Alas, this is far from over!

Alas, this is far from over!

April 15, 2018

Let’s begin by a short summary of events.

  • About a month ago Nikki Haley announces to the UNSC that the USA is ready to violate the rules of this very self-same UNSC should a chemical attack happen in Syria
  • Then the Russians announced that they have evidence that a chemical false flag is being prepared in Syria
  • Then a chemical attack (supposedly) takes place (in a location surrounded and, basically, controlled by government forces!)
  • The OPWC sends investigators (in spite of western powers loudly proclaiming that no investigation was needed)
  • The AngloZionists then bomb Syria
  • Next, the UNSC refuses to condemn the violation of its own rules and decisions
  • Finally, the US Americans speak of a ‘perfect strike’

Now tell me – do you get a sense that this is over?

If you tell me that 32/103 is hardly perfect, I will reply that you are missing the point.  In fact, if anything, 32/103 is further incentive to bomb again!

Let’s look at the differently for a second and ask this: what has the AngloZionist attack actually demonstrated?

  • The western general public is so terminally zombified that false flag attacks can now be announced 4 weeks in advance
  • The Europeans now live by the motto “my honor is called solidarity” (a variation of the SS motto “my honor is loyalty“)
  • Lead by the USA, western countries have no objections to wars started in violation of their own national laws
  • The UN Security Council has no objections to wars started in violation of the UN Charter and International Law
  • The PRC leaders, in their infinite wisdom, act as if they have nothing personal at stake and act like bystanders
  • The Israelis, via the UN Neocons, are now in total control of the Empire and use it to “clean house” next door

Oh, I hear the objections.  They go something like this:

– But the attack was a dismal failure!
– So what? the Empire did not pay any price for executing it.
– But the US Americans did blink! The attacked from Jordanian airspace and from the Red Sea! They avoided the Russians completely!  They are afraid of them!
– So what? They still bombed a Russian ally with total impunity.
– But, surely you are not suggesting that the Russians should have started a war against the USA over a strike which did not even kill a single person?
– No, of course not, but by not taking any action the Russians also failed to deter any future attacks.
– But what could the Russians have done?

Now *that* is the right question!

Let’s look at it a little closer.  Roughly speaking, the Russians have a choice of 3 types of retaliatory measures: political, economic and military.  However, each one of them has a specific set of prerequisites which are currently problematic to say the least:

Measures Political Economic Military
Prerequisites Assumes a minimal amount of decency, integrity and respect for the rule of law by the rest of the planet. Assumes that other countries, especially China, would be willing and able to support such measures. Assumes that Russia has the military capability to defeat the AngloZionist “coalition”.
Current reality Russia can moan, bitch, complain, protest, appeal to higher values, logic or facts – nobody gives a damn. The Chinese and the rest of them are not willing to do anything at this time to support Russia. Russia can militarily defeat the AngloZionists, but only by risking the future of our planet.

This really can be summarized a simple sentence: the AngloZionist Hegemony is a threat for the entire planet, but nobody besides Russia and Iran is willing to take it on.  Ain’t that an irony!

The so-called “Christian West” has become a willing host for its Zionist parasite and the only ones with the courage and moral integrity to take it on are Orthodox Christians and Muslims! Sic transit gloria mundi indeed…

But what is even more important is this: while it is true that the US Neocons did not succeed in delivering the kind of massive attack they would have wanted to, and while it is true that the US attack was just about as lame as can be, you need to completely forget about these facts.  Facts simply don’t matter.  And neither does logic.  All that matters are perceptions!

And the perception is that “we” (the AngloZionist rulers and their serfs) “kicked” Assad’s “ass” and that “we” will “do it again” if “we” feel like it.  That is all that matters in the Empire of Illusions which the AngloZionist Hegemony has become.

As soon as you understand that, you also will have to agree that Trump was right: it was a “perfect strike” (again, not in reality, but in the world of illusions created around it).

So now we come full circle.

The AngloZionist Hegemony demands that the entire planet bows down and worships it.  Except for Russia and Iran, everybody meekly goes down on their knees or, at most, meekly looks away.  In their own delusional reality, the ‘Mericans feel empowered to smack down Russia or Iran at anytime.  There is nothing Iran can do to stop them, and while Russia can, she can only do that at the risk of the future of our entire planet.

Now you tell me – do you really think this is over?

The Saker


AngloZionist options (intermediate report) UPDATED

April 10, 2018

An AngloZionist attack on Syria appears to be inevitable and imminent.  There is always a chance of a major pushback from some putative mentally sane, realistic and patriotic generals in the Pentagon, but I am not holding my breath (I asked two of my best informed friends about that, they both told me to forget about it).  Counting on those who have made a life obeying orders to suddenly refuse one, and wreck their career in the process, is naive.  Besides, most of what we now have at the Pentagon are not Admiral Fallon types, but rather the same “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” type à la Petraeus.  They might not push for a confrontation with Russia, but they will do what they are told to.  The commander of CENTCOM recently said just that (“we will do what we are told“).

However, what kind of attack options the US Neocons and their Israeli pals will chose is probably what is being debated right now.  Here are the basic options

1) A repeat of last year’s attack on the Syrian Air Force base in Shayrat.  That would be by far the best option and that would allow the Neocons a face-saving, even if entirely symbolic, “look how tough we are” option.  They might as well strike the same T4 base the Israelis did a few days ago, just with more missiles.  And, just to make this look all very “democratic” they might ask the French, Brits or Israelis to participate in that attack.

2) It is too late, militarily speaking, to try to reverse the situation on the ground, but hitting more Syrian Air Force bases, communication nodes, air defenses, etc. is definitely an option.  Following such an attack, the US allies on the ground (the “good” and the “bad” terrorists) would go on the offensive and the Syrians and their allies would struggle to “plug the holes” thus created.  That would not fundamentally change the outcome, but would prolong the chaos and associated bloodbath.

3) Attack the Iranians.  This is a grand favorite with the Israelis and the Neocons, but it is also a much riskier option because if the attack is successful, the Iranians would have a huge number of potential US targets to chose from to retaliate, as would Hezbollah.  Still, that would placate the Iran-haters, at least temporarily, and it would allow Trump to show how “tough” and “great” a guy he is.

4) A full scale attack on the Syrian military and on the government (including Presidential facilities).  We are talking about hundreds of cruise missiles in the first wave.  Targets would include not only purely military targets (ammo dumps, troop concentrations, etc.) but also the “regime support infrastructure”, i.e. civilians and that which makes civilian life possible: power plants, water purification, communications, bridges, roads, ports, schools and hospitals (“camouflaged regime objectives”) etc.  Basically, that is what the US/EU/NATO did to Serbia and what the Israelis have done many times to Lebanon: murder as many civilians as possible to make them pay for supporting the “Animal Assad”.  A time honored Anglo and Jewish tradition, by the way.

5) A deliberate attack on Russian and Iranian positions in Syria to “punish” them for supporting “Animal Assad’s” chemical attacks.

Of course, a combination of the options above are possible.  Roughly speaking options 1, 2 and 3 might (conditional) remain manageable.  Only option 1 is (relatively) safe.  Options 4 and 5 are absolutely insane and are likely to result in an extremely dangerous escalation.

Let’s look at it from another point of view.

What would be the goal of a AngloZionist attack?

I think that we can all agree that nobody seriously believes that a actual chemical attack took place and that everybody knows that this is a (poorly) staged false flag predicted by both Nikki Haley and the Russians weeks ago.  As for a full-scale reversal of the outcome in Syria or a reconquista by US/NATO, these are not militarily speaking realistic options.

So then what is the point?

1) Internal US politics: Trump wants to appease the Neocons and looks “tough”.

2) Make the Syrians, Iranians and Russians pay for defeating the “good” and “bad” terrorists.

3) Appease the always bloodthirsty Israelis and create a nice pretext to renege on the nuclear deal with Iran.

4) The need to act on the rhetoric (that one is often ignored, but the fact is that when a regime spews a constant stream of paranoid and hate-filled nonsense about another country, it eventually has to do something about it.  Speaking of “Animal Assad” and do nothing about him just does not look good for The Donald).

5) Some hope to actually kill Assad (unlikely, the integrated Russian-Syrian air defenses will warn him of the attack).

6) Re-establish, by means of example, that the USA is still the biggest and baddest guy out there and that neither Iran nor Russia can do anything about it.  Scare Russia and Iran into submission (I know, this is a stupid notion, but Neocons are not very bright!).

I think that we should not over-intellectualize all this.  Frankly, I don’t think that the folks in the White House are very bright and that their level of planning is roughly similar to “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”.  What they have is a mental hammer: the desire to lash out, to strike, to hurt, to punish.  Just hatred and infinite arrogance.

As to where and how the hammer will strike – your guess is as good as mine.

Attempting to predict the actions of delusional psychopaths is an exercise in futility.

Besides, we will find out very soon.

The Saker

UPDATE1RT reports that Russia and the US are both submitting resolutions to the UNSC.  Both resolutions demand an international investigation; the OPCW announced its decision to dispatch a fact-finding mission to Syria.  RT is also reporting that one Russian newspaper has declared that a top level Russia-US meeting over Syria is scheduled for next week.  Maybe, just maybe, this insanity can be stopped?

العالم بين لاعب البوكر ولاعب الشطرنج

أبريل 4, 2018

زياد حافظ

شهر أيار/مايو المقبل سيكون نقطة تحوّل هامة على مستوى العلاقات الدولية في المنطقة وفي المشرق العربي. فشهر أيار/مايو شهر الاستحقاقات التي حدّدها الرئيس الأميركي لتثبيت نجاح ولايته على صعيد السياسة الخارجية. فما هي تلك الاستحقاقات؟

الاستحقاق الأول هو نقل السفارة الأميركية إلى القدس في يوم يحيي الكيان الصهيوني ذكرى ولادته، مع كل ما يرافقه من استفزاز للمشاعر العربية والإسلامية. أما الاستحقاق الثاني فهو اتخاذ موقف نهائي من الاتفاق النووي مع الجمهورية الإسلامية في إيران، حيث هناك مؤشرات تشير إلى خروج الولايات المتحدة من الاتفاق دون الاكتراث إلى النتائج على صعيد تحالفاتها أو حتى مصالحها في المنطقة. والاستحقاق الثالث هو حشد الدول «السنّية العربية» لاحتواء الجمهورية الاسلامية في إيران من جهة ولتمرير ما تمّت تسميته بصفقة القرن التي ستنهي الصراع العربي الصهيوني وتقفل الملف الفلسطيني وذلك على حساب حقوق الشعب الفلسطيني. الاستحقاق الرابع هو تنفيذ العقوبات والتعرفات الجمركية على الصين لتصحيح ميزان التجاري بينهما لصالح الولايات المتحدة. وأخيراً هناك استحقاق القمة الثلاثية بين الكوريتين والولايات المتحدة لنزع السلاح النووي من كوريا الشمالية. هذه الاستحقاقات قد تكون غير مرتبطة بعضها ببعض، ولكن ما يحصل في أي منها سيؤثّر على باقي الاستحقاقات.

يعتقد الرئيس الأميركي أنه «سينجح» في تحقيق أهدافه. فهو يعتبر نفسه من أبرع المفاوضين وينظر إلى الأمور السياسية المعقّدة نظرة رجل الأعمال الذي يعقد صفقات بعد الانتهاء من مفاوضات «ناجحة». وشرط «نجاح» المفاوضات هو التسلّح بفائق القوّة أو الإيحاء بتملّك تلك القوّة الفائقة التي سترعب الأطراف الآخرين. كما يعتبر أن القوّة هي الرافعة التي ستمكّن من فرض الشروط التي يعتبرها محقّة ولصالحه. من هنا نفهم قراره بالتخلّص من كل من حاول معارضته داخل إدارته والمجيء برموز معروفة بتطرّفها حتى أصبح هو «العاقل» أو «المعتدل» في هذه الإدارة خاصة أنه لا يملك أي أجندة عقائدية أو سياسية تعيق «واقعيته». فشخصيات كبومبيو وبولتون في «حكومة حرب» محتملة هي شخصيات وظيفتها دبّ الرعب في قلوب الأطراف الأخرى وإجبارهم على تقديم التنازلات وإلاّ لكانت المواجهة التي لا يريدها خصوم الولايات المتحدة خوفاً من جبروتها والقوّة التدميرية لسلاحها وفقاً لتوقّعاته.

لكن هذه «الورقة» قد تكون خاسرة نتيجة الإرباك الذي سيحصل إبان التناقض بين مواقف الرئيس الأميركي وأعضاء حكومته. فالرئيس «المفاوض» قد يصطدم بالمواقف الصدامية لمستشاره للأمن القومي بولتون الذي يفضّل الحروب على التفاوض، أو بمواقف وزير خارجيته بومبيو الذي يعتبر الدبلوماسية مضيعة للوقت، حسب تعبيره. والدليل المبكر على تناقض كهذا هو ردّ وزارة الخارجية على تصريح الرئيس الأميركي الذي يعلن فيها الخروج العسكري للولايات المتحدة من سورية. فكان ردّ الخارجية مع بداية ولاية بومبيو أن «لا علم لها» بذلك. فإذا تجرّأت الوزارة الخارجية على نقض تصريح الرئيس الأميركي فكيف ستتعامل الدول الأخرى التي ستدخل «المفاوضات» مع الولايات المتحدة؟ فمن هو إذن صاحب القرار الفعلي؟

من جهة أخرى، لم يضع الرئيس الأميركي احتمال الفشل في حسابه أو إمكانية ردود خصومه على تهديداته التي هي أقرب من حالة «البلف» المعتمدة في لعبة البوكر التي يجيدها الأميركيون بينما الخصم الروسي أو الصيني أو الإيراني يجيد لعبة الشطرنج واحتساب كل خطوة بدقة، ولكل خطوة يمكن أن يقدم عليها الخصم. فمن يربح؟ لاعب الشطرنج أو لاعب البوكر؟ التقارير تفيد أن لاعب الشطرنج يستطيع التغلّب على لاعب البوكر لأنه يعرف مَن هو في مواجهته وما يملكه من قطع وحجارة، بينما لاعب البوكر لا يعتمد كلّياً على الأوراق التي يملكها كما يجهل أوراق خصمه بل على قدرته على قراءة نفسية خصمه. وهذه القراءة تفشل في مواجهة لاعب الشطرنج الذي يتمتّع ببرودة الأعصاب والصبر. فهل أصبحت السياسة الخارجية لعبة في قراءة النفس أو تقديراً لموازين القوة؟

فالروس والصينيون والإيرانيون يستطيعون مواجهة التحدّيات الأميركية وأصبحوا متفوّقين في قطاعات كانت تحتكرها الولايات المتحدة. من هنا نفهم مغزى خطاب الرئيس الروسي بوتين والذي عرض فيه القدرات العسكرية الروسية المتفوّقة على السلاح الأميركي، رغم وجود بعض حالات الإنكار. ومن مظاهر حالة الإنكار تأكيد الرئيس الأميركي لولي العهد محمد بن سلمان بأن السلاح الأميركي هو الأجدر، علماً أن منظومة صواريخ الباتريوت تأكد فشلها في كل من الجزيرة العربية وفي فلسطين المحتلة خاصة بعد إسقاط الطائرة «إف 16» الاسرائيلية الأميركية الصنع.

من جهة أخرى تشارك مكرهة الدول الغربية الولايات المتحدة في انتهاج ذهنية لاعب البوكر الذي يراهن على هروب خصمه بعد رفع قيمة المبالغ المقامرة. من هنا نفهم القرار الغربي، الأميركي والاوروبي، بطرد عدد من الدبلوماسيين الروس. فكان الرد الروسي بالمماثل، ولكن الأهم من ذلك فإن تداعيات القرارات الغربية هو المزيد من التماسك بين روسيا والصين والحزم في مواجهة التحدّيات. المشكلة في لعبة البوكر أن «البلف» قد ينقلب في كثير من الأحيان على المقدم عليه، إذا ما واجهه لاعب يعرف بدقة موازين القوّة.

بعض الأصوات المرتفعة في الدولة العميقة تراهن على تفاقم العلاقة بين روسيا والولايات المتحدة وسائر دول الغرب لفرض عقوبات أكثر صرامة كإخراج روسيا من التعامل مع منظمة «سويفت» للتحويلات المصرفية والمالية، ما سيعزلها عن العالم المالي وقد يؤدّي إلى خنقها مالياً فاقتصادياً. قد تكون تلك الخطوة مزعجة لروسيا، ولكنها ستكون حافزاً إضافياً لإيجاد منظومة مالية مستقّلة عن السيطرة والهيمنة الأميركية. فروسيا والصين ومعهما عدد من الدول الآسيوية بدأت تتعامل بعملات غير الدولار، مما يفقد نسبياً أهمية الدولار وبالتالي المنظومة المالية الدولية. ومع الوقت سيوجد نظام مالي موازٍ ومستقل يعتمد إما على النفط وإما على الذهب أو أي معيار آخر ولكن لا يعتمد على الدولار. هذا سيؤدّي إلى سقوطه أو إلى تراجع مكانته في المحفظات المالية وبالتالي إلى تراجع وإن لم يكن سقوطاً للهيمنة المالية الأميركية على العالم التي كانت أساس سيطرتها السياسية العالمية.

أما على صعيد منطقة المشرق العربي فتصريح الرئيس الأميركي يوم أمس بخروج الولايات المتحدة من سورية رغم «عدم معرفة» وزارة الخارجية الأميركية بذلك ينسف مصداقية الولايات المتحدة عند حلفائها الإقليميين وخاصة عند بعض دول الخليج. فماذا سيكون مصير «الحشد السنّي العربي» بعد كلّ ذلك؟ وماذا سيكون مصير «صفقة القرن»؟ لقد برهنت الولايات المتحدة أنها تتراجع عن قرارتها إذا ما وُجهت بجدّية. هذا السفير الأميركي لدى دولة الكيان الذي لم يتوارَ عن تهديد مباشر لرئيس السلطة الفلسطينية يتراجع بعد ظهور مواقف واضحة وصريحة مندّدة بتصريحه الصلف.

شهر أيّار/مايو سيشهد فصلاً إضافياً في الملف النووي الذي يؤرق الكيان الصهيوني ومعه بعض دول الجزيرة العربية. لقد هدّد مراراً الرئيس الأميركي بالانسحاب الأحادي من ذلك الاتفاق إن لم تكن هناك إجراءات تحدّ من قدرة الجمهورية الاسلامية في إيران من إنتاج وتطوير وتجربة الصواريخ البالستية التي تهدّد الكيان الصهيوني والقواعد الأميركية في المنطقة. لن ترضخ الجمهورية الاسلامية إلى ذلك التهديد ما يجعل الانسحاب الأميركي أمراً لا مفرّ منه. وليس هناك من دليل على إمكانية التراجع لأن الضغط الأوروبي ما زال ضعيفاً. والانسحاب الأحادي الأميركي يعني عودة فرض العقوبات الدولية على إيران، إما عبر مجلس الأمن وهذا غير وارد، وإما عبر فرض العقوبات على كل الدول والشركات التي ستستمر في التعامل مع إيران. فعبر ذلك التهديد يهدّد ترامب العالم بأسره من دون الاكتراث بردود الفعل.

من الواضح أن ذلك التهديد المحتمل جدّا تنفيذه ستكون له تداعيات على العلاقات الأميركية الأوروبية، وعلى العلاقات الأميركية الروسية والصينية. فالولايات المتحدة واثقة بأن أوروبا ستطيع الولايات المتحدة وليس هناك من دلائل تنقض ذلك. فالاتحاد الاوروبي ما زال بحاجة إلى الحماية الأميركية وبالتالي واكب الحملة الهيستيرية الأميركية ضد روسيا. وليست المسرحية الهزلية لمحاولة تسميم بالغاز السام للجاسوس المزدوج الروسي البريطاني سكريبال وابنته إلاّ خير دليل على خضوع بل خنوع المملكة المتحدة ومعها الاتحاد الأوروبي للمشيئة الأميركية، رغم ظواهر من هنا وهناك من امتعاض اوروبي من البلطجة الأميركية. لكن في آخر المطاف، وحتى إشعار آخر، الاتحاد الآووري غير قادر أن يغرّد خارج السرب الأميركي.

لكن كيف سيتعامل الاتحاد الأوروبي مع منظومة العقوبات التي ستفرضها الولايات المتحدة على إيران؟ فهناك مصالح حيوية لكل من فرنسا وألمانيا والمملكة المتحدة تريد نسجها مع إيران. ليس هناك من إجابات واضحة حتى الآن عند القيادات الحاكمة في هذه الدول. لكن المشاكل الداخلية التي تواجهها قد تفرض عليها «التمرّد» على القرار الأميركي وتمضي بالتعامل مع إيران. على كل حال، هذه الورقة محفوفة بالأخطار من الناحية الأميركية وقد تنقلب إلى عبء لا تستطيع تحمّله إلاّ بعد خسارة فادحة في المصداقية.

هناك ايضاً ورقة الضغط على الصين من جرّاء التعرفات الجمركية التي يصل مقدارها إلى حوالي 60 مليار دولار. الصين أبلغت أنها على استعداد لمواجهة تلك التعرفات عبر فرض تعرفات مماثلة على الصادرات الأميركية للصين وخاصة من تلك الولايات التي صوّتت لترامب في الانتخابات الماضية. فكيف سيتعامل ترامب مع ذلك؟ أضف إلى كل ذلك احتمال خسارة شركة بوينغ لمصلحة شركة ايربس الأوروبية لتجديد الأسطول الجوّي الصيني. فهل يستطيع ترامب إيذاء شركة بوينغ وهي من أعمدة المجمّع العسكري الصناعي؟

من جهة أخرى أقرّ الكونغرس الأميركي موازنة وصل العجز فيها إلى 1،3 تريليون دولار. فمن سيموّل ذلك العجز الذي أوصل الدين العام الأميركي إلى أكثر من 21 تريليون دولار ما يفوق الناتج الداخلي الأميركي ويجعلها دولة مفلسة بكل معنى الكلمة؟ الصين كانت المشتري الأكبر مع كل من اليابان وكوريا الجنوبية لسندات الخزينة تمويلاً للدين والعجز. والصين كانت تحمل حوالي 1،3 تريليون دولار من سندات الخزينة الأميركية، فكيف يمكن للولايات المتحدة أن تفرض بشكل أحادي تعرفات جمركية أو عقوبات دون عواقب مالية مباشرة؟ فالدين الأميركي المتفاقم يجعل الولايات المتحدة تستدين من الصين لمحاربة الصين!!! فهل يمكن أن يستقيم ذلك الأمر؟

أما بالنسبة لكوريا الشمالية، فالتفاهم الروسي الصيني أفقد الولايات المتحدة ورقة التلويح بالحرب. فها هي الصين وروسيا تضمنان أمن كوريا الشمالية إذا ما نقلت ترسانتها النووية إلى روسيا التي ستخزّنها. فماذا باستطاعة الولايات المتحدة العمل إذا ما طلب المحور الكوري الشمالي الروسي الصيني نزع السلاح النووي من شبه الجزيرة الكورية وإخلاء القواعد الأميركية منها؟ ماذا ستكون حجّة الولايات المتحدة لتبرير البقاء بعد أكثر من ستين سنة فيها؟ وهل تستطيع الولايات المتحدة منع التقارب بين الكوريتين بغية إعادة الوحدة بينهما والتي شطرتها إلى شطرين الحرب الكورية في بداية الخمسينيات من القرن الماضي؟ قيادة كوريا الجنوبية أعربت عن انزعاجها الكبير من التهديدات الأميركية التي قد تؤدّي إلى مواجهة يتم تدمير الكوريتيين. فهل تستطيع الولايات المتحدة الضغط إلى ما لا نهاية على قيادة كوريا الجنوبية لمنع التقارب من شقيقتها الشمالية؟

فعدّة البوكر كالبلف بحمل أوراق رابحة باتت مهتزّة. فتلك الأوراق أضعف ممّا يظّن الرئيس الأميركي وقد تنقلب عليه إذا لم تستجب الدول المستهدفة لتلك الأوراق. ليس هناك من قدرة على مواجهة عسكرية وسياسية واقتصادية للولايات المتحدة مع خصوم يعون ماذا يفعلون ويحسبون بدقّة موازين القوّة. فلعبة البوكر لا تستقيم مع لعبة الشطرنج، خاصة أن التهديدات الأميركية والغربية أصبحت مجرّد ظواهر صوتية فارغة المضامين وعاجزة عن ترجمة فعلية أو ميدانية.

أمين عام المؤتمر القومي العربي

Related Articles

What happened to the West I was born in?!

What happened to the West I was born in?!

March 26, 2018

Frankly, I am awed, amazed and even embarrassed.  I was born in Switzerland, lived most of my life there, I also visited most of Europe, and I lived in the USA for over 20 years.  Yet in my worst nightmares I could not have imagined the West sinking as low as it does now.  I mean, yes, I know about the false flags, the corruption, the colonial wars, the NATO lies, the abject subservience of East Europeans, etc.  I wrote about all that many times.  But imperfect as they were, and that is putting it mildly, I remember Helmut Schmidt, Maggie Thatcher, Reagan, Mitterrand, even Chirac!  And I remember what the Canard Enchaîné used to be, or even the BBC.  During the Cold War the West was hardly a knight in white shining armor, but still – rule of law did matter, as did at least some degree of critical thinking.

I am now deeply embarrassed for the West.  And very, very afraid.

All I see today is a submissive herd lead by true, bona fide, psychopaths (in a clinical sense of the word)

And that is not the worst thing.

The worst thing is the deafening silence, the way everybody just looks away, pretends like “ain’t my business” or, worse, actually takes all this grotesque spectacle seriously.  What the fuck is wrong with you people?!  Have you all been turned into zombies?!  WAKE UP!!!!!!!

Let me carefully measure my words here and tell you the blunt truth.

Since the Neocon coup against Trump the West is now on exactly the same course as Nazi Germany was in, roughly, the mid 1930s.

Oh sure, the ideology is different, the designated scapegoat also.  But the mindset is *exactly* the same.

Same causes produce the same effects.  But this time around, there are weapons on both sides which make the Dresden Holocaust looks like a minor spark.

So now we have this touching display of “western solidarity” not with UK or the British people, but with the City of London.  Now ain’t that touching?!

Let me ask you this: what has been the central feature of Britain’s policies towards Europe, oh, let’s say since the Middle-Ages?

That’s right: starting wars in Europe.

And this time around you think it’s different?

Does: “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior” somehow not apply to the UK?!

Let me also tell you this: when Napoleon and Hitler attacked Russia she was undergoing deep crises and was objectively weak (really! research it for yourself!).  In both cases Russian society was deeply torn by internal contradictions and the time for attack as ideal.

Not today.

So I ask this simple question: do you really want to go to war against a fully united nuclear Russia?

You think that this is hyperbole?

Think again.

The truth is that the situation today is infinitely worse than the Cuban missile crisis. First, during the Cuban missile crisis there were rational people on both side.  Today there is NOT ONE SINGLE RATIONAL PERSON LEFT IN A POSITION OF POWER IN THE USA.  Not ONE!  Second, during the Cuban missile crisis all the new was reporting on was the crisis, the entire planet felt like we were standing at the edge of the abyss.

Today nobody seems to be aware that we are about to go to war, possibly a thermonuclear war, where casualties will be counted in the hundreds of millions.

All because of what?

Because the people of the West have accepted, or don’t even know, that they are ruled by an ugly gang of ignorant, arrogant psychopaths.

At the very least this situation shows this:

Representative democracy does not work.

The rule of law only applies to the weak and poor.

Western values have now been reduced to a sad joke.

Capitalism needs war and a world hegemony to survive.

The AngloZionist Empire is about to collapse, the only open question is how and at what cost.

Right now they are expelling Russian diplomats en masse and they are feeling very strong and manly. Polish and Ukrainian politicians are undergoing a truly historical surge in courage and self-confidence! (hiding, as they do, behind Anglo firepower)

The truth is that this is only the tip of a much bigger iceberg.  In reality, crucial expert-level consultations, which are so vitally important between nuclear superpowers, have all but stopped a long time ago.  We are down to top level telephone calls.  That kind of stuff happens when two sides are about to go to war.  For many months now Russia and NATO have made preparations for war in Europe.  And Russia is ready.  NATO sure ain’t!  Oh, they have the numbers and they think they are strong.  The truth is that these NATO midgets have no idea of what is about to hit them, when the Russians go to war these NATO statelets won’t even understand what is happening to them.  Very rapidly the real action will be left to the USA and Russia.  Thus any conflict will go nuclear very fast.  And, for the first time in history, the USA will be hit very, very hard, not only in Europe, the Middle-East or Asia, but also on the continental US.

I was born in a Russian military family and I studied Russian and Soviet military affairs all my life. I can absolutely promise you this, please don’t doubt it for one second:

Russia will not back down and, if cornered, she will wipe out your entire civilization. The Russians really don’t want war, they fear it (as they should!) and they will do everything to avoid it.  But if attacked then expect a response of absolutely devastating violence.  Don’t take it from me, take it from Putin who clearly said so himself and who, at least on that issue, is supported by about 95% of the population.  From the Eastern Crusades to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, enough is enough, and the Russians will not take one more western attack, especially not one backed by nuclear firepower.  Again, please ponder Putin’s words very, very carefully:

“what need would we have a world if there is no Russia?

All that for what?  The USA and Russia have NO objective reasons to do anything but to collaborate (the Russians are absolutely baffled the fact the leaders of the USA seem to be completely oblivious to this simple fact).  Okay, the City of London does have a lot of reasons to want Russia gone and silent. As Gavin Williamson, the little soy-boy in charge of UK “defense”, so elegantly put it, Russia should “go away and shut up”.  Right.  Let me tell you – it ain’t happening!  Britannia will be turned into a heap of radioactive ashes long before Russian goes away or shuts up.  That is simply a fact.

What baffles me is this: do American leaders really want to lose their country in behalf of a small nasty clique of arrogant British pompous asses who think that they still are an Empire?  Did you even take a look at Boris Johnson, Theresa May and Gavin Williamson?  Are you really ready to die in defense of the interest of these degenerates?!

I don’t get it and nobody in Russia does.

Yeah, I know, all they did is expel some diplomats.  And the Russians will do the same.  So what?  But that’s missing the point!


You can get 200,000 antigun (sigh, rolleyes) protesters in DC but NOBODY AT ALL ABOUT NUCLEAR WAR?!

What is wrong with you people?!

What happened to the West where I was born in in 1963?

My God, is this really the end of it all?

Am I the only one who sees this slow-motion train-wreck taking us all over the precipice?

If you can, please give a reason to still hope.

Right now I don’t see many.

The Saker

PS: yes, I know. The rules of the blog prohibit CAPS as this is considered shouting.  Okay, but this time around I AM TRYING TO SHOUT!  So, for this one time only, feel free to use caps if you want.  The world badly needs some shouting right now, even virtual shouting.

نارام سرجون:ادارة الكلاب المسعورة تعيد انتاج الكلاب ..عم شنبو في عالم صنع في سورية

John Bolton: The Cartoonish Hawk

John Bolton: The Cartoonish Hawk 

مارس 27, 2018

نارام سرجون

أحب دوما أن أدغدغ اولئك الذين لايضحكون عندما نمر على ذكر الديمقراطيات الغربية الرصينة .. بل يكادون يقفون باحترام اذا ما تحدث احد عن قداسة الديمقراطية الطاهرة في اميريكا والغرب .. وتدمع عيونهم من فرط التأثر لغيابها في الشرق والعالم كله .. ويرون ان العالم مأزوم بسبب غياب النموذج الديمقراطي المخملي الغربي .. ولكن لكلماتي اصابع تأبى الا ان تمر على المناطق الحساسة لمشاعرهم الديمقراطية .. لتثير جنونهم ..

اليوم سأضع أصابعي على جسد ديمقراطية “عم شنبو* ” الاميريكية .. وكل من تصله أصابعي وتلامس بقعة الديمقراطية الغربية في عقله ستدغدغه أو ستؤلمه .. وانا على يقين بأنه سيضحك الا أولئك الذين صاروا من اتباع ديانة “الديمقراطية” التي لايقبلون المساس بها والتجديف برموزها أو اهانتها .. كأنها بقرة مقدسة .. وانا أعلم انهم يقاومون الضحك في قرارة نفوسهم ولكنهم لايجرؤون على الاعتراف انهم يعيشون كذبة العمر الكبرى ..

ديمقراطية أميريكا اليوم يقود ديبلوماسيتها الخارجية اليوم رئيس مخابرات شرس .. ويوضع جون بولتون المعروف – بأنه يصوّت لكل الحروب – في المنصب الأهم في الامن القومي .. فتخيلوا اننا قلدنا ديمقراطية اميريكا وعزلنا السيد وليد المعلم وعينا السيد علي مملوك وزيرا للخارجية .. والسيد عاطف نجيب مستشارا للأمن القومي .. لاأشك لحظة ان مجلس الامن سينعقد وسيتم اطلاق موجة نحيب على حقوق الانسان في طول العالم وعرضه وسيتم اطلاق برامج الضحك والسخرية والانتقادات والشتائم في كل صحف العالم التي سترى في تعيين ضابط مخابرات وزيرا للخارجية اهانة لقيم الديمقراطية واعلانا للحرب على الانسان ..

ولكن أميريكا يحل لها مالايحل لغيرها .. هي تضرب بالسلاح الذري ولكنها اذا شمت رائحة غاز المطابخ في الغوطة فانها تدافع عن حقوق الانسان وتضرب المطارات التي شمت فيها رائحة الغاز .. وهي تفتح غوانتانامو وتعين ملائكة التعذيب والاستجواب مسؤولين في المخابرات ثم تدافع عن حقوق الانسان .. وهي ترفض ديكتاتورية ضدام حسين والقذافي والأسد ولكنها ترحب بدكتاتورية آل سعود وآل نتنياهو .. وهي تمر بتجربة فشل المحافظين الجدد وعنفهم لكنها تعيدهم الى أدق المناصب واكثرها حساسية وتطلبا للرزانة ..

أميريكا جورج بوش تعيد انتاج نفسها واستنساخ تجربتها مع المحافظين الجدد .. فالمحافظون الجدد يتسربون الى ادارة ترامب الذي تقاسم السلطة مع دولة المخابرات الاميريكية .. وكان الاتفاق هو اعطوا مالله لله .. وأعطوا مالقيصر لقيصر .. فالله هو دولة المخابرات والبنتاغون في اميريكا .. وقيصر هو رجال الاقتصاد والتجارة والصناعة والصفقات .. اي ترامب ومعسكره ..

ولكن اعادة انتاج ذات الشيء تخضع لمقولة فلسفية شهيرة لهراقليطس هي أنك لاتستطيع ان تقفز في ذات النهر مرتين .. لأن مياه النهر تجري وتتجدد .. وهي من أكثر الأقوال الفلسفية حكمة .. والاميريكون يقفزون في النهر ثانية معتقدين أنهم يسبحون في نفس المياه التي سبحوا فيها في عام 2003 وقبله في مياه البيريسترويكا وأوهام عم غورباتشوف .. ولكن جمهورية جون بولتون أو من نحب ان نلقبه بـ “عم شنبو” لم تعد نفس الجمهورية كما أن عم شنبو صار دقة قديمة في عالم فلاديمير بوتين والروس الجدد ..

ويظن المحافظون الجدد انهم سيخيفون العالم بادارة الكلاب المسعورة .. ماتيس الكلب المسعور .. ومديرة المخابرات جين هاسبل ملاك التعذيب .. وجون بولتون الكلب العجوز .. وكأن العالم لايزال تخيفه شنبات جون بولتون التي كانت تهتز بغضب كلما تحداها أحد والتي رقصت على جثة بغداد وضاحية بيروت .. وكانت تريد الرقص على جثة دمشق ايام جورج بوش .. ولكن شنبات عم شنبو لم تعد تخيف احدا .. بل يجب ان يخاف عم شنبو على شنباته لأنه يواجه عالما ليس كالعالم الذي كان فيه صدام حسين وجورج بوش .. هذا عالم صنع في سورية حيث تمت حلاقة شنبات زعماء العالم كافة من الذين كانوا يمسكون شواربهم ويحلفون أنهم سيحلقونها كما في باب الحارة ويتعهدون ان يسقطوا الدولة السورية ورئيسها وجيشها .. وصارت لدينا مجموعة تذكارية ضخمة من شنبات الزعماء التي تمت حلاقتها في الحرب على سورية سنعرضها يوما في قلعة حلب .. الى جانب مجموعة من الضفائر النسائية .. منها ضفيرة هيلاري كلينتون ..

عالم اليوم صنع في سورية .. وفيه روسيا العظمى تعود .. وتتمطط الصين من شواطئ بحر الصين الى بحر طرطوس .. ووصلت صواريخ فلاديمير بوتين الى سورية .. فيما طارت صواريخ الأسد فوق تل ابيب وفتكت بأحدث طائرات اميريكا ف 35 .. وظهر السيد سارمات المحترم من تحت الأرض .. وعاد حزب الله الى حدود فلسطين وجهز بخبرة حروب المدن .. وصار الجليل مكافأته التي ينتظرها في أي لقاء قادم مع جيش نتنياهو ..

أميريكا التي تغير كلابها ولاتغير أنيابها .. كلب اسود يليه كلب أشقر ومعه كلب مسعور وعم شنبو .. ولكن ادارة الكلاي المسعورة لاتخيف الا قطعان النعاج في الخليج المحتل .. ومزارع دجاج الاخوان المسلمين في تركيا والخليج .. التي بالت في ثيابها من هول الرعب والفزع من هذه الادارة ..

نصيحتي لعم شنبو ان لايزيد عيار تصريحاته وأن يعرف كيف يحافظ على شنباته وكرامة شنباته .. ادارة الكلاب المسعورة لاتخيف أحدا ..


* ملاحظة هامة: لقب عم شنبو اطلقه السيد حسن نصرالله على جون بولتون عندما كان الاخير ممثلا لجورج بوش في مجلس الامن ابان حرب 2006 وكان عم شنبو يستميت للدفاع عن اسرائيل واجتياح عواصم الشرق .. السيد حسن يومها عندما شاهد جون بولتون أحس انه رآه قبل ذلك اليوم ولكن لايتذكر أين وكيف على وجه الضبط .. وفجأة تذكر انه شاهد مرة مسلسلا للأطفال بعنوان (مغامرات بن بن) وهي عن كلب صغير ..


وكان من بين شخصيات المسلسل الكرتوني شخصية (العم شنبو) .. وهو كلب كبير وله شنبات كبيرة .. لاتشبهها الا شنبات جون بولتون .. انه هو عم شنبو بشحمه ولحمه وذيله وشنبه ..

East Ghouta: Obama’s Last Stand In Syria?

How Zionist is the New World Order? and How Biblical Is Zionism?

March 13, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon


GA: If Zionism was intially all about the ‘promised land’, Neoconservatism stands for the shift towards a ‘promised planet.’ How do we bridge the gap between the nationalistic aspiration and the  globalist agenda?   From Yahweh to Zion by  Laurent Guyénot offers some interesting answers. Guyénot doesn’t attempt to tell us what Yahweh is but instead what the notion of Yahweh represents within the contexts of Judaism, jewish culture, Jewish politics and Jewish identification.  Guyénot’s offers a  very important contribution. I hope that is books are made of fire resistant materials.      

How Zionist is the New World Order? and How Biblical Is Zionism?

Laurent Guyénot

Editor’s note: In these two articles, historian Laurent Guyénot explores questions that you are not even supposed to ask…much less actually think about. Those of us who still read, and think, are grateful.  –Kevin BarrettVeterans Today Editor

How Zionist is the New World Order?

by Laurent Guyénot, first published at Vinyard of the Saker

Laurent Guyénot is the author of From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018.  ($30 shipping included from Sifting and Winnowing, POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556).

The Zionist paradox

Jewishness is full of paradoxes. For example, remarked Nahum Goldmann, founder and longtime president of the World Jewish Congress: “Even today it is hardly possible to say whether to be a Jew consists first of belonging to a people or practicing a religion, or the two together” (The Jewish Paradox, 1976)[1]. The answer has always depended on the circumstances. Another paradox is the relationship of Jewishness to both tribalism and universalism: Israelis, “the most separatist people in the world,” in Goldmann’s words again, “have the great weakness of thinking that the whole world revolves around them.”[2]

This great weakness is, of course, a great strength, and so is the ambiguity of Jewishness. It has served Israel—a secular “Jewish state”— very well. Theodor Herzl thought of Zionism on the model of European nationalistic movements, lobbying for the right of the Jews to become a nation among nations. But everyone can see now that Israel is no ordinary nation. It never was and never will be. It is the paradoxical nation.

Part of the ambiguity comes from the very name Israel, which already had a twofold meaning before 1948: it referred to an ancient kingdom supposedly founded in the first millennium BCE, and destroyed by the Romans in the first century CE. But for the following two thousand years, Israel was also a common designation for the Jewish community worldwide, “international Jewry” as some call it. That was the meaning of “Israel”, for example, when the British Daily Express of March 24, 1933 printed on its front page: “The whole of Israel throughout the world is united in declaring an economic and financial war on Germany.”[3] The members of Israel were then called Israelites interchangeably with Jews. Although quite contradictory in terms, the two notions (national Israel and international Israel) have been conflated by the 1948 Law of Return, which made every Israelite of the globe a virtual Israeli.

Today, Zionism has shifted into a kind of meta-Zionism where the greatest number of the Israeli elite—including individuals with no stamped Israeli citizenship but a profound loyalty to the Jewish state—reside outside Israel. Some of them hold key positions in state administrations, particularly in the United States. As Gilad Atzmon remarks, “there is no geographical center to the Zionist endeavor. It is hard to determine where Zionist decisions are made”; “the Israelis colonize Palestine and the Jewish Diaspora is there to mobilize lobbies by recruiting international support.”[4] The neoconservatives—“an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim,” as correctly assessed the Jewish Daily Forward[5] — are the most influential group of Diaspora Jews dedicated to Israel. They are no conservatives in the traditional sense, but rather crypto-Likudniks posturing as American patriots in order to align US foreign and military policies with the Greater Israel agenda—high-level sayanim, so to speak (read John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2008).

Their mentor Leo Strauss, in his 1962 lecture “Why We Remain Jews,” declared himself an ardent supporter of the State of Israel but rejected the idea that Israel as a nation should be contained within borders; Israel, he argued, must retain her specificity, which is to be everywhere.[6] Indeed, this paradoxical nature of Israel is vital to its existence: although its stated purpose is to welcome all the Jews of the world, the state of Israel would collapse if it achieved this goal. It is unsustainable without the support of international Jewry. Therefore, Israel needs every Jew of the world to define his/her Jewishness as loyalty to Israel. Ever since 1967, the hearts of an increasing number of American Jews began to beat secretly, and then more and more openly, for Israel. Reform Judaism, which had originally declared itself to be exclusively religious and opposed to Zionism, soon rationalized this new situation by a 1976 resolution affirming: “The State of Israel and the Diaspora, in fruitful dialogue, can show how a People transcends nationalism while affirming it, thus establishing an example for humanity.”[7]

How do they both affirm and transcend nationalism? The biblical way. The Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, is the unalterable prototype of Jewish history: everything that follows the fall of the Hasmonean kingdom has to be biblical—the Holocaust, for example. Inevitably, Jewish nationalism, or patriotic love for Israel, resonates with the destiny of Israel as outlined in the Bible: “Yahweh your God will raise you higher than every other nation in the world” (Deuteronomy 28:1). Every nation is a narration, and Israel’s narrative pattern is cast into the Hebrew Bible. To love Israel is to love Israel’s biblical story, no matter of how mythical it is. And through biblical prophecy, the vision of the past becomes the vision the future: Solomon’s empire will come to pass.

That is why Zionism was never an ordinary form of nationalism, nor can Israel ever be a “nation like others.” The paradoxical nature of Israel is best embodied by its founding father Ben-Gurion: a secular Jew who saw himself as a new Joshua,[8] hoped for “the restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon,”[9] and prophesized that Jerusalem will be “the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.”[10]Let us be fair and assume that Ben-Gurion was simply referring to Isaiah’s prophecy that “the Law will issue from Zion” and that Yahweh will “judge between the nations and arbitrate between many peoples” (2:3-4), not to the Second Isaiah’s prophecy that Israel “will feed on the wealth of nations” (61:6), and that nations who do not serve Israel “will be utterly destroyed” (60:12).[11] Ben-Gurion’s vision lives on: a 2003 “Jerusalem Summit” attended by three acting Israeli ministers including Benjamin Netanyahu and many American neoconservatives including Richard Perle, affirmed that “one of the objectives of Israel’s divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets.”[12] Zionists have always been in love with the Bible.

Such are the geopolitical implications of the Jewish paradox: Zionism cannot be a mere nationalistic aspiration, as long as it claims to be Jewish, for “Jewish” means “biblical”. And more than two thousand years ago, the ancient prophets had bent over the cradle of Israel to predestine it as “a nation above other nations.” Israel carries in its biblical genes the plan for a world order headquartered in Jerusalem. I’m not talking about a secret conspiracy here: the Jewish plan to rule the world has been plainly outlined in the global bestseller for more than two thousand years. If most people in the Christian world don’t see it, it is because it is right under their nose. Christians claim that the Jews don’t read their Bible correctly, or that they got their Zionism from the Talmud or the Kabbalah. Both claims are pitiful attempts to exonerate the Old Testament from the Zionist catastrophe: the Hebrew Bible was written by Jews for the Jews, and I have never heard a Zionist quote the Talmud or the Kabbalah, whereas they quote the Bible every day.

The prophetic spirit that inspired Isaiah long ago has been very active since the beginning of the 20th century. It spoke through religious leaders like Kaufmann Kohler, a leading figure of American Reformed Judaism, who wrote in his major work on Jewish Theology (New York, 1918) that “Israel, the suffering Messiah of the centuries, shall at the end of days become the triumphant Messiah of the nations.”[13] And it spoke through secular thinkers like Alfred Nossig, a Zionist who collaborated with the Gestapo in the Warsaw ghetto for the emigration of selected Jews to Palestine, who wrote in his Integrales Judentum (Berlin, 1922):

“The Jewish community is more than a people in the modern political sense of the word. It is the repository of a historically global mission, I would say even a cosmic one, entrusted to it by its founders Noah and Abraham, Jacob and Moses. [. . .] The primordial conception of our ancestors was to found not a tribe but a world order destined to guide humanity in its development.”[14]

The Feuerbachan approach

The paradoxical nature of Jewishness (combining separatism and universalism), which is reflected in the ambiguous nature of Zionism (combining nationalism and internationalism), is ultimately linked to the Jewish conception of God. Is the biblical Yahweh the national god of Israel or the universal God of humankind? Let’s search for an answer into the Book of Ezra, the paradigmatic episode for the Jewish colonization of Palestine. It begins with an edict of the Persian king Cyrus, which says:

Yahweh, the God of Heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has appointed me to build him a Temple in Jerusalem, in Judah. […] Let [every Jew] go up to Jerusalem, in Judah, and build the Temple of Yahweh, the God of Israel, who is the God in Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:2–3).

Here Cyrus speaks in the name of “the God of Heaven” while authorizing the Judean exiles to build a temple to “the God of Israel […] the God in Jerusalem.” We understand that both phrases refer to the same God, called Yahweh in both instances, but the duality is significant. It is repeated in the Persian edict authorizing the second wave of return. It is now Artaxerxes, “king of kings,” who switches from the “God of Heaven” to “your God” or “the God of Israel who resides in Jerusalem” when addressing Ezra (7:12–15). The phrase “God of Heaven” appears one more time in the book of Ezra, and that is again in the edict of another Persian king: Darius confirms Cyrus’s edict and recommends that the Israelites “may offer sacrifices acceptable to the God of Heaven and pray for the life of the [Persian] king and his sons” (6:10). Elsewhere the book of Ezra only refers to the “God of Israel” (four times), “Yahweh, the God of your fathers” (once), and “our God” (ten times). In other words, according to the author of the book of Ezra, only the kings of Persia see Yahweh as “the God of Heaven” (a fiction, of course: for Persians, the God of Heaven meant Ahura Mazda) while for the Jews he is primarily the “God of Israel”. That is the deepest secret of Judaism, and the key to Jews’ relationship to universalism and to the nations: success rests on their ability to make Gentiles believe that the national god of Israel residing in the Jerusalem Temple is the God of Heaven who happens to have a preference for Israel.

The misunderstanding led to a public scandal in 167 CE, when the Hellenistic emperor Antiochos IV dedicated the temple in Jerusalem to Zeus Olympios, the supreme God. He was simply expressing the idea that Yahweh and Zeus were two names for the supreme cosmic God, the Heavenly father of all mankind. But the Jewish Maccabees who led the rebellion against him knew better: Yahweh may be the Supreme God, but He is Jewish. Only Jews are intimate with Him, and any way the Pagans worship Him is an abomination.

So is Yahweh God, or just the god of Israel? Why should we care? Well, let’s call it the Feuerbachan approach to the Jewish question. In his famous work The Essence of Christianity(1841), which was to influence greatly Karl Marx, Ludwig Feuerbach sees the universal God as “the deified and objectified spiritual essence of man”: theology is anthropology in disguise, and “The consciousness of God is the self-consciousness of man.” But if we regard the biblical Yahweh as a creation of Jews alone, rather than humanity at large, then we can consider him as a personification of the national character of the Jewish people—or, more correctly, a reflexion of the mentality of the Jewish elite who invented Yahweh.

It is known to biblical scholars that, in the oldest strata of the Bible, Yahweh appears as a national, ethnic god, not the supreme God of the Universe. “For all peoples go forward, each in the name of its god, while we go forward in the name of Yahweh our god for ever and ever” (Micah 4:5)[15]. “I am the god of your ancestors,” Yahweh says to Moses (Exodus 3:6), who is then mandated to declare to his people, “Yahweh, the god of your ancestors, has appeared to me,” urging them to talk to Pharaoh in the name of “Yahweh, the god of the Hebrews” (3:16–18). The Hebrews chant after the miracle of the Red Sea engulfing Pharaoh and his army, “Yahweh, who is like you, majestic in sanctity, among the gods?” (15:11).[16] And in Canaan, a Hebrew chief declares to an enemy king: “Will you not keep as your possession whatever Chemosh, your god, has given you? And, just the same, we shall keep as ours whatever Yahweh our god has given us, to inherit from those who were before us!” (Judges 11:24).[17] In all these verses, Yahweh is an ethnic or national god among others.

What sets him apart from other tribal gods of his kind is possessive exclusivism: “You shall have no other gods to rival me” (Exodus 20:3); “I shall set you apart from all these peoples, for you to be mine” (Leviticus 20:26). This is the justification for strict endogamy: it is forbidden to marry one’s children to a non-Jew, “for your son would be seduced from following me into serving other gods” (Deuteronomy 7:4).

Yahweh is known as “the Jealous One” (Exodus 20:5 and 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:24, 5:9, and 6:15). But jealousy is an euphemism for outright sociopathy, because what Yahweh demands from his people is not just exclusivity of worship, but the destruction of their neighbors’ shrines: “Tear down their altars, smash their standing-stones, cut down their sacred poles and burn their idols” (Deuteronomy 7:5). Judean kings are judged on the unique criterion of their obedience to that precept. Hezekiah, whose disastrous policy of confrontation with Assyria led to a shrinking of the country, is praised for having done “what Yahweh regards as right,” namely abolishing the “high places” (2 Kings 18:3–4). His son Manasseh, whose 50-year reign is known to historians as a time of peace and prosperity, is blamed for having done “what is displeasing to Yahweh, copying the disgusting practices of the nations whom Yahweh had dispossessed for the Israelites” (2 Kings 21:2). Manasseh’s son Amon is no better. Josiah, on the other hand, proved worthy of his great-great-grandfather Hezekiah, by removing from the temple “all the cult objects which had been made for Baal, Asherah and the whole array of heaven. […] He exterminated the spurious priests whom the kings of Judah had appointed and who offered sacrifice on the high places, in the towns of Judah and the neighborhood of Jerusalem; also those who offered sacrifice to Baal, to the sun, the moon, the constellations and the whole array of heaven” (2 Kings 23:4–5).

It is ironic that Yahweh, originally a minor tribal god, should compete with the great Baal for the status of supreme God, as when Elijah challenges 450 prophets of Baal in a holocaust contest, which ends up with the slaughter of them all (1Kings 18). In ancient Syria, Baal Shamem, the “Heavenly Lord,” was identified as the God of Heaven and honored by all peoples except the Jews.[18] The goddess Asherah, whom Yahweh loathed even more, was the Great Divine Mother worshipped throughout the Middle East. In Mesopotamia, she went under the name of Ishtar, while in the Hellenistic era, she was assimilated to the Egyptian goddess Isis. The Hebrews themselves called her “Queen of Heaven” and turned to her in times of trouble, to the dismay of their priest and prophet Jeremiah, who threatened them with Yahweh’s exterminating wrath (Jeremiah 44).

Historians of religion tell us that Yahweh was still a national god at a time when the notion of a supreme God was widespread. When and how the Levites declared the god of Israel to be the true and only God is not entirely settled, but it is generally admitted that it happened shortly before the time of Ezra, when the Book of Genesis was composed (with much borrowing from Mesopotamian and Persian myths). The process is easy to imagine, for it follows the cognitive logic of a narcissistic sociopath among the community of gods: from the commandment of exclusive worship and the destruction of other gods’ shrines, it is a small step to the denial of the very existence of other gods; and if Yahweh is the only existing god, he must be “The God.”

A curious story about King Hezekiah can serve as an illustration of this process. The Assyrian king threatens Hezekiah in the following manner, explicitly identifying Yahweh as the national god of Israel:

“Do not let your god on whom you are relying deceive you with the promise: ‘Jerusalem will not fall into the king of Assyria’s clutches’ […] Did the gods of the nations whom my ancestors devastated save them?”

Hezekiah then goes up to the Temple and offers the following prayer:

“It is true, Yahweh, that the kings of Assyria have destroyed the nations, they have thrown their gods on the fire, for these were not gods but human artifacts—wood and stone—and hence they have destroyed them. But now, Yahweh our god, save us from his clutches, I beg you, and let all the kingdoms of the world know that you alone are God, Yahweh” (2 Kings 19:10–19).

So here we witness how Yahweh was promoted from the status of a national god to that of universal God by the prayer of a devout king. In response to that prayer, according to the biblical story, “the angel of Yahweh went out and struck down a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp,” then struck their king by the hand of his sons (19:35–37). Pure fiction: the Assyrian annals tell us that in reality, Hezekiah paid tribute to the Assyrian king. Which proves that Hezekiah’s claim was deceptive.


The exclusive monotheism demanded by Yahweh is a degraded imitation of that inclusive monotheism toward which all the wisdoms of the ancient world converged by affirming the fundamental unity of all gods. As Egyptologist Jan Assmann emphasizes, the polytheisms of the great civilizations were cosmotheisms, insofar as the gods, among other functions, form the organic body of the world. Such a conception naturally led to a form of inclusive or convergent monotheism, compatible with polytheism: all gods are one, as the cosmos is one.[19] The notion of the unity of the divine realm naturally connects with the notion of a supreme God, creator of heaven and earth, enthroned atop a hierarchy of deities emanating from him—a concept familiar to Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, and most ancient philosophers. The exclusive and revolutionary monotheism that the Yahwist priests crafted for their own benefit is of a totally different kind: it is, in fact, the exact opposite of the inclusive and evolutionary monotheism of neighboring peoples.

From the historical perspective, it is not the Creator of the Universe who decided, at some point, to become the god of Israel; rather, it is the god of Israel who, at some point, was declared the Creator of the Universe by the Levites and their scribes. The Jewish conception of Yahweh parallels that historical process: for the Jews, Yahweh is primarily the god of Jews, and secondarily the Creator of the Universe. This is what Maurice Samuel kindly tried to tell us in You Gentiles(1924): “In the heart of any pious Jew, God is a Jew.” “We [Jews] and God grew up together,” that is why “we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.”[20]

And so the paradoxical nature of Yahweh is, in reality, a deception. The idea that the Heavenly Father of humankind, somewhere in the second millennium BCE, chose a particular people and ordered them to dispossess and slaughter other peoples is, any way we look at it, an outrageous absurdity. The fact that billions of people have believed it for thousands of years makes no difference. Or rather, that is the problem: many peoples throughout history have believed themselves to have been chosen by God, but only the Jews have managed to convince others that they have. That has turned this outrageous absurdity into the most devastating idea in world history.

The deceptive nature of biblical monotheism is the key to understanding traditional Jewish attitude to universalism. For the Jewish conception of God is reflected in the Jewish conception of Humanity. Just like their tribal god speaks of himself—through his prophets—as the God of humankind, Jewish communitarian thinkers speak of Jewishness as the essence of humanity: Judaism constitutes a “particularism that conditions universality” so that “there is an obvious equation between Israel and the Universal”; in other words, “Israel equals humanity” (Emmanuel Levinas, Difficult Freedom: Essays on Judaism, 1990).[21] It is almost always in reference to their Jewishness that such opinion makers, who are often ardent Zionists, proclaim themselves universalists: see for example how Rabbi Joachim Prinz, a German Zionist who in 1934 had applauded the Nazi state for being “built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race,” declared in 1963, as chairman of the American Jewish Congress, that he supported the African-American civil rights movement “as a Jew.”[22] “Jewish universalism” is a contradiction in terms and therefore necessarily deceptive. It is self-deception in the case of most Jews, who believe what they have been taught by their representative elites ever since the Haskalah: that there is no contradiction in being a tribalist at home and a universalist in the street—provided that, in each of their universalist stand, they do not lose sight of the important question: “Yes, but is it good for the Jews?”[23] Of course, there are many remarkable exceptions: Jews who have broken through the mental “Jewish prison” (as Jewish journalist Jean Daniel calls it)[24] to reach for some universal truths. I call it the genius of the escapee.

Ultimately, the deceptive nature of both biblical monotheism and Jewish universalism is a key to unraveling the Zionist paradox: nationalism and internationalism go hand in hand in Israel’s destiny, because Israel is, fundamentally, a biblical and therefore universal project. For the Jewish cognitive elites who determine Jewish public opinion to a large extent, the New World Order is an ancient et eternal idea. It is Israel’s destiny carved in the Bible. It is inherent to Jewishness.

  1. Nahum Goldmann, Le Paradoxe juif. Conversations en français avec Léon Abramowicz, Stock, 1976 ( 9. 
  2. Nahum Goldmann, Le Paradoxe juif, op. cit., p. 6, 31. 
  3. Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, 2014, k. 3280–94. 
  4. Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics, Zero Books, 2011, pp. 21, 70. 
  5. Gal Beckerman, Jewish Daily Forward, January 6, 2006, quoted in Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, Enigma Edition, 2008, p. 26. 
  6. Leo Strauss, “Why We Remain Jews,” in Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss and the American Right, St. Martin’s Press, 1999, pp. 31–43. 
  7. Quoted in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, kindle edition 2013k. 5463–68. 
  8. Dan Kurzman, Ben-Gurion, Prophet of Fire, Touchstone, 1983, pp. 17–22. 
  9. As he declared before the Knesset in 1956, quoted in Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Pluto Press, 1994, p. 10. 
  10. David Ben-Gurion and Amram Duchovny, David Ben-Gurion, In His Own Words, Fleet Press Corp., 1969, p. 116 
  11. All Bible quotes are taken from the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible, which has not altered the divine name YHWH into “the Lord,” as most other English translations have done for unscholarly reasons. 
  12. Official website: 
  13. Kaufmnann Kohler, Jewish Theology, Systematically and Historically Considered, Macmillan, 1918 (, p. 290. 
  14. Alfred Nossig, Integrales Judentum, Interterritorialer Verlag, 1922, pp. 1–5 (on 
  15. Most translations use a uppercase for the “God of Israel”, and a lowercase for other national gods, but ancient Hebrew does not distinguish between uppercase and lowercase letters, so here, and in further quotes, I have used a lowercase g for all national gods, including Israel’s, and reserved the uppercase G for the One supreme God. 
  16. See also Psalms 89:7. 
  17. Jean Soler, Qui est Dieu?, Éditions de Fallois, 2012, pp. 12–17, 33–37. 
  18. Norman Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal: A Conflict of Religious Cultures, Bookman Associates, 1964, p. 41. 
  19. Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism, Harvard University Press, 1998, p. 3.  
  20. Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, New York, 1924 (, pp. 74–75, 155. 
  21. Online on 
  22. Prinz’s pro-Nazi statements from his 1934 bookWir Juden are quoted in Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Pluto Press, 1994, p. 86. Prinz’ introduction to King’s “I have a dream” speech on August 28, 1963, beginning with “I speak to you as an American Jew,” is at 
  23. Jonny Geller made this paradigmatic question the title of his humorous book Yes, But Is It Good for the Jews? Bloomsbury, 2006. 
  24. Jean Daniel, La Prison juive. Humeurs et méditations d’un témoin, Odile Jacob, 2003
%d bloggers like this: