother, Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz. Prince Ahmed, 73, is the youngest of seven sons of the late King Abdulaziz who all shared the same mother, Hussa bint Ahmed al-Sudairi. The Sudairi seven, as they were known, formed a powerful bloc within the family and passed the throne from brother to brother — a pattern that might have extended to Prince Ahmed if King Salman had not redirected the line of succession to his own son.

So critics of Prince Mohammed were electrified last month when Prince Ahmed addressed protesters on the street in London who were chanting against the royal family over the war in Yemen.

“What does this have to do with the Al Saud?” Prince Ahmed said, in comments caught on video. “Those responsible are the king and his crown prince.”

When asked about the war in Yemen, he replied, “I hope the situation ends, whether in Yemen or elsewhere, today before tomorrow.”

Source: NYT, Edited by website team

 Related Artticles

New York’s Attackers

Hussein Samawarchi

About 17 years ago, I received a call asking me to report to duty and was advised to implement security protocol directives upon arrival to the workplace. My superior’s tone was one of urgency; this was, obviously, not a drill. The United States was under multiple attacks. At that point, no one knew how extensive the offensives were going to be or for how long they were to continue.

Uniforms were not to be worn. Even security clearance I.Ds needed to be obscured from the general public. Horror could be seen on the faces of people everywhere even at a distance of approximately 9,000 kilometers from where the events were taking place. The first few hours were ones of popular disbelief. Television stations showed people escaping from the thick toxic smoke and unbearable heat by jumping from incredibly high floors. New York’s terror attacks reverberated globally.

Continuous assessment had to be done so as to control the floating level of security measures being taken. Initial reports gathered from various official and non-official agencies coupled by media coverage were the primary sources of risk calculations. Were there going to be more terror strikes? If so, where?

Before long, major US news networks broadcasted information that should have been normally derived from official statements. Only, they preceded those statements. Eyebrows were raised.

Then, as we watched Fox News which was hosting guests on the phone while showing a live feed, the mentioning of “Middle Eastern terrorists” became a reporting pattern. They started infusing the Middle East in this event within an hour of its occurrence. It was as if the culprit was chosen way ahead of the crime.

Out of all the guest speakers who participated in the coverage, one particular “specialist” sounded very off. He laughed several times during his commentary; his tone did not fit that of a person who should be terrorized or angry.

The pace of events picked up; the towers crumbled down. It was difficult to believe that an aircraft, even if flying on full tanks, could bring down an architectural structure as wide as either of the twin towers; let alone having struck it in the upper floors and not in its base.

The following 24 hours were ones of grief over the number of casualties; the shock of the event kept my colleagues and I from noticing that we hadn’t slept or even rested for a long time. Necessary coordination with various security organizations kept phone lines busy almost continuously; I had never seen a backlog of emails this big before. A relief shift took over and we were free to go to our homes.

The last event of the day for me, which turned out to be the most significant on a personal understanding level of the events, was a little chat I had with a UN liaison officer on our way to the parking lot. I was telling him how the cc camera footage at the departure gates will show the hijackers. His reply was that it would be more beneficial to check the footage of the airport ramp security cameras designated for watching the handling of the four airplanes and also a log of where these airplanes had been technically serviced in the recent hours or days prior to the attacks. He said the same manufacturer of the four airplanes also manufactures highly advanced navigational systems for cruise missiles.

I saw the gentleman again after a few weeks and we touched on the topic. His view was that 9/11 was the perfect excuse for the American military-industrial complex to make an obscene amount of profits. He also pointed out that, as a matter of principle and from an intelligence point of view, the abundance of conspiracy theories that invaded every kind of media confirmed that higher powers were at play; powers that controlled media.

That was all during 2001. Now that all these years have passed and so much more concrete information surfaced, even the most simple-minded spectator of events can deduce who were the real perpetrators of the event that shook America’s public, but not its policymakers. Let us consider the following:

Larry Silverstein, a man known for his strong links with Zionism bought a 99-year lease of the World Trade Center a few months before 9/11. Then he quickly bought insurance against terror attacks. Sounds like the man had inside information about future plans.

Boeing, the company that supplies the air-launched generation of Cruise missiles (AGM-86) with navigation systems is the manufacturer of the four aircraft that acted exactly like Cruise missiles during the attacks. One wonders if the Boeing-757 and Boeing-767 aircraft types can be fitted with upgraded navigational systems designed by the same company. Boeing is said to be owned and operated majorly by Zionist Jews.

The group of men caught celebrating from a distance while the, possibly remotely guided, aircraft hit the WTC were “Israeli”. They were arrested and had their advanced surveillance equipment confiscated. In a television interview after their release, one of them confessed to having been there to “document” the event. How did they know that the event was going to take place?

Osama Bin Laden, the man who assumed responsibility for the terror attacks was a Wahhabi who implicated Arabs and Muslims. The two groups are the historical prime targets of Zionists; he gave them a gift.

Wahhabis have proved to be “Israel’s” biggest regional supporters in the past decade and Bin Laden was the receiver of US financial and military aid for many years during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Would such a man not make any statements that serve the ambitions of his masters?

The second generation of Al Qaida, “ISIS” and Al Nusra, have had their top operatives in Syria airlifted to safety onboard US military helicopters as per CIA orders. These mercenary Wahhabi terrorists are the people who have allegedly executed 9/11.

A thousand conspiracy theories orbit around every one of the above facts. Their abundance causes the public opinion to dismiss the reality as an absurdity; the plain and obvious truth is, therefore, missed. This is the operating style of Zionists whose spokesman, Netanyahu, admitted on video that they control at least 80% of the American public opinion.

Zionists have no problem with casualties to reach their goals. Jews were sacrificed in Europe so as to found a state in their name. Americans were burned alive in the WTC so as to invade Afghanistan. Kuwait was devastated so as to break the Iraqi army.

Going back to the “specialist” interviewed on FOX News during the live feed of 9/11 – the one who seemed to be unmoved and even happy. Watching the video of the coverage again, it was possible to catch his name. He was Harvey Kushner. The same family name as today’s biggest Zionist in Washington DC, Jared Kushner. Coincidence?

If Zionists are ever good at something, it is orchestrating devastating events at humanity-altering levels.

Source: Al-Ahed News

Tulsi Gabbard on the Administration’s Push for War in Syria

By James Carden

The congresswoman has accused President Trump and Vice President Pence of protecting “al-Qaeda and other jihadist forces in Syria.”

September 20, 2018 Information Clearing House   On September 13, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard took to the floor of the House to rebuke the administration, accusing President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence of protecting “al-Qaeda and other jihadist forces in Syria,” all the while “threatening Russia, Syria, and Iran, with military force if they dare attack these terrorists.”

“This,” continued Gabbard, “is a betrayal of the American people, especially the victims of Al Qaeda’s attack on 9/11 and their families, first responders, and my brothers and sisters in uniform who have been killed or wounded in action and their families. For the President, who is Commander in Chief, to act as the protective big brother of al-Qaeda and other jihadists must be condemned by every Member of Congress.”I spoke to Gabbard earlier this week about her opposition to Trump’s Syria policy.James Carden: In June you and Republican Congressman Walter Jones introduced HR 922, the No More Presidential Wars Resolution, which would both define presidential wars not declared by Congress under Article I, section 8, clause 11 as impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors” as well as prohibit the president from perpetuating ongoing wars or from supplying, among other things, war materials, military troops, military intelligence, and financial support without first receiving congressional authorization.

While the policy of attacking Syria clearly fails on a moral, legal, and consequentialist grounds, it also will likely backfire on realist grounds. What is your view in terms of who would benefit and who would suffer from a US-led attack on Syria?

Tulsi Gabbard: In the short term, President Trump would benefit the most. The president loves being adored and praised, and despite his rants against them, he especially craves the favor of the media. Trump remembers very well that the only times he has been praised almost universally by the mainstream media, Republicans, and Democrats, was when he has engaged in aggressive military actions. Brian Williams, Fareed Zakaria and others could hardly contain their delight. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria said, “Donald Trump became president of the United States” the moment the bombs started dropping. MSNBC’s Brian Williams praised the launching of US missiles, saying, “I am guided by the beauty of our weapons.” The Washington Post’s David Ignatius said that he thought that by taking this action, Trump “restored the credibility of American power.”

Right now, President Trump’s approval ratings are dropping, and he craves positive reinforcement. He and his team are making a political calculation and looking for any excuse or opportunity to launch another military attack, so that Trump can again be glorified for dropping bombs.

Others who would gain the most are Al Qaeda and all the terrorist organizations who are wanting to keep alive the regime-change war against Assad. Their war to overthrow Assad is about to end. They’re finally facing defeat. A US attack that significantly weakens the Syrian military and would be a gift to these terrorist groups who want to overthrow the government and set up a Sunni Extremist theocracy in Damascus. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar would be the beneficiaries.

THE GENOCIDAL WAR CRIMINAL AT THE HEART OF TWO 9/11S: ZIONIST JEW HENRY KISSINGER

by Jonathan Azaziah

Henry Kissinger doesn’t need any introduction. He’s a genocidal, psychopathic, sanguinary screwball who has taken baths in the innocent blood of many a nation, all while influencing global events from his perches at the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group and Rothschild-founded CFR. He wrote National Security Study Memorandum 200 that demanded the American regime utilize its various organs of soft power–including CIA front USAID–to pursue depopulation in several Brown and Black states of the Global South. He spearheaded the secret bombing of Laos. Commandeered the “decade of genocide” in Cambodia, from the air raids to the starvation and sanctions to the arming and backing of Pol Pot. Gave the green light to the Suharto coup regime to commit wanton murder in Eastern Timor. Supported–and some say even masterminded–the July 15th, 1974 Cypriot coup that would serve as the excuse for Turkey’s invasion, occupation and subsequent division of Cyprus, where ‘Israelis’ now own some 15% of the north’s real estate.

Literally cheered on the Dirty War in Argentina which saw dictator Jorge Videla slaughtering anyone representative of an Anti-Imperialist current. Expanded the American alliance with Saudi Arabia and bailed the ‘Israeli’ enemy out with massive arms shipments to turn the tide of the Tishreen War. Above and beyond that, he protected the criminal ‘Israeli’ nuclear program, increased aid to the Zio-Tumor to $2.2 billion and advocated openly and bluntly for the Zionist war on Iraq. Vietnam, Mozambique, Angola, Bangladesh and many more were also scarred by his violence. What stands out most of all though is his deep involvement in two 9/11s: Chile’s and America’s.

On September 11th, 1973, a travesty of humanity unfolded at La Moneda Palace in the Chilean capital of Santiago. A gang of putschists led by General Augusto Pinochet bombarded the presidential headquarters of democratically elected Salvador Allende and proceeded to take over the country. The coup was assisted by the CIA, the DIA and none other than Henry Kissinger, who had been meddling in Chile’s affairs from the very moment that Allende was chosen for office on September 4th, 1970 and was actively laying the foundation to topple him–starting with his  coordination with CIA operatives to assassinate General René Schneider Chereau, the supreme commander of Chile’s armed forces that refused to block Allende’s ascendancy to the presidency.

The national-socialist Santiago native would prove to be a major thorn in the US ZOG’s side as he had nationalized Chile’s lucrative copper mining industry as well as its banking system and began providing free health care, free education and free housing to the Chilean poor. He went to war with Chile’s old colonialist elites and began taking back land confiscated from the Mapuche Indigenous people. Free school meals and an obligatory minimum wage were established. He began constructing a subway throughout Santiago. Like Fidel Castro before him and Hugo Chavez after him, he also waged a fierce campaign against illiteracy and effectively stomped it out. Inflation was dropping while workers’ wages, better living conditions for the poor and lower-middle class and national profits were increasing. Chile was on the verge of becoming a better place in every sense. But Kissinger wasn’t having any of it and moved Pinochet into action on that terrible September day.

The repression that followed was unconscionable. Allende would shoot himself with an AK-47 to escape torture at the hands of the new coup regime. Tens of thousands of innocents would be brutalized, murdered and disappeared under Pinochet’s US-backed dictatorial rule, including national treasures and revolutionary artists like guitarist Victor Jara and poet Pablo Neruda. 40,018 is the official casualty count, including 3,065 killed, but it could very well be higher. The Chilean despot would become the linchpin of the CIA’s Operation Condor, in which tyrants across South America were given carte blanche to do as they wished under the guise of “fighting communism”.

But it wasn’t about rightists vs. leftists in the slightest. It was about collaborationists vs. resistors. Weapons, training, advisors and cash from the CIA’s Black Budget were rolled out in wheelbarrows to crush Anti-Imperialist, Anti-Zionist sentiments. Guess who The Company’s point man was inside the White House? Kissinger, who, due to his close ties with Pinochet, Videla and other monsters, was even said to be dictating to the spooks on Condor and not the other way around. He vigorously pursued a “strategy of destabilization, kidnap and assassination” like it was a personal vendetta, unbeknownst even to his own staff. Needless to say, Chile has never really recovered from this barbaric Kissinger-led intervention.

Jump 28 years into the future on that very same day, September 11th, 2001, an ‘Israeli’ false flag from shekels to stolen knafeh occurred,and we find Kissinger right in the heart of the bloodshed yet again. He was initially chosen to be the 9/11 Commission chief but because of his role in a plethora of US ZOG coverups, including the Chilean 9/11, outside pressure forced him to resign. He was replaced with Zionist Jew Philip Zelikow, who proved to be rather Kissengerian in his whitewashing and burying of what actually took place in New York City and DC on the day of. Kissinger became pivotal elsewhere and moved the goal posts of the JNWO agenda on a different front through his position as the top consultant for UNOCAL, the oil giant that sought to build pipelines in Afghanistan under the watchful eye of Mossad agent and Kissinger friend Yosef A. Maiman’s Merhav Group, the architect of the TAPI project and many mineral extraction endeavors in and around the region. Kissinger’s connection and cooperation with an ‘Israeli’ death squad katsa once again displays how much Zionism and Jewishness influence his politics, criticisms from his overzealous coreligionists aside. As the war criminal himself said, “How can I, as a Jew who [allegedly; not really] lost 13 relatives in the ‘Holocaust’ (read: Holocrock), do anything that would betray ‘Israel’?”

The nexus with Maiman is of supreme significance because the Afghani state had been bleeding for over two decades at this point largely because of… No, this isn’t a difficult guess… KISSINGER. And not through traditional channels either. While most analysts rightly speak of the preeminent role of the American regime in Operation Cyclone, along with Pakistan, ‘Israel’, Saudi Arabia, Britain’s MI6 and even China, the regime that got the ball rolling and served alongside Islamabad as the central conduit for US-‘Israeli’ support for the fake moujahideen who would morph into Al-Qaeda and later, the Taliban, was the Shah’s Iran.

It was Kissinger who turned the decadent and destructive sociopath known as Pahlavi the Puke into a regional powerhouse (read: regional lapdog for all of the Washington ZOG’s designs) by giving him unconditional approval and inking mega-sized arms deals worth tens of billions of dollars. Everything from warships to tanks, fighter jets to hovercraft, missiles to helicopters to advanced weapons systems wound up in the Shah’s arsenal with Kissinger’s rubber stamp. Heinous Henry also dramatically upped the support to SAVAK, Pahlavi’s torturous, repressive intelligence apparatus set up by Mossad, CIA and MI6 two decades prior, and it is here everything comes full circle back to Afghanistan. Empowered by Kissinger, the Shah tried to buy influence in Kabul to push back against Soviet influence.

When that failed, SAVAK worked side-by-side with the CIA and the ISI to stage multiple coup attempts and rebellions before shifting towards slipping Takfiri terrorists across the Iranian and Pakistani borders to engage in 4th Generation Warfare. Like Mossad founder Isser Harel laying the intelligence groundwork that would bring down the World Trade Center, Horrific Henry was using SAVAK like a carving knife to pioneer the foreign policy groundwork that would serve as the pretext post-Towers-collapse. A testament to his irreconcilable malevolence. When Imam Khomeini’s (R.A.) Islamic Revolution toppled Pahlavi in ’79–much to Kissinger’s “oy veying” dismay–this disastrous policy hurting Afghanis, Pakistanis and Iranians too finally died. A last note should be made that it was Kissinger who worked day and night to get the Shah out of Iran as Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah (R.A.) and the Nation of Tears began to uproot the Zio-Dajjalic system built up so strategically brick by brick. Horrendous Henry also spoke proudly of his liking of the Imposed War launched by Saddam Hussein with full US-Zionist-Saudi assistance. Like a vampire suffering from blood withdrawals placed inside a heroin-house, he just couldn’t help himself.

The domineering role of Henry the Hog in the ouster of Allende and the bolstering of Pinochet has been well-known for some time. His involvement in the most murderous terrorist attack on American soil though, particularly in light of the greater Jewish-Zionist criminal network that perpetrated this atrocity… Both past and present… Not so much. This ends now. Next time anyone one brings up Hideous Heinz’s involvement in Chile’s 9/11, make sure to remind them that America’s 9/11 was a Zionist job and he was very much a part of it. And vice versa.

Kissinger the Killmonger counted the likes of Jewish supremacist goons Shimon Peres (L.A.) and Golda Meir (L.A.) among his pals. Soon, he will join them in Jahannam. And all that blood he’s spent the last 5 decades drinking–both metaphorically and not-so-metaphorically–won’t save him from Divine Justice. Chileans, New Yorkers and all the Arabs and Muslims affected by what Heartless Henry and his tribalist cohorts did on 9/11/01 await that day with bated breath. Until then, we will expose his genocide enthusiasm, Jewish supremacism, out-and-out anti-Global-South racism and sick love of war with precision and mercilessness. He infamously said, “Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.” Considering all of the above however, the only animal here… And a rabid, rapacious one at that… Is him. Clearly.

 

‘ISRAEL’ DID 9/11, NOT MUSLIMS, AND ANYONE WHO THINKS OTHERWISE 17 YEARS ON IS AN IDIOT

by Jonathan Azaziah

It’s been 17 years. 17 long, hard and savagely bloody years that have left tens of millions murdered, maimed and displaced in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, occupied Palestine, Lebanon, Mali, Nigeria and occupied Kashmir. GWOT, the Global War on Terror, has raped the world. And it’s all because of what happened at the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on this day, September 11th, in 2001. T.H.E.Y. — The Hebrews Enslaving You — told you, the Goyim, i.e. the 99% majority here on this beautiful little sphere of blue and green called Earth, that Muslims did it. That’s right. Those damn Muslamics. Hating ‘Murica for its freedom. Being all towel-headed and terroristy! Moozlemicals bypassed the half-trillion dollar air defense system of the US in the most closely-guarded, maximum-security airspace in the world all to trigger an unending war on the Islamicate. Makes perfect sense. Right? I mean… Seriously? Like… for real, for real? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

At this stage, 17 years in, with all the evidence from engineers, architects, professors, intelligence whistleblowers, military analysts, heads of state and more, if you don’t know that the official 9/11 story is the biggest pile of bullshit this side of Wagyu farms in Japan, you’re an idiot. Simple and plain. A total moron. We’re talking planetary stupidity here. Because two planes can’t pulverize three buildings–we call that the STMT… Shlomo’s Talmudic Mathematical Theorem. Jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. The “hijackers” weren’t capable of flying a single-engine Cesna, let alone 757s and 767s. On this point, let’s also note that some of the “hijackers” are actually still alive. Boxcutters? A laptop and some cell phones? Run from Afghanistan’s caves around 7,000 miles away from NYC? Were you dropped on your head as a kid or did you just get this imbecilic recently? Passports ain’t flame-retardant. NORAD doesn’t stand down on its own. F-16 interceptors don’t stand down on their own either.  Osama Bin Laden was a longstanding agent of the CIA who denied having anything to do with 9/11 in his last actual interview and pointed the finger at the very people we’ll be discussing herein. He also died from health-related issues, not a Seal Team 6 raid. And more. So much more. You get the gist of it.

Those of you who know this though and have seen the light–and there are more of you than the mainstream media cares to admit–and who are just looking for that missing piece; that… WHO… Then we’re going to call a dradle a dradle, a menorah a menorah and a six-pointed star a six-pointed and drill it into your head the way that the Sanhedrin drills Christ-hatred into the heads of yeshiva students. You picking up what I’m putting down? Here. These are just SOME– you read that right, SOME–of the names that the Monsters don’t want you to call out when you’re discussing 9/11:

1. Benjamin Netanyahu (real name: Mileikowsky) – 24 hours after the 9/11 attacks, he said that they were “very good” then said later that, “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.” Godfather of GWOT with his think tank, the Jonathan Institute, and his book, “Terrorism: How the West Can Win”. Inaugurated the 100-year war against what he called “militant Islam” and revealed as much in June 2012. Previously worked in a nuclear smuggling ring called Project Pinto. War criminal.

2. Ehud Barak (real name: Brog) – Traveled to the United States and spent about 6 months preceding 9/11 as a chief consultant for Electronic Data Systems and SCP Partners, a shadowy Mossad-run company that does big business with firms that created advanced niche specialty metals and complex metal products for defense industries in the fields of energy, aerospace, infrastructure and chemicals. Among these products are nano-composite explosives laced with thermite, used to blow up the Twin Towers. Barak was on the BBC minutes after American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 hit the WTC to literally announce the “clash of civilizations” and call for attacks on Iraq, Iran, Libya and Afghanistan. War criminal.

3. Ehud Olmert – Was in New York the very night before the attacks to make the final preparations. Connected to Menachem Atzmon of ICTS. War criminal.

4. & 5. Menachem Atzmon and Ezra Harel – Owners of International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), which ran the security at the Boston and Newark airports as well as “all the international aviation gateways in the USA” according to its own website. Affiliated with Shin Bet, Mossad and Aman.

6. Shimon Peres (real name: Szymon Perski) – Godfather of the usurping Zionist entity’s illegal nuclear program, arms industry, spy services and false flag operations (he was numero uno in the Lavon Affair aka Operation Susannah). Pioneered the facility at the illegitimate ‘Israeli’ regime’s WMD base at Dimona on occupied Palestinian land in Al-Naqab that produces the thermite used in the 9/11 horror. SPC Partners is the distributor, and it was Peres who brought the transaction to Barak. War criminal.

7. Isser Harel (real name: Halperin) – Founder of the Mossad. Masterminded the operation with his old students Avraham Bendor and Peter Zvi Malkin, as well as ‘Israeli’ tycoon and Mossad-connected arms peddler Shaul Eisenberg, to obtain the blueprints for the WTC in an exchange facilitated by Port Authority Executive Director Stephen Berger.

8. Mordechai “Motti” Hod (real name: Fein) – ‘Israeli’ occupation Air Force Major General and architect of the USS Liberty Massacre. From “Kibbutz Degania”, built on ethnically cleansed Palestinian village Umm Jouniyeh, where his friend Moshe Dayan, the notorious one-eyed genocidal maniac, also called “home”. Using his connections at ‘Israeli’ airline El Al (a known front for Zionist intelligence operatives) and ‘Israel’ Aerospace Industries (IAI)–where he was chief for years–as well as his experience in executing false flags and attacking aircraft filled with innocent people (Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114), he was the military point man for Peres as well as Mossad and Shin Bet on 9/11. War criminal.

9. Michael Chertoff – Second Secretary of Homeland Security and prior to that, chief of the criminal division of the Justice Department from 2001-2003. Patriot Act author. Son of Rabbi Gershon Baruch Chertoff, the final rabbinical scholar in a long line from Russia, and Livia Eisen, protege of Isser Harel, first hostess of El Al and founding female operative of Mossad. Orchestrated the capture of more than 1,100 Muslim citizens, tourists and immigrants, falsely labeling them as suspects connected to the September 11th attacks, while blocking the efforts of the FBI to investigate the hundreds of Mossad spies detained in relation to the event, specifically one Special Agent Michael Dick who was digging into ‘Israeli’-owned ZIM; supervising the destruction and confiscation of evidence that would have linked ‘Israel’ and the US to the attacks like videotapes, eyewitness accounts, written testimonies and debris from Ground Zero; and quietly killing every last charge against all of the ‘Israelis’ in custody before sending them back to the Zio-Tumor. Would later found the Chertoff Group and lead consulting efforts for a company called Rapiscan and make hundreds of millions of dollars from ‘Israeli’-occupation-style, unhealthy, irradiating body scanning at US airports.

10-14. Yaron Shmuel, Omer Marmari, Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, and Oded Ellner – Mossad spies who have come to be known as “the five dancing ‘Israelis’”. After being detained on the fateful September day and having their bodies as well as their van testing positive for explosives, they shockingly proclaimed that, “We’re here to document the event.”

15. Dominick Otto Suter – Mossadnik owner of ‘Israeli’ intelligence front Urban Moving Systems where the five dancing ‘Israelis’ worked. He was their overseer and the chief of a Mossad operation to gather intelligence on various Arab organizations in the Tri-State Area.

16. Morris Kahn – ‘Israeli’ owner and founder of Amdocs, which collects processing data for 90% of the phone calls, emails and text messages in America, including several agencies of the US ZOG. A close confidant of Isser Harel. At least 60 Israeli spies, all of whom were operatives in the fields of military intelligence and explosive ordinance were detained on 9/11, and more than 140 Israeli spies were detained shortly before the events. A large swathe of them worked at Amdocs.

17. Kenneth Bialkin – Head of the America-‘Israel’ Friendship League (tied to Aman) and well-known member of the ADL and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Senior partner of devilish, mega-influential law firm Skadden Arps that controlled all 9/11-related litigation.

18. Sheila Birnbaum – The special mediator for the aforementioned litigation and old-time partner in Skadden Arps who reports to none other than Bialkin.

19. Alvin Hellerstein – The judge on all of the cases run by Skadden Arps and a fanatical Zionist who attends the same temple as Birnbaum and Bialkin.

20. Amnon Shoham – Co-founder of Cedar Fund, which poured tons of cash into Guardium, a “data security” company that worked closely with B’nai B’rith operative Michael Goff at P-Tech and “chosenite” CIA stalwart James Schlesinger’s MITRE to subvert various American security apparatuses on 9/11. A Talipon of substantial influence with his hands in at least a dozen different start-ups having a global impact, Shoham worked at–WHERE ELSE BUT–Skadden Arps on public offerings, mergers and acquisitions involving high technology companies prior to his venture capitalist endeavors.

21. Gal Israely – Cedar Fund’s other co-founder. Also a Talpion connected to a plethora of high-tech start-ups. Prior to partnering up with Amnon Shoham and pouring cash into ‘Israeli’ intelligence assets like Guardium, he was Managing Director in the High Tech Investment Banking group of Bear Stearns–which was involved in a gigantic put options scam with AIG CEO Maurice Greenberg, Swiss Re Insurance and Michael Bloomberg (who became mayor of NY following the 9/11 attacks). Cozy, ain’t it?

22. Yuval Cohen – Founder and senior partner of Stage One Ventures, the second funder of Guardium. Was recruited into the Tapliot program at the usurping Zionist entity’s Hebrew University.

23. Yadin Kaufman – Founding partner of Veritas Ventures Partners, the third and final funder of Guardium. Not only a Talpion but a Mossadnik with deep ties to the Interdisciplinary Center of Mossad in “Herzliya” and well-connected in New York City where he is a member of the bar and a frequenter of events held by Skadden Arps and the other high-powered 9/11 (il)legal player, Stroock Stroock Lavan.

24. Kenneth Feinberg – Set up the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund and forced the 9/11 victims’ families to wave their right to sue the government for criminal negligence in exchange for a little over a million shekels–I mean dollars– apiece. Holofraud swindler. Kennedy assassination profiteer. His wife, Dede, is the former president of the Jewish Federation in DC and a major bankroller of Jewish causes through Congregation Beth El of Montgomery County in Bethesda, Maryland, dropping monies on everything from ‘Israeli’ bonds to ‘Israeli’ charities (ethnic cleansing fronts) to ‘Israeli’ start-ups (Talpiot). Worked hand-in-glove with Birnbaum, Bialkin and Hellerstein to put the litigation to bed.

25. “Lucky” Larry Silverstein – Mr. Pull It. Friend of every last ‘Israeli’ premier of the last three decades who has phone conversations with Netanyahu every Sunday. United Jewish Appeal bigwig. Co-owned the Twin Towers with Haganah terrorist and IOF Golani Brigades commando Frank Lowy. His buddies Lewis Eisenberg and Ronald Lauder, prominent Jewish Lobby chieftains themselves, privatized the WTC for the first time in history and helped him get the lease. Collected 7 billion dollars from the insurance settlement thanks to his other tribalist pal Michael Mukasey, who would help Chertoff save the ‘Israeli’ spies and later become the Bush regime’s Attorney General, solidifying in court that everything was “kosher”.

26. Rabbi Dov Zakheim – Pentagon Comptroller who disappeared $3.3 trillion and sent it to the usurping Zionist entity to pay for new warplanes that would be used in the slaughter of Palestinian and Lebanese innocents. Head honcho of Systems Planning Corporation (SPC) that manufactured the FTS (flight termination system) equipped under the fuselages of the planes that hit the WTC. Co-author of Rebuilding America’s Defenses, the mission statement of the neocon cabal that wanted a “New Pearl Harbor”, ran the Bush White House and called itself PNAC–where, for the record, every policy wonk involved in the barbaric wars launched in the name of 9/11 gathered and became signatories to Zakheim’s ravings. His Tridata Corporation covered up the domineering ‘Israeli’ role in the WTC false flag of ’93, which was considered to be a test run for the “real thing” 8 years alter. War criminal and arguably the architect of the whole September 11th shebang.

Know what all these people have in common? And I do mean ALL of them. Figure it out yet? Yeah. They ain’t Muslims. They don’t go to the masjid to do Salat. They’re Jews. They go to the synagogue–Synagogue of Satan, that is. They all have ties to ‘Israel’, either as dual-citizens, committed Zionist fundraisers or both. This is only the tip of the iceBERG too. These are the criminals who brought down the World Trade Center and blew up the Pentagon. These are the terrorists. These are the conspirators. These are the designers. These are the murderers of 2,996 Americans on Septembers 11th, 2001. Not the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not the accursed House of Saud. Not Al-Qaeda. Not Muslims. Got it? One more time: NOTTTTTTTT Muslims. But Jews, Global Zionism and the artificial Halakhic-Talmudic regime butchering, occupying, colonizing and putrefying Palestine. We cannot stop the cycle of unrelenting imperialism until we speak with certainty why the wheels are spinning in the first place. 9/11 was a Jewish-Zionist job. 17 years on, it’s beyond overdue that everyone says it. 9/11 is Jewry’s crime. Not the Ummah’s. Not Islam’s. And anyone who thinks or says otherwise is an idiot.

Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?

Global Research, September 10, 2018
9 September 2006

Author’s note

The following article was first published 12 years ago on the 9th of September 2006, in the context of the 2006 commemoration of the tragic event of September 2001.  

***

“Going after bin Laden” has served  to sustain the legend of the “world’s most wanted terrorist”, who  “haunts Americans and millions of others around the world.”

Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly claimed that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden remain unknown:  “It is like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.

In November 2001, US B-52 bombers carpet bombed a network of caves in the Tora Bora mountains of eastern Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden and his followers were allegedly hiding. These caves were described as “Osama’s last stronghold”.

CIA “intelligence analysts” subsequently concluded that Osama had escaped from his Tora Bora cave in the first week of December 2001. And in January 2002, the Pentagon launched a Worldwide search for Osama and his top lieutenants, beyond the borders of Afghanistan. This operation, referred to by Secretary of State Colin Powell as a “hot pursuit”, was carried out with the support of the “international community” and America’s European allies. US intelligence authorities confirmed, in this regard, that

“while al Qaeda has been significantly shattered, … the most wanted man – bin Laden himself remains one step ahead of the United States, with the core of his worldwide terror network still in place. (Global News Wire – Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, InfoProd, January 20, 2002)

For the last five years, the US military and intelligence apparatus (at considerable expense to US taxpayers) has been “searching for Osama”.

A CIA unit with a multimillion dollar budget was set up, with a mandate to find Osama. This unit was apparently disbanded in 2005. “Intelligence experts agree”, he is hiding in a remote area of Pakistan, but “we cannot find him”:

“Most intelligence analysts are convinced that Osama bin Laden is somewhere on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Lately, it has been said that he’s probably in the vicinity of the a 7700m Hindu Kush peak Tirich Mir in the tribal Chitral area of northwest Pakistan.” Hobart Mercury (Australia), September  9, 2006)

President Bush has repeatedly promised to “smoke him out” of his cave, capture him dead or alive, if necessary through ground assaults or missile strikes. According to a recent statement by president Bush, Osama is hiding in a remote area of Pakistan which “is extremely mountainous and very inaccessible, … with high mountains between 9,000 to 15,000 feet high….”. We cannot get him, because, according to the president, there is no communications infrastructure, which would enable us to effectively go after him. (quoted in Balochistan Times, 23 April 2006)

The pursuit of Osama has become a highly ritualized process which feeds the news chain on a daily basis. It is not only part of the media disinformation campaign, it also provides a justification for the arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of numerous “suspects”, “enemy combatants” and “accomplices”, who allegedly might be aware of Osama’s whereabouts. And that information is of course vital to “the security of Americans”.

The search for Osama serves both military and political objectives. The Democrats and Republicans compete in their resolve to weed out “islamic terrorism”.

The Path to 9/11, a five-hour ABC series on “the search for Osama” –which makes its debut on the 10th and 11th of September to marks the fifth anniversary of the attacks– casually accuses Bill Clinton of having been  “too busy with the Monica Lewinsky scandal to fight terrorism.” The message of the movie is that the Democrats neglected the “war on terrorism”.

The fact of the matter is that every single administration, since Jimmy Carter have supported and financed the “Islamic terror” network, created during the Carter administration at the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, 12 September 2001). al Qaeda is a instrument of US intelligence: a US sponsored intelligence asset.

Where was Osama on Septembers 11? 

There is evidence that the whereabouts of Osama are known to the Bush Administration.

On September 10. 2001, “Enemy Number One” was in a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally Pakistan, as confirmed by a report of Dan Rather, CBS News. (See our October 2003 article on this issue)

He could have been arrested at short notice which would have “saved us a lot of trouble”, but then we would not have had an Osama Legend, which has fed the news chain as well as George W’s speeches in the course of the last five years.

According to Dan Rather, CBS, Bin Laden was hospitalized in Rawalpindi. one day before the 9/11 attacks, on September 10, 2001.

“Pakistan. Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI) told CBS that bin Laden had received dialysis treatment in Rawalpindi, at Pak Army’s headquarters.

DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.

This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.

Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment. On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person. The special team was obviously up to no good.

“The military had him surrounded,” says this hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, “and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time,” he says, “I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after.” Those who know bin Laden say he suffers from numerous ailments, back and stomach problems. Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, says the military was often there to help before 9/11.

(…)

PETERSEN (on camera): Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they refused our request to see any records. Government officials tonight denied that bin Laden had any medical treatment on that night.

(voice-over): But it was Pakistan’s President Musharraf who said in public what many suspected, that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease, saying he thinks bin Laden may be near death. His evidence, watching this most recent video, showing a pale and haggard bin Laden, his left hand never moving. Bush administration officials admit they don`t know if bin Laden is sick or even dead.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: With respect to the issue of Osama bin Laden`s health, I just am — don`t have any knowledge.

PETERSEN: The United States has no way of knowing who in Pakistan`s military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Laden maybe up to the night before 9/11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive. So the United States may not know if those same people might help him again perhaps to freedom.

Barry Petersen, CBS News, Islamabad.

(END VIDEOTAPE) END

(CBS News,  28 January 2002 emphasis added, the complete transcript of CBS report sis contained in annex to this article)

It should be noted, that the hospital is directly under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. U.S. military advisers based in Rawalpindi. work closely with the Pakistani Armed Forces. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive, but then maybe bin Laden was serving another “better purpose”. Rumsfeld claimed at the time that he had no knowledge regarding Osama’s health. (CBS News, 28 January 2002)

The CBS report is a crucial piece of information in our understanding of 9/11.

It refutes the administration’s claim that the whereabouts of bin Laden are unknown. It points to a Pakistan connection, it suggests a cover-up at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Dan Rather and Barry Petersen fail to draw the implications of their January 2002 report.  They suggest that the US had been deliberately misled by Pakistani intelligence officials. They fail to ask the question:

Why does the US administration state that they cannot find Osama?

If they are to stand by their report, the conclusion is obvious. The administration is lying. Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts were known.

If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, courtesy of America’s ally, he was either still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred or had been released from the hospital within the last hours before the attacks.

In other words, Osama’s whereabouts were known to US officials on the morning of September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden. These negotiations, led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s military intelligence, on behalf of the government of President Pervez Musharraf,  took place on the 12th and 13th  of September in Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage’s office.

He could have been arrested at short notice on September 10th, 2001. But then we would not have been privileged to five years of Osama related media stories. The Bush administration desperately needs the fiction of an “outside enemy of America”.

Known and documented Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda is a construct of the US intelligence apparatus. His essential function is to give a face to the “war on terrorism”. The image must be vivid.

According to the White house, “The greatest threat to us is this ideology of violent extremism, and its greatest public proponent is Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden remains the number one target, in terms of our efforts, but he’s not the only target.” Recent Statement of White House Assistant for Homeland Security Frances Townsend, 5 September 2006).

The national security doctrine rests on the fiction of Islamic terrorists, led by Osama who are portrayed as a “threat to the civilized World”. In the words of President Bush, “Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? We are on the offensive. We will not rest. We will not retreat. And we will not withdraw from the fight until this threat to civilization has been removed.” (quoted by CNN, September 5, 2006)

The “hot pursuit” of Osama in the rugged mountainous areas of Pakistan must continue, because without Osama, referred to ad nauseam in news reports and official statements, the fragile legitimacy of the Bush administration collapses like a deck of cards.

Moreover, the search for Osama protects the real architects of the 911 attacks. While there is no evidence that Al Qaeda was behind the 911 attacks, as revealed by nuerous studies and documents, there is mounting evidence of complicity and coverup at the highest levels of the State, Military and intelligence apparatus.

The continued arrest of alleged 911 accomplices and suspects has nothing to do with “national security”. It creates the illusion that Arabs and Muslims are behind the terror plots, while shunting the conduct of a real criminal investigation into the 911 attacks. And what were dealing with is the criminalization of the upper echelons of State.

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best America’s “War on Terrorism”  Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization. 

To order Chossudovsky’s book  America’s “War on Terrorism”, click here

Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note.

media inquiries crgeditor@yahoo.com

CBS Evening News with Dan Rather;

Author: Dan Rather, Barry Petersen

CBS, 28 January 2002

DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.

This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.

Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment. On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person. The special team was obviously up to no good.

“The military had him surrounded,” says this hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, “and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time,” he says, “I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after.” Those who know bin Laden say he suffers from numerous ailments, back and stomach problems. Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, says the military was often there to help before 9/11.

AHMED RASHID, TALIBAN EXPERT: There were reports that Pakistani intelligence had helped the Taliban buy dialysis machines. And the rumor was that these were wanted for Osama bin Laden.

PETERSEN (on camera): Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they refused our request to see any records. Government officials tonight denied that bin Laden had any medical treatment on that night.

(voice-over): But it was Pakistan`s President Musharraf who said in public what many suspected, that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease, saying he thinks bin Laden may be near death. His evidence, watching this most recent video, showing a pale and haggard bin Laden, his left hand never moving. Bush administration officials admit they don`t know if bin Laden is sick or even dead.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: With respect to the issue of Osama bin Laden`s health, I just am — don`t have any knowledge.

PETERSEN: The United States has no way of knowing who in Pakistan`s military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Laden maybe up to the night before 9/11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive. So the United States may not know if those same people might help him again perhaps to freedom.

Barry Petersen, CBS News, Islamabad.

(END VIDEOTAPE) END

Copyright CBS News 2002

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml

Hospital Worker: I Saw Osama

Jan. 28, 2002

Quote

“They military had him surrounded. I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden.” Hospital employee

(CBS) Everyone remembers what happened on Sept. 11 and, reports CBS News Correspondent Barry Petersen, here’s the story of what may have happened the night before.

In a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS Evening News has been told that the night before the Sept. 11 terrorists attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.

Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into a military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment.

“On that night,” said a medical worker who wanted her identity protected, “they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them.” She said it was treatment for a very special person and “the special team was obviously up to no good.”

“They military had him surrounded,” said a hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, “and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time,” he said, “I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after.”

Those who know bin Laden say he suffers from numerous ailments — back and stomach problems.

Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, said the military was often there to help before Sept. 11.

“There were reports that Pakistan intelligence had helped the Taliban buy dialysis machines and the rumor was that these were for wanted for Osama bin Laden,” said Rashid.

Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they declined our request to see any records. Government officials reached Monday night denied that bin Laden received any medical treatment that night.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Tuesday the United States has seen nothing to substantiate the report.

It was Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf who said in public what many suspected: that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease, saying he thinks bin Laden may be near death.

His evidence — watching the most recent video, showing a pale and haggard bin Laden, his left hand never moving. Bush administration officials admit they don’t know if bin Laden is sick or even dead.

“With respect to the issue of Osama bin Laden’s health, I just am…don’t have any knowledge,” said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The U.S. has no way of knowing who in Pakistan’s military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Lade, maybe up to the night before Sept. 11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive. So the U.S. may not know if those same people might help him again — perhaps to freedom.

Copyright CBS News 2002

Donald Trump to the Rescue of the Same Al Qaeda “Freedom Fighters” Who Attacked America on 9/11?

Global Research, September 08, 2018

President Donald Trump is coming to the rescue of Al Qaeda freedom fighters in Northern Syria:

“President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province,

The Russians and Iranians  would be  making a grave humanitarian mistake …

Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed,…

Don’t let that happen!” (Donald Trump)

“Humanitarian mistake”?  Since when has Trump expressed concern for saving lives?

 

 

Both the media and the US government are accusing Bashar al Assad of attacking a region which encompasses three million people. That’s more than the population of Damascus.   The latest figures, from Russian sources (acknowledged by the UN) is that the Al Nusrah group has 16,000 militants. All in all there are between 40-45 armed groups representing some 50,000 rebels (according to the Russian Ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia (AFP, September 7, 2008)

The unspoken truth is that the Syrian government is intent upon liberating a region of the country where civilians are being held hostage by Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists supported by the US and its allies.

Trump’s special envoy, Brett McGurk, admits that Idlib  has become “the largest al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” What he fails to mention is that these “jihadist” mercenaries entered Syria with the support of US-NATO-Israel-Turkey, not to mention the Gulf States.  Until recently we called them “moderate rebels”.

Idlib is Al Qaeda’s de facto capital in Syria. According to Tony Cartalucci,  “Idlib remains one of the last remaining strongholds of Al Qaeda in Syria”.

Western Special Forces in Idlib within Al Qaeda Ranks?

The Al Qaeda rebels are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance (with US and allied special forces, intelligence, weapons and logistics experts within their ranks). With an estimated 50,000 rebels, the number of embedded (covert) Western paramilitary (Arab speaking) mercenary forces is significant (e.g. from private security companies in liaison with US-NATO-Israel-Turkey).

While there are no reliable figures regarding the number of US-allied sponsored mercenary special forces in the Idlib Region working with Al Qaeda rebel groups,  earlier reports confirm the presence of Western special forces, covert intelligence agents including British SAS, French Parachutistes, CIA, MI6  and Mossad embedded within rebel ranks. “Their activities are not limited to training. They are routinely involved in overseeing the conduct of terrorist operations on the ground together with thousands of mercenaries recruited from Muslim countries”.

From the outset of the insurgency in 2011, Al Qaeda affiliated rebel forces including al Nusrah were “infiltrated” by Western military and intelligence  operatives.

“MI6 and the CIA are in Syria to infiltrate and get at the truth,” said the well-placed source. “We have SAS and SBS not far away who want to know what is happening … ” (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star, January 2012). (emphasis added)

Screenshot of a 2012 report

With covert intel operatives, special forces and mercenaries (on contract to the Pentagon-NATO) within Al Qaeda ranks, the Idlib terrorist stronghold is therefore of strategic importance to the US.  It constitutes a means to maintaining US and allied military presence in Northern Syria.

And that is precisely why the US and its allies (including France, Britain, Israel) are planning to intervene militarily in liaison with their covert special forces and intel. operatives embedded within Al Qaeda.

But they need a pretext and justification: And that is where the False Flag Chemical Weapons Attack scenario comes in: i.e. with a view to providing a pretext for military intervention on “humanitarian grounds”, “coming to the rescue” of 3 million Syrian civilians who are allegedly threatened by President Assad and Syrian government forces.

While many Al Qaeda fighters have surrendered and have left Syria via the “humanitarian corridors”,  there are indications that the jihadist fighters are being threatened not to abandon combat:

“[they] would never lay down their weapons or surrender. By Allah, we have taken a vow about this, and we shall crucify anyone who surrenders his weapon.” (Testimony of a foreign Al Qaeda mercenary).

Recent reports suggest that 13,000 rebels of the Al Nusra group (out of a total of 16,000) are prepared to negotiate a truce. (AFP, September 7, 2018, quoting Russia’s Ambassador to the UN).

The target of military intervention on the part of Syrian and Russian forces would be limited to the hardcore jihadist fighters, who have taken over Idlib city and the Idlib “De-escalation Zones” and who refuse to engage in truce and reconciliation.

What is at stake is an intricate and complex counterterrorism operation directed against Al Qaeda fighters. And these are the Al Qaeda “freedom fighters” who just so happen to be supported by Donald Trump. 

Needless to say the US-NATO objective is to sabotage the Liberation of Idlib

“Lethal Aid”: Weapons and Ammo to the Terrorists

“The Americans are on Our side”, says rebel Al Nusra commander in an interview with the Koelner Stadt Anzeiger (September 26, 2016).

Jabhat al-Nusra unit commander Abu Al Ezz confirmed that the US is sending weapons to Al Nusrah through “third countries”. 

“Yes, the US supports the opposition [in Syria], but not directly. They support the countries that support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support,”

The above statement pertains to weapons deliveries by America’s allies including Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar and Turkey.

Shipments of Weapons to Al Qaeda 

There is a vast literature which documents covert support to Al Qaeda as well the shipment of weapons and ammo to rebel forces in Syria.

One example: according to Jane’s Defence Weekly, quoting documents released by the U.S. Government’s Federal Business Opportunities (FBO), the US –as part of its “counterterrorism campaign”– has provided Syrian rebels [aka moderate Al Qaeda] with large amounts of weapons and ammunition.

US military aid to the rebels channeled (unofficially) through the illicit market, is routine and ongoing. In December 2015, a major US sponsored shipment of a staggering 995 tons of weapons was conducted in blatant violation of the ceasefire. According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, the U.S.   “is providing [the weapons] to Syrian rebel groups as part of a programme that continues despite the widely respected ceasefire in that country [in December 2015].” (Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, May 27, 2017)

Aid and Financial Support Channelled to Al Qaeda in Idlib

According to a study by the Century Foundation (quoted by Cartalucci) Al Qaeda has established a network of services and local institutions which are funded by the US, UK, and European Union: 

Screenshot of Century Foundation report

What Relationship to September 11, 2001? 

The Trump administration’s (unofficial) objective is ultimately to protect Al Qaeda and sabotage the Syrian government’s anti-terrorism campaign, which consists in dismantling the Al Qaeda terror stronghold and restoring civilian  government. 

America’s continued support of Al Qaeda is the fundamental issue. 

If that support (which includes supplies from Turkey and military logistics in support of the terrorists) were to cease and US-NATO were to recall its jihadist foot-soldiers, the conflict would be over.

In a bitter irony and unknown to the broader public, the Trump Administration is supporting in Syria the same network of Al Qaeda fighters which allegedly attacked America on September 11, 2001.

Sounds contradictory?

You cannot wage “a war on terrorism” and at the same time “come to the rescue of the terrorists”. Or can you?

In fact, that is what the US has being doing since the onslaught of the Soviet-Afgan war in 1979.

Image right: Al Nusra Brigade in Syria

As we might recall,  on the evening of September 11, 2001, President Bush in a televised address to the Nation said that he would:

“make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”.

How does that relate to Donald Trump and Washington’s role in Syria?

Al Qaeda in Syria has been “harbored” by the US government (and its allies) since the outset of the war in March 2011. That’s the forbidden truth.

Applying GWB’s 9/11 concept: America is the State Sponsor of Terrorism.  Q.E.D.

Revisions and updates on September 8, 2018

Don’t be Deluded – Our Saudi ‘Partners’ are Masters of Repression

Kenan Malik

Five Saudi activists face possible execution. Their crimes? “Participating in protests”, “chanting slogans hostile to the regime” and “filming protests and publishing on social media”.

The five, including women’s rights campaigner Israa al-Ghomgham, come from the Shia-majority Eastern Province. They have spent more than two years in prison. Now the prosecution has demanded their deaths.

Their plight reveals the vacuity of claims that Saudi Arabia is “liberalizing”. The death in 2015 of King Abdullah and his replacement by Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has led to much gushing in the west about the new reforming regime and, in particular, about the “vision” of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, heir apparent and driving force behind the “modernization” moves. The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote a fawning piece about the Saudi “Arab spring”. “It’s been a long, long time,” he wrote, “since any Arab leader wore me out with a fire hose of new ideas about transforming his country.” Even the fierce critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali has suggested that if the crown prince “succeeds in his modernisation efforts, Saudis will benefit from new opportunities and freedoms”.

Yes, Salman has allowed women to drive, to run their own businesses and to attend sports events. Cinemas have opened and rock concerts been staged. But the king remains the absolute ruler of a kingdom that practices torture, beheads dissidents and exports a barbarous foreign policy, including prosecuting one of the most brutal wars of modern times in Yemen.

Over the past year, dozens of activists, clerics, journalists and intellectuals have been detained in what the United Nations, an organization usually wary of criticizing the kingdom, has called a “worrying pattern of widespread and systematic arbitrary arrests and detention”. Few countries execute people at a higher rate. Under the current “reforming” regime, at least 154 people were executed in 2016 and 146 in 2017. Many were for political dissent, which the Saudi authorities rebrand as “terrorism”. A regime that permits women to drive but executes them for speaking out of turn is “reforming” only in a columnist’s fantasy.

For all the paeans, what really attracts western commentators and leaders to Saudi Arabia is that the regime’s refusal to countenance any dissent has until now created a relatively stable state that is also pro-western. Precisely because the Saudi royal family is deeply reactionary, it has long been seen as a bulwark against “radicalism”, whether that of the Soviet Union, Iran or local democratic movements.

Last week, in the wake of a Saudi bombing of a school bus in Yemen that left 33 children dead, Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, defended Britain’s relations with Riyadh on the grounds that the two countries were “partners in fighting Islamist extremism” and that the Saudis have helped to stop “bombs going off in the streets of Britain”. In fact, Saudi Arabia bears more responsibility for the rise of ‘Islamist’ terror than any other nation.

From the 1970s onwards, flush with oil money, the Saudis exported across the world Wahhabism, a vicious, austere form of Islam that the Saud clan has used to establish loyalty to its rule after creating Saudi Arabia in 1932. Riyadh has funded myriad madrasas and mosques. It has funded, too, ‘jihadist’ movements from Afghanistan to Syria. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi. So were most of the 9/11 bombers. A 2009 internal US government memo described Saudi Arabia as “the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide”. The Saudis have leveraged their knowledge of such groups to win influence with the west.

The viciousness of the Saudi regime is matched only by the cynicism of western leaders. The price is being paid by the children in that school bus and by the five activists facing possible beheading for peaceful protests; by the million of Yemenis on the verge of starvation and by thousands of Saudis imprisoned, flogged and executed for wanting basic rights. But what’s all that when set against the value of a “friendly” regime?

Iran’s Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness

Image result for Iran’s Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness

Iran’s Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness

August 23, 2018

Iran’s Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness

By Kevin Barrett (Truth Jihad) for The Saker Blog

Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness: Iran’s “Trump Card” Against US-Israeli Aggression

Do religion, spirituality, and ethics have any strategic significance?

Increasingly, since the time of Machievelli, the Western answer to that question has been “no.” According to the dominant view of Western elites, religious factors are usually a strategic liability rather than an asset. A spiritual soldier, according to this view, is less willing to fight. An ethical commander is less willing to make the hard decisions that lead to victory. And a religious society is likely to be scientifically and technologically backwards, and therefore unequipped with the latest weapons systems and strategies.

This dominant Machievellian view has been influenced by Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. Hobbes famously argued that humans have emerged from a state of nature, the war of all against all, by gradual conquests of ever-larger kingdoms, each of which is tyrannically ruled by a single sovereign. The sovereign tyrant crushes anyone who spreads disorder or challenges his authority, thereby pacifying his realm and facilitating commerce and technological innovation. All human progress, according to Hobbesians, is the product of tyranny. Therefore, tyranny is good! What’s more, by wars of aggression the tyrant enlarges the boundaries of his state, brings more peoples and lands into his realm, and thereby creates even more peace and prosperity. Therefore, wars of aggression are good![1]

The Machievellian-Hobbesian view, through a Nietzschean transmutation of values, takes what all non-psychopathic humans know is evil—tyranny and aggressive warfare—and redefines it as good. Simultaneously, it takes what all non-psychopathic humans know is good—resistance to tyranny and refusal to submit to, or perpetrate, aggression—and redefines it as evil.

Such a psychopathic philosophy of statecraft and war is clearly inimical to God-given human nature. By what process has our planet’s most technologically, economically, and politically powerful civilization adopted as its guiding principle a psychopathic philosophy that the 99% of humans who are not psychopaths—the vast majority of all populations, including those of psychopath-ruled countries—instinctively reject?

The triumph of psychopathy in Western statecraft is the product of the West’s post-Christian culture. Christianity, more than any other religion, rigorously preaches peace, as exemplified by the prophet Jesus’s (PBUH) injunction to “turn the other cheek,” his refusal to support anti-Roman militancy, and his insistence that “the meek will inherit the earth.” Unfortunately, even after the teachings of Jesus had spread, it became obvious that no then-existing human society could organize itself according to such principles and survive. Mainstream Christianity, largely authored by Paul and institutionalized by the Nicean Council, became the official religion of the warlike Roman Empire by emphasizing Jesus’s statement “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” and telling people to let the psychopathic Caesars rule. This amounted to abdicating religion’s role as the foundation of human society, fostering a schizoid split between “good” religion and “evil” politics. (Why good people would and should allow their societies to be dominated by evil leaders was never adequately explained by Constantinian Christians.)

Western civilization was constructed around this schizoid split between religion, the realm of mere ideals, and a completely different and vastly uglier set of political and social realities. This framework fostered the emergence of Machievelli, who threw religion and its ideals out the window. As Christianity lost its hold over the West, materialist-atheist Machievellianism, barely tempered by wooly-headed and rationally-indefensible humanism, became the order of the day.

Today, psychopathic Machievellians rule the West. Their subjects, who are mainly either wooly-headed humanists or residual Christians, are not psychopaths. They feel an instinctive revulsion toward aggression and tyranny. So the Western rulers are forced to dupe their subjects by disguising aggression as defense, and disguising tyranny as “freedom” or “democracy.”

The history of US wars during the past five decades shows that psychopathic leaders can indeed dupe their subjects, at least for a certain period, into believing that an obvious war of aggression is actually defensive, and that they are fighting for “freedom” and “democracy” rather than tyranny. But such deceptions have an Achilles heel: They quickly wear off as the truth emerges and as the public tires of the unjust war.

The case of the US war on Vietnam exemplifies this process. During the period that US neocolonial aggression against Vietnam was relatively unknown to the public (the 1950s and early 1960s) it was possible to wage the war without encountering major problems with morale and public opinion. Then when it was necessary to escalate the war to the point that it could no longer be hidden from the public, US leaders orchestrated the Gulf of Tonkin deception to create the illusion that the US was under attack and that North Vietnam was the aggressor. This deception, grotesquely obvious as it was, worked for a few years, thanks to the compliant media. But gradually the truth about the US war on Vietnam—that it constituted immoral aggression in service to tyranny—leaked out to the public. Soon the American people in general, and US troops in particular, turned against the war, making it unsustainable over the long term.

The same process happened fifteen years ago with the US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars, planned many years before they were launched, were pre-legitimized by the false flag operation of September 11th, 2001, whose purpose was to create the impression that the coming wars were defensive responses to an unprovoked attack on America. Once again, as in the case of Vietnam, the ruse worked for a few years. But as the truth about US aggression and tyranny leaked out, the public, and a substantial segment of the military, once again turned against the wars.[2]

The history of the US wars on Vietnam and Iraq underlines two critically important strategic facts. First, the US cannot hope to win a war with air power alone; victory requires a substantial and politically problematic commitment of troops on the ground. Second, any major commitment of US troops can only be made under the pretext that the US is engaging in defense rather than aggression; and even when extraordinary means are used to create this pretext (as in the case of 9/11) the legitimizing effect quickly wears off in the face of determined resistance by the targets of US aggression. The more time goes by, the more the public and elements of the military turn against the war.

US decision makers are, for the most part, aware of the above-described facts. They know that smaller wars, where they can quickly declare victory and go home (as in Grenada and the Iraq war of 1990) are much more likely to be successful than larger and more ambitious wars (Vietnam and the post-9/11 Iraq invasion and occupation). They dread committing major US ground forces to any large scale land war in Asia, knowing that the results are almost certain to be negative, and quite possibly catastrophic. After the Iraq debacle, the idea of a major US occupation of another large Middle Eastern country is, for all practical purposes, politically unthinkable.

The above considerations illustrate an important asymmetry between US and Iranian capabilities in any prospective future conflict. US leaders are in the unenviable position of having to wage all-out psychological warfare against their own population in order to brainwash their people and troops into accepting ongoing hostilities. (Such brainwashing campaigns have become more difficult in the internet era.) They are also faced with the problem that the longer hostilities persist, the more the public and an element of the military is likely to turn against the war effort.

Iran’s leaders face a very different “morale curve” with respect to prospective hostilities with the US. The Iranian people know that any US aggression against their country is in fact aggression; there is no conceivable way that US leaders could trick Iran’s people into believing that a US attack on Iran was somehow “defensive.” Clearly Iran’s leaders will direct a population that, in accordance with God-given (non-psychopathic) human nature, will rally to the defense of their nation. Additionally, the very strong element of religion in Iran will contribute to the spiritual strength of a population ready to make the kind of sacrifices that are necessary in warfare. And finally, the fact that Iran’s majority religion is Islam, which teaches that God not only authorizes but strongly encourages and rewards sacrificing in defensive warfare—a religious outlook institutionalized in the Islamic Republic—bodes well for Iran’s prospects in any war with the USA, and for its ability to deter such a war.

It is worth noting that the Machievellian-Hobbesian preference for a tyrannical and immoral sovereign is being tested by the presidency of Donald Trump. The immorality and tyrannical egotism of Trump have aroused fervent opposition to the man and his policies, both in the USA itself and around the world. It seems doubtful that an unpopular leader like Trump could successfully sustain any major, long-term military campaign against Iran, especially if it involved large numbers of “boots on the ground.” That Trump himself ran for president calling for a drawdown of the US presence in the Middle East, based on his recognition that the Iraq, Libya, and Syria wars have been disasters—a position that contrasted sharply with the more hawkish, interventionist posture of Hillary Clinton—makes it even unlikelier that he could betray and anger his supporters by launching an even more dangerous and difficult war on Iran. Not only would at least half of Trump’s supporters tend to oppose such a move, his extreme detractors, who are legion, would oppose it even more fervently. Any initial war fever, which Trump might hope would distract from his domestic problems, would quickly wear off.

Iran’s leadership, in marked contrast with America’s, is grounded in morals and ethics, not Machievellian-Hobbesian nihilism. Those morals and ethics derive from the religion of Islam, a 1400-year-old tradition that has proven to harmonize well with God-given human nature. Though the various segments of Iran’s population vary in their religious attitudes and behavior, the vast majority accept the basic morality and ethics that convince them, like all non-psychopathic humans, that aggression must be resisted. Thus Iran’s leadership finds itself in relative harmony with its population on the question of national self defense. That means that in any serious conflict with Trump’s USA, Iran will have staying power, while the US will wilt as the fire burns longer and hotter.

  1. For a detailed exposition of this view, see Ian Morris, War! What Is It Good For?: Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots (NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014). 
  2. The facts that 9/11 was a false flag, and that the 9/11 wars were primarily designed to promote Israel’s interests rather than America’s, turned a segment of the US military, and even some prominent strategists including Zbigniew Brzezinski, against those wars. See: SFRC Testimony — Zbigniew Brzezinski, February 1, 2007 (http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2007/BrzezinskiTestimony070201.pdf); “Dr. Alan Sabrosky: “100% Certain That 9/11 Was a Mossad Operation” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7xTsWsLbV4); Global Warfare: “We’re Going to Take out 7 Countries in 5 Years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran… – Gen. Wesley Clarke” (https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166). 

 

BBC Foreknowledge of 9/11 Collapse of WTC Building Seven: British Man Won Law Suit against @BBC for 9/11 Cover Up

Source

By Global Research News,

By EV

Horsham, UK, 2013 – Tony Rooke, in an act of civil disobedience, refused to pay the mandatory £130 TV license fee claiming it violates Section 15 of the Terrorism Act. Rooke’s accusation was aimed at the BBC who reported the collapse of WTC 7 over 20 minutes before it actually fell, and the judge accepted Rooke’s argument. While it was not a public inquiry into 9/11, the recognition of the BBC’s actions on September 11th are considered a small victory, one that was never reported in the US.

Today was an historic day for the 9/11 truth movement,” Peter Drew of AE911Truth UK told Digital Journal, “with over 100 members of the public attending, including numerous journalists from around the UK as well as from across other parts of Europe.”

Under Section 363 of the Communications Act, citizens of the UK are required to purchase an annual license in order to use a television receiver. Rooke refused to pay the license fee due to a section of the Terrorism Act that states:

It is an offence for someone to invite another to provide money, intending that it should be used, or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for terrorism purposes.

The fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 twenty-three minutes before it actually fell indicates that the UK was aware of the attacks on 9/11 before they actually happened. The direct implication is that they were working with the “terrorists”, all arguments as to who the terrorists actually were aside.

Here is a broadcast of the BBC’s announcement that WTC 7 (Salomon Brothers Building) collapsed when it was still standing behind the reporter:

Clear picture:

BBC-WTC7

Rooke had been given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 after admitting that he owned a television and watched it without a license. He represented himself at Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex.

Mr. Rooke puts the basis of his defence under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, effectively asking the court to find the BBC is a terrorist organisation and that if he continues to pay them he himself is committing a criminal offence.” – District Judge Stephen Nicholls

article-2284337-18470B00000005DC-34_306x523

In Rooke’s statement to the court:

I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the licence fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect. I do not use this word lightly given where I am.”

Although he was not allowed to show his video evidence in court due to the District Judge deeming it irrelevant to the trial, the fact that the BBC reported WTC 7’s collapse over 20 minutes beforehand proved to be evidence enough.

He also made reference to the theories behind the collapse of WTC 7 being a controlled demolition, as the evidence suggests. In an additional statement:

The BBC reported it 20 minutes before it fell. They knew about it beforehand. Last time I was here I asked you (the judge): ‘Were you aware of World Trade Centre 7?’ You said you had heard of it. Ten years later you should have more than heard of it. It’s the BBC’s job to inform the public. Especially of miracles of science and when laws of physics become suspended.

“They have made programmes making fools of and ridiculing those of us who believe in the laws of gravity. American reports have shown that the fall was nothing but a controlled demolition.

“I am not looking at who demolished it—that is impossible—but the BBC actively tried to hide this from the public.”

In response from Judge Nicholls:

Even if I accept the evidence you say, this court has no power to create a defence in the manner which you put forward.”

In light of the evidence the judge took into consideration, Rooke was given an unconditional discharge, which in British legal parlance means he “was convicted but he does not suffer the consequences of a conviction, and the conviction will be erased if he is not brought before the court for six months.” He was not required to pay the fee and non-payment fine either—only court costs of £200.

Sources:

Alexander, Victoria. Digital Journal. Feb 27, 2013. (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/344438)

Duell, Mark. Daily Mail. Feb 25, 2015. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html)

Livingston, Bob. Personal Liberty. Apr 5, 2013. (http://personalliberty.com/british-man-wins-small-victory-for-911-truthers/)

Copyright We are Anonymous, 2015

Realities Watch. Mar 6, 2015. (http://realitieswatch.com/uk-man-wins-court-case-against-bbc-for-911-cover-up/)

Zionism: Deconstructing the Power Paradigm

June 25, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Moderator: Kevin Barrett

Kevin Barrett – Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Judeophobia: Let’s Define Our Terms – 1:30

Philip Giraldi – How Jewish Power Sustains the Israel Narrative – 25:45

Gilad Atzmon – Truth, Truthfulness, and Palestine – 40:35

Alan Sabrosky – The Impact of Zionist Influence in the U.S.- 1:07:05

Jeremy Rothe-Kushel – Talpiot and Unit 8200: The Global Cyber Agenda for Kill-Switch Domination–2:03:15

Q & A from our online audience by email — 2:54:01

For resources referenced by the Deep Truth speakers, go to http://www.DeepTruth.info/resources. For information about the Deep Truth conference, go to http://www.DeepTruth.info/about

حزب الله حاضر في اجتماعات إبن سلمان البريطانية؟

مارس 10, 2018

روزانا رمّال

يوماً بعد الآخر يحتلّ ولي العهد السعودي جزءاً لا يتجزأ من أخبار الإعلام الدولي ويأخذ مساحة هامة من القراءات السياسية التي تحاول قراءة حركته بين إخفاقات ونجاحات. وهو بدون شك صار منذ حملة اعتقال الأمراء خلال الأشهر الماضية يُضاف اليهم رئيس وزراء لبنان سعد الحريري اسماً مثيراً للجدل ينتظر منه ما لا يُتوقع حتى ولو كان كارثياً على سير المعادلات السياسية. وحتى الساعة تبدو خطوات الأمير الشاب واقعة ضمن إطار تحدٍّ واضح ممزوج باستعداد لعدم التراجع من دون أن يعني ذلك عدم خضوعه للحليف الأميركي الحاضر دائماً، خصوصاً في ما يتعلّق بحرب «عبثية» في اليمن صارت خسائرها أكثر من فوائدها على اطراف النزاع كافة، فيما يبقى المدنيون ضحية عناد اللحظة الأخيرة في وقت يؤخذ على السعودية أنها غرقت في انتقادات الفشل والخسارة بعدم تمكنها من مواجهة منظمة عسكرية «الحوثيين» لا توازي لوجستياً القوى الكبرى التي تواجهها من خلال التحالف الدولي. وهذا من دون شك إخفاق عسكري جعل إبن سلمان يُعيد ترتيب القيادة العسكرية كوزير للدفاع ورغم كل شيء ورغم عدم تحقيق أهداف يُعتدّ بها من سقف ما وضعته برمجة عاصفة الحزم يتابع الحرب…

يزور إبن سلمان المملكة المتحدة «بريطانيا» في زيارة تاريخية بعد أن اختار مصر كمحطة عربية سياسية مهمة ليؤكد أنّه «تعافى» من القلق، مما كان يحضّر إليه في الداخل من مؤامرات تهدّد تسلّمه الحكم إضافة إلى تداعيات حملة التطهير من الفساد كما أُسميت وليرسل رسائل، بهذا الإطار محلياً ودولياً. والزيارة لم تخلُ من تظاهرات معارضة اللافت فيها أنه غالباً ما كانت تنظم مظاهرات كهذه لمسؤولين مؤيّدين لحركات التطرف او لـ«إسرائيل» ولزعماء بحجم القضايا الكبرى تلك. أما اليوم فإن وزير الدفاع الأمير محمد بن سلمان يواجه تظاهرة بريطانية أمام مكتب الحكومة في لندن العاصمة تتهمه بجرائم الحرب في اليمن واسمها «تحالف أوقفوا الحرب»، مندّدة بالزيارة في شارع «داونينغ ستريت»، رافعين لافتات كتبت عليها: «ارفعوا أيديكم عن اليمن ، القاتلون غير مرحَّب بهم في لندن، وإبن سلمان مجرم حرب». وردّد المحتجون هتافات ضدّ العملية العسكرية للسعودية في اليمن، وطالبوا بـ«وقف بيع السلاح لها».

هذه الحرب التي تشكّل جزءاً لا يتجزأ من أمن الخليج صار الخروج منها أصعب في كل يوم يمدّد فيها بعد أن دخلت عامها الرابع هذا الشهر. وصار لزاماً على «الأمير» إيجاد حلّ قبل أن يقترب موعد استلامه السلطة لئلا يحارب مجدداً من أصوات داخل العائلة تلومه على المضي قدماً في العملية، علماً ان السعودية ليست صاحبة القرار في هذا وحدها. والأمر يتعلق بمعادلة استراتيجية تريد واشنطن رسمها من بوابة اليمن مقابل ايران ونفوذها في المنطقة.

وبين هذا وذاك تستقبل الصحافة البريطانية إبن سلمان وعلى رأسها صحيفة فايننشيال تايمز بالترحاب الشديد مع الإضاءة الموضوعية على الزيارة. فتشيد الصحيفة بمواقف إبن سلمان وبـ»الأمير القوي» وخطواته التغييرية، لكنها بالمقابل تحذر من تسارع هذه الخطى. وتقول في مقال بعنوان «الرجل القوي في السعودية يريد تغيير الكثير في وقت قياسي».. «في الماضي كان حكام المملكة يسيرون خطوتين إلى الأمام، ثم يعودون خطوة إلى الوراء»، في إشارة إلى بطء التغيير الذي كان يجري في السعودية، قبل أن يظهر ولي العهد محمد بن سلمان في الحلبة السياسية… وتضيف السرعة الحالية لا تقل خطورة عن البطء في الماضي، وأن على حلفاء السعودية أن يدعوها للحذر من السرعة المفرطة في التغيير»، لافتة إلى ان «المنطقة التي تتحول فيها أوضاع التوتر بسهولة إلى حروب لا تحتمل زعيماً يتعلم أثناء ممارسته لمهام عمله».

لكن يبدو أن حلفاء السعودية، وفي طليعتهم واشنطن ولندن، يريدون مساعدة السعودية وتحديداً إبن سلمان على طريقتهم ووفق خطوات تحمي صورته من أي تشويه لاحقه بسبب حرب اصلها اميركي بامتياز. وبعد قانون جيستا الذي سمح لأهالي ضحايا 11 ايلول محاسبة المتورطين وأغلبهم سعوديون وبعد توقيع الكونغرس من دون تمكن اوباما من رفض ذلك حينها صار لزاماً تلميع صورة السعودية. وكان ترامب اول من أشاد بجهود السعودية خلال قمة الرياض، بحضور ممثلي الدول الاسلامية ويعلن التعاون في مركز مشترك لمكافحة الارهاب. واليوم الامر نفسه يتكرر في لندن بدعم الرياض تأسيسها مركزاً دولياً لمكافحة الارهاب. لكن اللافت أن يخرج بيان مشترك عن الطرفين يستحضر حزب الله، وكأنه إيحاء بأنه أهم اهداف العمل المشترك وأنه الارهاب الاخطر، واضعين ذلك بموازاة داعش وهو هدف بذاته. ليخرج البيان بـ «العزم على تركيز الجهود لمكافحة الإرهاب والتطرف ودعم الحكومة اللبنانية لتمكينها من بسط سيادتها ونزع سلاح ما سُمّي ميليشيا «حزب الله» والتصدي لدورها المزعزع للاستقرار».

حزب الله الذي يرى في ذلك رسالة مباشرة وتصعيد مقبل «متوقع» يدرك أيضاً ان هذا المسعى هو هدف تسعى اليه «اسرائيل» دائماً. والجديد ان ضم مكافحة الارهاب الى حزب الله وداعش بشكل متوازٍ جاء بعد إحدى زيارات نتنياهو الى البيت الابيض ليتكرر اليوم ذلك بمساعٍ سعودية بريطانية. وحسب المعلومات فإن «صفقات هائلة وقعت ما بين لندن والرياض إثر زيارة ولي العهد لا تقل أهمية عن تلك التي وقعت إثر زيارة ترامب للرياض، خصوصاً بعد إظهار بريطانيا الرغبة في إدراج شركة «أرامكو« السعودية في بورصة لندن».

One Yellow Star – a glimpse into tribal psychosis by Elias Davidsson

February 08, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

"The surrender to a regime of correctness is a surrender to Jerusalem. It is a strict divergence from Athens and its spirit." 

“The surrender to a regime of correctness is a surrender to Jerusalem. It is a strict divergence from Athens and its spirit.”

 Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: Elias Davidsson wasn’t  happy with my recent expose of his tribal sabotage attempt of  the 9/11 truth movement and so  he took revenge: a one star Amazon book review. His review collects  Being in Time’s  most spectacular gems presumably with the hope that this pile of quotes will finish me off once and for all. Here is the bad news for Davidsson and his operators — I take  pride in each of these cherry picked quotes.  I plan to circulate them one by one in the coming weeks and monitor how they affect my Amazon ranking.  I will let others decide whether these quotes are “post-factual,” “presumptuous” or “deceptive” as Davidsson describes them. For the time being, I would like to thank the son of David for, once again, providing us with a window into the depths of tribal morbidity and delusional detachment. 

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). 

Ryan Dawson discusses 911, Trump, ID politics and Zionism with Gilad Atzmon

January 09, 2018 / Gilad Atzmon

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: