Archive | October 26th, 2019

مخدرات ديجيتال!

د. بسام الخالدلم يعد ينقص المجتمعات العربية إلا “المخدرات الرقمية” بعد كل ما يجري فيها من حروب ودمار وقتل وموت مجاني وتشريد وتهجير وفقر ومجاعات واستهداف أجنبي .. و.. مؤامرات!منذ فترة تناقلت وسائل الإعلام أخباراً مقلقة عن نوع جديد من المخدرات ينتشر في أوساط الشباب أطلق عليه اسم المخدرات الرقمية أو ما يعرف عالمياً بـ “Digital Drugs” ..هذه المخدرات يمكن الحصول عليها بسهولة من مواقع خاصة عبر “الإنترنت” وتحميلها على أي جهاز “موبايل” أو حاسب شخصي والاستماع إليها ليحدث التفاعل المطلوب، فهي عبارة عن مقاطع “نغمات” يتم سماعها عبر سماعات بكل من الأذنين، بحيث يتم بث ترددات معينة في الأذن اليمنى، على سبيل المثال، وترددات أقل إلى الأذن اليسرى، وبحسب المصادر فإن هذه التقنية قديمة تسمى “النقر بالأذنين”، اكتشفها العالم الألماني الفيزيائي “هينريش دوف” منذ عام 1839، واستخدمت لأول مرة عام 1970 لعلاج بعض الحالات النفسية، لشريحة من المصابين بالاكتئاب الخفيف في حالة المرضى الذين يرفضون العلاج السلوكي من خلال الأدوية، ولهذا تم العلاج عن طريق تذبذبات كهرومغناطيسية، لفرز مواد منشطة للمزاج، وقد توقف العلاج بهذه الطريقة آنذاك نظرًا لتكلفتها العالية.تعاطٍ إلكتروني!يبدو أن هذه الطريقة قد اعاد اكتشافها المروجون اليوم، ولم يعد استهلاك المخدرات مقصوراً على ما كان يجرى سابقاً عبر تدخينها أو شمّها أو مضغها أو حقنها في الوريد، وإنما تطور الفكر الإنساني الخبيث ليحول نظم التعاطي إلى تعاطٍ إلكتروني أو تعاطٍ رقمي يُحدث التأثير نفسه الذي تحدثه المخدرات الطبيعية أو الكيميائية الأخرى، حيث كل نوع من المخدرات الرقمية يمكنه أن يستهدف نمطاً معينا من النشاط الدماغي، فمثلا عند سماع ترددات الكوكائين لدقائق محسوبة، فإن ذلك سيدفع لتحفيز الدماغ بصورة تشابه الصورة التي يتم تحفيزه فيها بعد تعاطي هذا المخدر بصورة واقعية، وهنا يتم التحكم في الحالة النفسية للمستمع من خلال هذه الترددات، وقد أطلق مروجو هذا النوع من المخدرات عليها أسماء مثل: “عيش الجو”، “حلق في السماء”، “المتعة في الموسيقى” و “الطيور المهاجرة”، وهي لا تحتاج سوى لجهاز “كمبيوتر” أو هاتف ذكي، والانزواء في غرفة خاصة وإقفال الأبواب والنوافذ والتمدد على السرير وعصب العينين، والانطلاق بعد ذلك، في رحلة الضياع..!حرب “الجيل الرابع”إنها حرب “الجيل الرابع” من الحرب الكونية التقنية التي استغلتها منظمات متخصصة لتدمير الشعوب الأخرى، بعد ثقتها باحترافية التطور المعرفي التقني، التي يمتلكها الجيل الحالي، لهذا يجب أن نقرع جرس الإنذار ونناشد جميع الأسر والمؤسسات التربوية والإعلامية والأمنية والمنظمات الشعبية ومؤسسات المجتمع المدني لتوعية المجتمع بكل مراحله العمرية من هذه الآفة الخطيرة، والتي تجاوزت الحدود الجغرافية إلى العالم الافتراضي لتصل إلى البسطاء من الشباب والمراهقين، وهذا يستلزم توحيد الجهود جميعها بدءاً من الأسرة، التي يقع على عاتقها الدور الأهم في رقابة أبنائها، وهذا يشمل رقابة حواسبهم وهواتفهم الذكية، بعد تشجيعهم على الاندماج في الأنشطة الاجتماعية والرياضية لتفريغ طاقاتهم بشكل إيجابي، مع العمل لبناء روابط إنسانية معهم، خاصة في فترة المراهقة، بما يضمن مصارحة الأبناء للأهل بتجاربهم غير الآمنة بدون خوف من العقاب، الأمر الذي يمنحهم شعوراً بتقدير الذاتالتقليد الأعمى!لحسن الحظ فإن تداول هذا النوع من “المخدرات” حديث نسبياً في عالمنا العربي ولم يمض عليه سوى بضعة أشهر، مع أنه منتشر في أوروبا منذ حوالي خمس سنوات، وقد حذرت منه عدة دول عربية، أولها لبنان، بعد انتشاره بين شبابها، ومؤخرا دب الذعر في أوساط دول عربية أخرى بعد أنباء متضاربة ترددت حول أول وفاة بسبب هذه المخدرات.أقول : “لحسن الحظ” أن عمر هذه الظاهرة قصير في مجتمعاتنا العربية، ولكن أخشى ما أخشاه أن تنتشر هذه الظاهرة بشكل أكبر، إذا لم تجد من يردعها، انطلاقا من أن مجتمعاتنا العربية، في معظمها، استهلاكية وتمارس التقليد الأعمى!
.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on مخدرات ديجيتال!

The Truth About Race and Welfare, Food Stamp, and Section 8 Usage

PAUL KERSEY 

This article deserves a far wider audience than it has received since being published. [Race, Welfare, and Media Lies, October 17, 2019]:

When you talk to leftists about race, it doesn’t take long for them to bring up some variation of “most people on welfare are white.” As we’ll see, this is simply not true. And you don’t even have to delve into the grade-school concept of per capita welfare rates to explain this. In absolute terms, whites are a minority of users. But this doesn’t stop lefties from making claims like this:

  • Rick Newman, a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance wrote in an August 19, 2019 column that, “whites are the largest group of welfare recipients in the United States, while immigrants are far more entrepreneurial than native-born Americans.” The article offers no link to a source.
  • Newsweekarticle from January 12, 2018 announces: “In fact, whites are the biggest beneficiaries when it comes to government safety-net programs like the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, commonly referred to as welfare.” Again, no source.
  • A June 8, 2018 “Code Switch” segment on NPR featured Rachel Wetts, a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, who chirped, “Even though members of all racial and ethnic groups are using these programs, white Americans tend to perceive them as mostly benefiting African-Americans. So, there’s a misperception of who the primary beneficiaries are of these programs.” This article cites figures for only one program, Medicaid, which is the handout that whites collect at the highest rate – though whites are still less than 50 percent of all recipients.
  • A Huffington Post piece from February 2018 was called, “Americans Are Mistaken About Who Gets Welfare.” It quotes Elizabeth Lower-Basch, a senior analyst with the Center for Law and Social Policy, who claims that “across the programs people overestimate the share of recipients who are black. It’s not surprising because we all know people’s images of public benefits is driven by stereotype.” This article is about who the public thinks is on welfare. It never considers usage rates nor the fact that there are about seven times more whites than blacks in the US.
  • In a February 16, 2017 article, Tracy Jan of theWashington Post claimed, “The biggest beneficiaries of the government safety net: working class whites.”

There are many other examples of either slanted reporting or just plain ignorance, and it’s not just leftists who fall for this stuff. I’ve heard Sean Hannity and Cal Thomas parrot nonsense. National Reviewflubbed on race and welfare in 2012.

The Department of Health and Human Services doesn’t hide figures on welfare, but the image on the HHS home page, labelled “administration for children and families” shows an unambiguously white family — perhaps for a reason. The urge to ignore the facts appears to be overwhelming. Here are the most recent numbers, which I have compared to 2018 population figures from the U.S. Census.

TANF

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is what most people think of when they say “welfare.” It pays cash directly to users. The amount varies by state. In 2018 (the most recent data available), there were over 2.27 million recipients, who got nearly $17 billion. Here’s the racial breakdown (Table 10):

Race% of Recipients% of Population
White27.2%60.4%
Black28.9%13.4%
Hispanic37.8%18.3%
Asian1.9%5.9%
American Indian1.5%1.3%
Multiracial2.1%2.7%

Whites are clearly an absolute minority of recipients: just 27.2 percent of the total. There are more blacks andHispanics on welfare than whites. On a per capita basis, blacks are 4.8 times more likely than whites to get TANF, and Hispanics are 4.7 times more likely. Asians are only two-thirds as likely.

Interestingly, over 85 percent of TANF recipients are single or divorced, and only 13 percent are married. Conservatives have long argued that marriage reduces poverty.

Food stamps

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is better known as food stamps. In 2017, a staggering 42.1 million people got free food at a cost of $68 billion dollars. The racial breakdown (page 22):

Race% of Recipients% of Population
White35.8%60.4%
Black25.4%13.4%
Hispanic16.5%18.3%
Asian3.2%5.9%
American Indian1.4%1.3%
Multiracial1.0%2.7%
Unknown/Didn’t Say16.8%NA

Again, whites are an absolute minority of food stamp users. The 16.8 percent of “race unknown or didn’t say” is high, but they are unlikely to be white. An even bigger story is that 8.2 percent of recipients are children of non-citizens. A further 8.6 percent are refugees or non-citizens. We import food-stamp users.

Medicaid

Medicaid is health insurance for poor people. An incredible 74 million people were on it in 2017 (up from 46 million in 2001). It is paid for by a combination of state and federal funds, and on average it accounts for a crushing 22 percent of state budgets. In 2018, Medicaid cost over $592 billion, and the racial breakdown for users in 2017 was as follows:

Race% of Recipients% of Population
White41%60.4%
Black30%13.4%
Hispanic20%18.3%
Asian5%5.4%
American Indian1%0.8%
Other9%NA

Again, whites are an absolute minority, though their percentage of recipients for this expensive program is relatively high.

Section 8 and other public housing

In 2017, there were nearly 5 million households in the US getting housing assistance through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Most of them got Section 8 vouchers or lived in public housing. Blacks are massively over-represented.

Over 1 million people live in public housing. The racial breakdown is as follows:

Race% of Recipients% of Population
White30%60.4%
Black42%13.4%
Hispanic23%18.3%
Asian2%5.4%
American Indian1%0.8%

The “stereotype” of blacks in public housing is not false. There are more blacks than people of any other race in the projects, and on a per capita basis, they are 6.7 times more likely to be in them than whites.

This data is incredible, and should be the basis for any realistic conversation about public/social policy in America, but instead anyone who dared cite it would be instantly called “racist.”

That so few dare compile this easily accessible data is, of course, a reminder of the terror we all live under in the “free” country of the United States of America, where only a select few dare exercise their 1st Amendment rights…

Your tax dollars go to funding our own demographic dispossession.← Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 Surve…Columbiana, Ohio, a 98% White City, Rat… →

Posted in USAComments Off on The Truth About Race and Welfare, Food Stamp, and Section 8 Usage

President Trump Is Right on Syria

Let’s Hope He Follows Through this Time

BOYD D. CATHEY 

The unified foreign policy establishment in Washington, the Deep State politicos—from Lindsey Graham and Lynne Cheney in Congress, to the inveterate Never Trumpers like Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal, [“he’s (Trump) all impulse, blithely operating out of his depth”], to the near totality of the progressivist Left (e.g. Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and others), have come together (as they always do) to protect their sacred commitment to globalism and, this time, in opposition to President Trump’s decision to finally withdraw American support troops from northeastern Syria.

If it is one thing that brings the “Swamp” together in solidarity it is a serious threat to their hegemony in administering America’s foreign policy. From the pseudo-conservative “right” to the loony Left, the one issue that unites these agents of the Managerial Administrative State is the absolute imperative for the United States “to be involved” practically everywhere in the world, the zealous pursuit of “democratization” and the imposition of “egalitarian” values—most significantly in our export of “educational” programs and the various strings attached to our voluminous aid packages. Such programs always follow in the wake of any boots on the ground. They are part and parcel of the Deep State’s attempt to re-fashion the world along the lines and with globalist postulates that are, in fact, inimical to the traditions and heritage of the American founding.

Such initiatives mirror in numerous ways the goals of international financiers and subversive globalist instigators such as George Soros, whose multiple “Europe without Borders” (“Europe sans frontiers”) initiatives involve the virtual destruction of that historic continent by dissolving national borders and via an open door policy towards immigration, most especially from “Third World” countries. Soros and his apparatchiks have run into fierce opposition from Hungary and its valiant Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and, to some degree, from Poland and now from Italy, under its more rightist populist government. Yet, for Soros such opposition is a mere hindrance. He and those internationalists like him continue feverishly their scheming towards a global “nation” founded on ruins of an older, Christian civilization.

Just as with the massive “re-education” of Europe following German defeat in 1945, the results are not always what we are informed they will be. In the case of post-war Germany, it was not only the tearing out, root-and-branch, of any supposed trace of Naziism and antisemitism, but the real and practical disauthorization of ANY actual, traditional conservative presence (including traditional, non-Nazi conservatives), to the point that German history was so completely re-written and sanitized as to make any defense of even pre-1918 Germany—of Prussian history—any defense of a “national German spirit,” the equivalent of “the recrudescence of antisemitism and Hitlerism.” Germans were taught and continue to be taught to despise and reject their past,not just the twelve year interregnum under Adolf Hitler, but in fact its near entirety. The German nation has become, in a real sense, one immense bog of continuous apologies and imposed, never ending penance.

The ignominious demise of Soviet Communism, a threat to us and our existence prior to 1991, in no way lessened the beating war drums and the dreams of international “democratization” or the desire for imposing “egalitarian values” emitted from the American foreign policy establishment. Nor its implicit, if not always seamless, tacit collaboration with the aims of uber-globalists like Soros. The specter of the George W. Bush years, of a John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and of Neocon “thought leaders” like Bill Kristol and James Kirchick demanding that the full panoply of “gay and lesbian rights” be implemented in Russia, that “democratic values” be imposed in Iraq, and that America intervene in Syria, are stark reminders that those policies continue full blast in the Swamp.

And thus when Donald Trump uttered the unutterable and ordered the withdrawal of American troops, he enraged not just the fanatics over on the progressivist Left, but the unelected managerial bureaucrats and Republican and “conservative” denizens of that same Swamp (who hold themselves condescendingly above all those rubes and deplorables out in the American hinterland). How dare the Trumpster question the “national consensus”! How dare he challenge the irrepressible advance towards world democracy and equality for everyone, everywhere! How dare he be so petty and insular as to reject “progress”!

Thus the howls of disapproval and anger directed at the president for his announcement last week that he is doing exactly what he declared he would do, both during his presidential campaign and back in December: withdraw American “advisers” from the Turkish border in extreme northeastern Syria.

Unlike the jeremiads one hears from nearly all the media, including Fox News and pundits like Chris Wallace and Brian Kilmeade, this decision was not unexpected, but had been in the planning stage and in the offing since this past December (when General Mattis resigned because he disagreed). The president just finally decided to follow through on his promise.

Perhaps the most pointed—and poignant—argument used by those who oppose the president is that we are leaving “our Kurdish allies in the lurch, we are deserting them,” placing them at the mercy of the Turks just across the border who have already begun to attack them. Those who make this argument appear to forget that the Marxist Kurdish resistance in that region has been and continues to be, in many respects, an anti-Turkish terror group hoping to carve out of Turkey a large area to be part of an independent Kurdish nation. Over the years they have engaged in various barbaric acts of terrorism and mayhem directed not only against the Turkish military but also against civilians. Our alliance with them, such as it was, was one of convenience: that we would offer them some temporary aerial cover, a kind of shield against their hereditary enemies, and in return they would assist us in that small area of northeastern Syria that continued to be subject of ISIS attacks.

This they did.

But too often we Americans suffer from both strategic and historical myopia. We did not win the war against ISIS, and neither did the Kurds. The vast majority of the fighting was done by the Syrian Army of Bashar al-Assad, backed strongly by Russian assistance—and with the near unanimous support of Syria’s beleaguered Christian population. Some 80% of the country was liberated by the Syrians themselves.

Now the Kurds in that part of Syria may have to look to President Assad for an alliance and protection, and that would not be a bad thing at all. Assad is, after all, the legitimate president of Syria. Despite the best efforts and machinations of the American State Department (abetted by the late Senator John McCain) to undermine his struggle against Islamic extremists, Assad has been largely successful in defending his nation’s geographical integrity and its independence. Just as in Iraq, American intervention—in the name of “human rights” and “spreading democracy”—was wrongheaded from the beginning and woefully counter-productive. Would there have even been such involvement in Syria had it not been for “protecting Israel’s flank”?

Certainly, there are some outstanding issues that need resolution: no one wishes to see additional civilians—Kurdish women and children—caught up in more cross fire. And there are approximately 10,000 ISIS prisoners being held in the area (which European countries don’t wish to take, and who we don’t want either). Hopefully, discussions between Donald Trump and President Erdogan of Turkey will result in some kind of solution for these questions.

Yet, over it all there is the overarching and searing reminder that for thousands of years the Middle East has presented an almost unsolvable conundrum, a morass where armies perish in the sands, where whole nations seem to disappear into the recesses of history. Just reflect, if you will, on efforts over the past fifty years to engineer (that is the correct word) peace between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors…of the immense hostility existing between the Sunni and Shi’a and Wahabi Muslims…of the enmity between the Saudis and Gulf States, and Syria and Iran. These conflicts are not isolated, nor new: they reflect millennia of violence, carnage, and hate. And there are few signs that that will change, with or without Americans in the region.

And, given our very dubious record (at best) in the Middle East, our efforts at “democratization” and “peace-keeping” should have taught us a lesson or two. Unfortunately, the foreign policy Swamp and the globalists continue to believe that they can reconstruct human nature, with enough American advisers, enough American aid, enough secularized education and population re-programming and re-educating…and maybe a few body bags thrown in for good measure.

Posted in Middle East, USA, Syria, TurkeyComments Off on President Trump Is Right on Syria

Drazha Mikhailovich: the Man Upon Which the Future Serbia Will be Rebuilt!

THE SAKER 

One of the greatest Serbian heroes of all times: Chetnik General Draza Mihailovich (1943)

This is a very special day for me, because the topics I will be covering are all very dear to my heart and to my entire family. Following the Bolshevik revolution my family and another 1.5 million Russians fled their beloved motherland at the end of the civil war. All our so-called European “allies” immediately betrayed us (what else is new?), organized an intervention and backed the russophobic Bolshevik regime (yes, helping both side in turn, like the Empire today in, say, the Kurdish areas of Iraq and Syria). All except one: the Serbs which, at the time, were triumphant (WWI) but also had to rebuild a war ravaged Serbia, with most of its infrastructure destroyed, and coping with the death of nearly 30% of its entire population.

They welcomed us with open arms and generous hearts, they recognized all the former Russian officials and officers in their pre-1917 capacity, and they gave refuge to the bishops, priests and faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile whose birthplace became the city of Sremski Karlovci in Serbia.

My family lived in Belgrade and my mother was born in the Topčidersko Brdo neighborhood of Belgrade. All her life she spoke a perfect Serbian, like a native; as for my Godmother, she was a pure Serb (and she also spoke Russian to perfection). I want to mention that to explain that the ties between my family and the Serbian nation were both strong and deep.

I strongly believe that all Russians owe a great debt of gratitude to the Serbian people, even those who don’t know about this (more about that later). And not just for how they accepted our refugees, but for many other instances of Russian-Serbian friendship in history.

The contrast between the Serbs and our so-called “Orthodox” or, even more so, Slavic brothers could not be greater. We even have a special word for that: the Serbs we call “братья” (meaning “brothers”) whereas the rest of them many of us simply call “братушки” which is hard to translate but I suppose “one-way-brothers” or even “pretend brothers” is adequate. We all know how many times our “one-way-brothers” have betrayed us, even if they owe the existence of their countries to Russia (I personally an ancestor who died while liberating Bulgaria from the Ottoman yoke!). In fact, they are still at it nowadays (not every single individual, of course, but taken as a nation, this is true beyond any doubt – just look how they allow their national territories to be used by NATO to try to threaten Russia) . Next time they have a problem with their neighbors, they can ask NATO (good luck with that!) – because we sure ain’t coming again. Ever!

But today, I want to touch on a very special kind of Serb, the much vilified, slandered and otherwise hated Serbian Chetniks of the Yugoslav army and their leader, the Serbian hero Draza Mihailovich (Дража Михаиловић).

I had the rare fortune of meeting quite a few Serbian officers in my life, from those who fought against NATO during the AngloZionist aggression against Bosnia, Serbia and its Kosovo province to the old Chetnik officers and soldiers who created the most effective and by far the biggest resistance movement to Hitler prior to the invasion of the USSR. I also met quite a few Russian, pre-1917 imperial officers and their families (mostly in Argentina) and I vividly remember how these old soldiers spoke with a heartfelt admiration and gratitude about Mihailovich himself and his men. So close were the Russians and Serbians in exile that they often inter-married (like my uncle and my Godmother).

My purpose here is not to write a bio of Mihailovich, or even to introduce him. For that purpose I will post a truly exceptionally well made film which is now freely available on YouTube (for how long? Download and make copies, folks!) and which pretty much explains it all, in fascinating details.

No, what I want to do today is much more modest. To share with you the reasons for my belief that any future Serbia worthy of being called Serbia can only be and will be founded on the memory of Draza Mihailovich and on the centuries of honored Serbian heroes that he epitomized.

I know that I have a lot of communist readers and friends, and I ask them for their patience and understanding. The truth is that those calling themselves Communists in 2019 are very different from the type of Communists which would be found in the Europe of 1900-1946. In some way this is very bad, since most modern so-called “communists” have never read Marx or Engels, never-mind Lenin or Hegel. But in other ways, this is very good, since modern communists do not consider patriotism as “bourgeois” or religion the “opium of the people”. Friends, a long time ago I wrote that the “Whites” and the “Reds” (using a Russian categories but which can, I think, be transposed to the Serbian reality) will never agree on the past, even if they could agree on the future. What comes next is about the past, so let’s simply agree to disagree and not let this difference in opinion affect us okay?

The resemblances between the fate of the Russian nation and the Serbs are many, as are the differences. But one thing which we sure have in common: the communists who took power over us did all they could to deprive us from our historical memory. Worse, they slandered our nations, our traditions, our cultures and our faiths for two very basic reasons:

  1. They absolutely hated us, both Russians and Serbs
  2. They had to justify not only their reforms (forced social engineering, really), but the terror they unleashed

By this mechanism Czar Nicholas II became a weak imbecile, his wife a mistress of Rasputin and an agent of the Germans, pre-1917 Russia a “prison of the people” (btw – (prewar Yugoslavia in communist propaganda was also called a “prison of peoples”, with the Serbs as jailers), Russian Orthodoxy “retrograde” and “ritualistic”, the Russian people “chauvinists” and the Russian ruling classes (old nobility, Petrine aristocracy, merchants, industrialists, clergy, philosophers, intelligentsia, etc.) all became “class enemies” of the people (in 1922 the Bolsheviks even managed to expel Russia’s leading intellectuals in the infamous “Philosopher’s ship“! These were the lucky ones, by the way, the others died in the Soviet GuLAG or were simply shot ). Furthermore, the role of the US, Germany and the UK in financing the subversion of Russia was totally obfuscated.

In Serbia a very similar thing happened, only later. You will see in the movie itself to what degree the true story of Draza Mihailovich and the Chetniks was corrupted and perverted in the (new) official doxa of the AngloZionist Empire.

I ask you to please watch this movie before reading on.

Personally, I am deeply moved by this film, especially by the old Chetnik shown at the end.

I had the fortune of meeting the “tail end” of the world this old Chetnik soldier knew.

His tears are my tears.

* * *

In 2015, the high court of Serbia officially rehabilitated General Dragoljub “Draza” Mihailovic, repudiating the farcical trial staged by the communist regime in 1946. “The court established that the controversial ruling was made in an illegitimate trial for political and ideological reasons, and, under the law on rehabilitation, the decision cannot be appealed”. –inserbia.info.

While this was an important first step in repudiating the communist falsification of history, the quisling government and educational system of Serbia, continues to be guided by old communists and the foreign successors of Vatican/Vienna school, who’ve spent centuries appropriating Serbian achievements and rewriting several millennia of Serbian/Slavic history.

* * *

I find personalities like Czar Nicholas II or Draza Mihailovich extremely important because they are what I call “polarizers”, that is personalities who have been both despised and hated as well as revered and loved. Why is that important? Because if you pick the right “polarizing personality” you can very quickly establish how much your interlocutor knows and what his real values are. There are many more such personalities, beginning even with Christ our Lord Himself, of course (I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law; Luke 12: 49-53). Of course, this is not about dividing families or creating strife, but about showing “your true face” and how much you are willing to sacrifice for your values. By the way, in my usage “polarizing personality” is value neutral. Thus Hitler would be a very good example of an evil polarizing personality.

In fact, Czar Nicholas II and Draza Mihailovich have many things in common, but I want to mention two: they both refused to leave their people even though it meant sure death, and their murderers were so afraid of their MORAL (not legal or, even less so, military) authority that they not only massacred them (in the case of Czar Nicholas with his entire family, children included) and concealed the place where their bodies were destroyed and dumped. Personally, I even see a degree of resemblance between the two men, especially in their eyes: they are both filled with a special sad kindness, a kind of Christ-like meek resignation. They both perfectly knew that they would not only be murdered, but smeared, vilified by many clueless generations. I can only hope that they also knew that the historical truth would one day be restored!

Why is that so important? Because you cannot rebuild a civilization on fuzzy, lukewarm and otherwise uninspiring models. I would even argue that any action needs to be predicated on a solid spiritual/ideological basis to be meaningful (you just don’t do meaningful things just to do them, our most important actions are often just means towards a higher goal). This is, by the way, a great weakness of the current AngloZionist empire: while it does inspire plenty of derision and hate, it probably stopped truly inspiring anybody decades ago – yet another sure sign of decay.

Of course, I am acutely aware that there are many Russians who don’t think highly of Czar Nicholas II or even still despise him for being the superficial, weak and dumb moron the Soviet propaganda machine (and the liberal-democratic Masonic propaganda machine before that!) painted him to be, just as there are no doubt Serbs who either dislike/despise Draza because of the Titoist propaganda. In most cases this is just simple ignorance. Once the freedom to investigate the past is truly restored (like it is in Russia today), the inevitable always happens: those who were orphans of their own history and culture gradually rediscover them and then they operate a radical ideological change (who would have predicted in the 1980s or even 1990s that a Russian defense minister would convert to Orthodoxy and publicly make the sign of the cross before a military parade or that a Russian contingent in Khmeimim would have not one, but two churches built on that base?).

Think of Russia and Serbia as “Petri dishes” in which the bacteria of historical memory have just began to grow and, rather than looking at the current number of “bacteria with a restored historical memory”, look at the nature of these bacteria and the nutrient rich-soup in which they are located.

Our countries are the Petri dish. We are the bacteria.

Bon appétit!

* * *

I vividly remember how the AngloZionist propaganda machine described the Serbian people in general, and especially the Chetniks, as genocidal murders hellbent on “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” (Serbs, Croats and Bosnian-Muslims are from the same ethnicity; only their religions are different; “Bosniac” is a term popularized by the US State Department). Most of these lies have long been debunked by numerous authors, the truth is already out there but, just like with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the Kennedy assassination,GLADIO or 9/11, the truth is out there, but very few care.

The truth is that the western civilization has decayed to a state which could be described as “truth free”. A simpler way to put it that for most people (alas, most people are still brainwashed) facts simply do not matter. The truly dull ones will only seek “ideological comfort” while most of the rest simply don’t care as long as their current consumption rates can be maintained or, better, increased. The rest, for them, is basically irrelevant.

Inside Yugoslavia a similar process of “induced amnesia” and “historical reprogramming” took place during the Tito years and even after. Even modern Serbian politicians, plenty of which are corrupt and dependent on US or EU “grants”, continue to parrot the Titoist propaganda. But deep inside (some of) the Serbian people the memory of Draza is just as alive as the memory of Czar Nicholas II is alive in the memory of (some of) Russian people. This historical memory has not been restored to our nations, but there is already enough of this memory currently coming out from it’s clandestinity to worry our “liberals” and “democrats” and to absolutely outrage the western media.

This being said, I don’t believe for one second that Russia or Serbia will ever become a monarchy again (in spite of being a monarchist myself). In fact, I hope this never happens because if it does, it will be a pseudo-monarchy run by some parliament and with a useless parasite à la Queen Elizabeth II totally under the control of Masonic loges. A real Orthodox monarchy can only exist in a truly Orthodox country and with a truly free Orthodox Church, not in a country where the vast majority of Orthodox Christians are truly Orthodox only in name, in a “cultural” sense, and who see Orthodoxy as a national rather than as a spiritual phenomenon. In fact, I believe that we are already well into the “End Times” in which the Church of Christ will shrink down to the “small flock” mentioned in the Gospels and Apocalypse. These are times in which an Orthodox monarchy cannot exist since the τὸ κατέχον (“the [one] who restrains”) has been “taken out of the way” (2 Thes 2:6-7) because Nicholas II was this “katehon” and now the “mystery of iniquity doth already work” (there is also the famous prophecy about Moscow the Third Rome, a status which that city lost in 1917, which concludes with the words “and there shall be no fourth“).

But, assuming we don’t all die in a nuclear war courtesy of the Neocons, neither can the future Russia or Serbia be founded on the values, policies and actions of figures like Lenin or Tito (if only because their countries – the USSR and Yugoslavia – don’t exist anymore; besides, Lenin hated Russia as much as Tito hated Serbia).

A couple of years ago I wrote an essay entitled “Kosovo will be liberated” in which I suggested the following thought experiment:

Imagine for a few minutes that for some reason the Empire collapsed. No more NATO and probably no more EU. Or maybe just a little NATO and just a little EU left in spite of it all. But, more importantly, no Camp Bondsteel. What do you think would happen?

I gave my answer about what I believe would happen externally, about how the Serbian nation will inevitably be reunited and Kosovo liberated. Today, I am trying to imagine what would happen inside Serbia, before Kosovo can be liberated.

Internally, the conditio sine qua non for a rebirth of Serbia is the restoration of the historical truth and that means first and foremost to restore the truth about the cowardly slaughter of well over 1,500,000 Serbs by Croatians, Bosnian Muslims, Albanians, Bulgarians and Hungarians (yes, this was a real, full-scale genocide; the original Papist-Croatian (*not* German Nazi!!) plan was to convert1/3rd of Serbs, expel another 1/3rd and murder the remaining 1/3rd) by an informal but no less toxic combination of *real* Nazi-collaborators (Croats and Bosnian-Muslims), the genocidal policies of the Papacy in the so-called “Independent State of Croatia”, the actions of the Communist Partisans, the typical “grand game” policies and betrayals of the British (who used the Serbs as cannon fodder against elite SS divisions), the active support of the Soviet Union and the total indifference of the US and the self-centered nations of western Europe.

While one WWII genocide is exploited and propagandized, the Genocide of the Serbian people is hideously kept hidden. Their executioners, to this day, celebrated by the empire and aided in their continued attempts to erase the memory of their victims. Dr. Gideon Greiff, Israel’s foremost expert on Auschwitz, whose recently published book “Jasenovac, the Auschwitz of the Balkans”, details the killing of over 800,000 Serbs, in the Jasenovac death camp. According to Dr. Greiff, Jasenovac, one of many Vatican sanctioned death camps, in the Nazi puppet state of Croatia, there were “57 different ways of killing the victims”. “I am sure that there weren’t as many in Auschwitz. It’s a world record. There has not been something of the kind in the history of the humankind,” he said, adding that there should be no doubt about the number of the (overall) victims, and recalling that an investigation by a joint Croatian-Serbian commission showed that this number was 1.4 million (all quotes from a television interview with Dr. Greiff on Serbian Television). Finally, to learn of the true horrors faced by the Serbian nation in this monstrous Papist genocide attempt of the Serbian nation, make sure to check out this webpage:

It will give you all the details about what the author called “The most horrifying religious massacre of the 20th century“.

As for Dr Greiff’s book “Jasenovac – Auschwitz of the Balkans” is available on Amazon, but at a very steep price (I sure cannot afford and I wish it was available online somewhere).

This restoration of the truth will have to inevitably include Tito’s communists murder of tens of thousands Serbian intellectuals, Orthodox priests, Chetniks and their families, after the end of WWII.

Furthermore, all the countries, public entities and personalities which directed these crimes will have to be exposed. Not to stick them into a Nuremberg-like tribunal (not a bad idea, but it was poorly implemented; besides, for Russia and Serbia, most evil doers are not long dead anyway), but to stick their memory in a “historical tribunal” in which historians will be the defending and prosecuting lawyers and our people the jury (God, obviously, being the only true judge).

Simply put, I will use a metaphor of Alexander Solzhenitsyn here, the relationship of the Russian civilization to the Bolshevik state, and the relationship of the Serbian civilization with the Titoist state is the same one which can be found between a healthy body and a malignant tumor: yes, they definitely share a lot of common DNA (Russia, for example, has always been a collectivistic and “social” society), but they also have enough differences to make the latter a mortal threat to the former. Furthermore, just as with a malignant tumor, it is extremely difficult to fully eradicate just the tumor without affecting the healthy tissues. Solzhenitsyn added that in his opinion the Russian nation will need about two centuries to fully heal from the effects of Bolshevism.

So this is not about doing what the Communists did and trashing our past just from another point of view. There were great heroes and very good people who lived in our Communist past, and great feats were accomplished in numerous fields during these years. It is about restoring the historical truth, something which every honest person should support and even participate in. Otherwise our people will look like prisoners freed from a concentration camp but who continue to wear the prison clothes given to them by their (now former) tormentors.

Truth be told, since 2000 Russia has managed to accomplish a truly miraculous rebirth, especially in the light of the true war (even if this war is currently about 80% informational one, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic) of the AngloZionists against Russia. Serbia is in a much worse situation, in some ways almost as bad as the Russia of the 1990s. But I am confident that a “Serbian Putin” will appear, apparently from “nowhere”, and that the Serbian people will rally around him/her just like the Russians rallied around Putin.

Finally, when the time comes for the Serbian nation to rise up and liberate itself, I am confident that the recent examples of Russians fighting for Serbia in Bosnia and Serbs fighting for Russia in the Donbass will inspire not just volunteers, but whoever sits in the Kremlin.

Serbian volunteers in Novorussia and their Russian comrades in arms.

Serbian volunteers in Novorussia and their Russian comrades in arms.

To illustrate just how much the truth has been distorted, regarding the Serbs, whose honor and courage, have been documented, both by allies and enemies, throughout history, I strongly encourage you to read the last sermon of pastor Freidrich Griesendorf, published in the Eversburg (German) newspaper: “Last sermon of a German clergymen” (reposted and translated here)

I now leave you with the two videos mentioned in the main film.

First, the interview of US vets about their experience with the Chetniks:

and, finally, the Hollywood movie made about this war:

And, last but most definitely not least, there is now an extremely valuable website fully dedicated to the memory of Draza Mihailovich:

In conclusion, I want to address all those who have a very different view of Draza, the Serbs or anything else. What I presented here is my personal, absolutely sincere, point of view. But, of course, I may be wrong (I often am!).

I not only have no problem with fact-based and logically-constructed criticisms, I sincerely INVITE THEM! However, I have to warn you that any attempts to simply spew a load the garden variety hatred towards Draza, the Serbs or anything else will be intercepted and sent to where it belongs: the trash bin of our servers and of history! We have already heard it all, courtesy of the legacy AngloZionist media, we don’t need that repeated here.

*******

ADDENDUM: since Draza, the Chetniks and the Serbs have now been described as monsters, I decided to add a number of quotes which not only show that in the past they were considered as heroes, but also show what some prominent historical figures had to say about them.

1. The Hero Whom You Gave to History Has Not His Like in Our Time

“Twenty years after the death of Draza Mihailovich he is undimmed in his glory as a defender of liberty against the Fascist terror, who defended it also against the Communist terror. He had no moment of weakness, nor of bitterness. I know no instance where he reproached those who were guilty of his betrayal.

Twenty years ago I knew he was innocent of all charges against him, and since then I have had many further proofs of his innocence. His abandonment was a crime, and like all crimes it brought no real profit to the criminals.

I loved your nation before the war, I have loved and honored it more and more as the years have gone by and I have seen that the hero whom you gave to history has not his like in our time.”

__ Dame Rebecca West ( to the Serbs July 8, 1966)

2As I sit writing these lines in the early dawn before a motionless sea, Mihailovich is facing the firing squad. I am not concerned with what the first of the Maquisards is supposed to have done or not done; what worries me is that nobody bothers about him

__ George Bernanos, 1946

3The British press ‘splashed’ the German reward for Tito, but only one paper mentioned (in small print) the reward for Mihailovich: and the charges of collaborating with the Germans continued.

__George Orwell, 1946

4. General Dragoljub Mihailovich distinguished himself in an outstanding manner as Commander-in-Chief of the Yugoslavian Army Forces and later as Minister of War by organizing and leading important resistance forces against the enemy which occupied Yugoslavia, from December 1941 to December 1944. Through the undaunted efforts of his troops, many United States airmen were rescued and returned safely to friendly control. General Mihailovich and his forces, although lacking adequate supplies, and fighting under extreme hardships, contributed materially to the Allied cause, and were instrumental in obtaining a final Allied victory.

— Harry S. Truman, March 29, 1948

5The ultimate tragedy of Draza Mihailovic cannot erase the memory of his heroic and often lonely struggle against the twin tyrannies that afflicted his people, Nazism and Communism. He knew that totalitarianism, whatever name it might take, is the death of freedom. He thus became a symbol of resistance to all those across the world who have had to fight a similar heroic and lonely struggle against totalitarianism. Mihailovic belonged to Yugoslavia; his spirit now belongs to all those who are willing to fight for freedom.

— Ronald Reagan, September 8, 1979

6.“The unparalleled rescue of over 500 American Airmen from capture by the Enemy Occupation Forces in Yugoslavia during World War II by General Dragoljub Mihailovich and his Chetnik Freedom Fighters for which this “Legion of Merit” medal was awarded by President Harry S. Truman, also represents a token of deep personal appreciation and respect by all those rescued American Airmen and their descendants, who will be forever grateful.”

___ (NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF AMERICAN AIRMEN RESCUED BY GENERAL MihailovićH – 1985)

7“General Draza Mihailovic was a patriot, a brave soldier and a gallant ally of the United States and every nation that went to war in the early forties to destroy the tyrannies that sought to enslave our world.Hundreds of American pilots owe their lives to General Mihailovic and his forces and the American people will never forget that debt.As long as there are patriots in any nation, the name of General Draza Mihailovic will be remembered and revered”

– President Richard Nixon (April 21, 1966).

8WHY MIHAILOVICH MATTERS

As an American, I bow my head in shame whenever I think of the terribly mistaken policy which led the Allied leaders in World War II to abandon General Draza Mihailovich and throw their support instead to the communist cohorts of Marshal Josip Broz Tito. It was an unbelievable aberration of policy and of justice perpetrated by the Allies.

Mihailovich was the first insurgent in Europe. It was he who raised the flag of resistance to the Nazi occupier – and by his action he inspired the formation of resistance movements in all the subjugated countries.

He resisted the Nazis at the time when the Soviet Union and the communists were still collaborating with them – and his early resistance, by slowing down the Nazi timetable, was probably responsible for preventing the fall of Moscow.

The contributions of Mihailovich to the Allied cause were the subject of tributes by General Eisenhower, General De Gaulle, Field Marshal Lord Alexander, Admiral Harwood, Anthony Eden, President Truman, and, at later date of President Richard Nixon. For example, on August 16, 1942, three top ranking British officers, Admiral Harwood, General Auchinleck, and Air Marshal Tedder, sent the following joint wire to Mihailovich: “With admiration we are following your directed operations which are of inestimable value to the Allied cause.”

Today, no informed person takes seriously the communist charges that Mihailovich collaborated with the Germans, or the proceedings of the communist show trial in Belgrade which resulted in his execution. The communists made the nature of their injustice clear when they announced in advance of the trial, that Mihailovich would be executed after a ‘fair’ trial. And they also made it clear when they refused to take the evidence of the American officers who served with him or of the American airmen who were rescued by him.

Colonel Robert H. McDowell, chief of the last American mission to General Mihailovich, and perhaps the most experienced intelligence officer to serve with either side in Yugoslavia during World War II, took the time after the War to go through the German intelligence files on Yugoslavia. Not only did he find no evidence that Mihailovich collaborated with the Nazis, but he found numerous statements establishing that Hitler feared the Mihailovich movement far more than he feared the Tito movement.

The communists also feared Mihailovich more than they did any other man. And that is why, when they executed him, they disposed of his shattered body in a secret burial place, so that those who followed him and revered him would not be able to come at night to drop tears and flowers on his grave and tenderly offer a few words of prayer in gratitude to General Mihailovich for his heroism and sacrifice.

But despite all of the abuse and all the precautions of the communists, the truth about Mihailovich – now grown to the proportions of a legend – still persists among the Serbian people. Evidence of this is the remarkable article on Mihailovich which Mihajlo Mihajlov wrote for The New Leader, just before Tito’s courts sentenced him to seven years of hard labor in early March of this year.

I think that it is fitting that we in the free world who are aware of the truth should also do everything in our power to set the record straight and to bring about the ultimate vindication before the bar of history – of one of the noblest figures of World War II.

Draza Mihailovich, in addition to being an outstanding soldier and a great national leader, was a man who stood for everything that we in America believe in. He was a true believer in the rights enshrined in our own Declaration of Independence – the right to think and speak and pray in accordance with one’s own religious, political, economic and social beliefs, without government restraint or repression.

…the United States Congress should accede to the petition of the American airmen that they be authorized to erect in Washington with publicly subscribed funds, a monument which they would dedicate, in gratitude, to “General Draza Mihailovich, Savior of American Airmen.”

Beyond this, there is still a larger debt which the free world owes to the memory of General Draza Mihailovich. It is my hope that this debt will some day be repaid in full through the liberation of his people from communist tyranny.”

-Senator Frank J. Lausche, March 27, 1975

9A Thanksgiving Tribute to the Americans from the General. An American Officer Remembers…

As we proceeded out over the Adriatic my mind flashed back to one incident which will always have great meaning for me. Before I was leaving for my tour of Serbia, the Minister [General Mihailovich] had expressed a desire to do something to honor America saying “Here we have Slava, the day of our patron saint. What is America’s slava? ”

I thought for a moment and said, ‘We have four great days, Christmas, New Year, Independence Day and Thanksgiving. Christmas we love because it is the day of Christ. New Years we enjoy because we look with hope to it, but on its Eve we celebrate, sometimes not too wisely but too well, and often the day itself finds us with aching heads. Independence day would be wonderful except for the sadness of sacrifice and mourning that sweeps the South from the cause of our Civil War. Thanksgiving is our day, our Slava, because that day we give Thanks to God for our founding Fathers and the beginning of our country and freedom.’

Mihailovich replied, ‘Good, we would honor America and on the Eve of that day each mountaintop of Serbia will have a fire lighted by our peasants.’

On Thanksgiving Eve, three Americans standing in a tiny village high in the Serbian mountains, saw a huge fiery “A” come into being. Then another, and one after the other fires appeared until eleven peaks were outlined.

This I remember. A magnificent tribute to America from a truly great man.”

Colonel Albert B. Seitz, American Liaison Officer with General Mihailovich

10. “The United States must insist on a fair and open trial for General Mihailovich, anti-Red Chetnik hero, now in the hands of the Communist regime of Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia if our future allies are to have any confidence in our pledged word as a nation.

There is no real question about the fact that General Mihailovich took up arms against the German invaders of his country in April, 1941, at a time when Soviet Russia was an ally of National Socialist Germany.

At that time the present dictator of Yugoslavia, Marshal Josip Broz, called Tito, was an expatriate, studying in Moscow as a faithful adherent of the Third International – the Comintern – which had adopted the alliance with Hitler’s Germany as an internal program of aggression for mutual benefit. For two and one half years, during the darkest days of the struggle against Germany, Italy and Japan, Mihailovich, former minister of war in Yugoslavia, fought on our side.

No question was raised as to his loyalty or valor while there was real doubt about the outcome of the war. Only after our victory was seen as to be certain did other elements in Yugoslavia flock to the well-equipped and well-provisioned ranks of Tito, who then began to receive from the United States and Britain all that had been promised – but not delivered – to Mihailovich.

This request has been categorically refused by Tito, whose supporters in the Kremlin now openly demand that all Tito’s claims be ratified without argument.

From every point of view of American law, customs and instinct, these proposals go against the grain. They contravene our basic conception of fair play, honest dealing and of the right of every man accused to be allowed witnesses in his defense.”

The Honorable Clare Boothe Luce (R) Connecticut, April 20, 1946

American playwright, editor, journalist, ambassador, and first woman elected to U.S. Congress

11“No people in Europe have a more heroic record in this war than the Serbs. Among them, no hero is more glorious than General Draza Mihailovic.”

– Watson Kirkconnell

12Where are the thunderers who once could speak
The Language of the Prophets, when the weak
Were broken and the good oppressed? Where are those
Whose words were cleansing fire, till there arose
the phoenix-armies from the martyrs’ dust
To make the word the deed, oppose the lust
Of tyrants and proclaim the prophets true?
Where is the gratitude our fathers knew
And sanctuary and penance for wrong power?
Did Milton fail the martyrs, Gladstone cower
Before the ruthless? Was the public pen
careful of epithet? And public men —
Were they afraid to say: “Alas we erred
And now confess our error. Let the word
Go out, perhaps to save a soul and save
Our souls”? Today the coward and the knave
Are kings. These are mean times. If it be doom,
Our tongues, at least, are free and there is room
For utterance that salves us if not saves.
Why should we ape the silence of graves?
And even these have epitaphs as tongues.
Since power is dumb before the powerful wrongs
Let one small voice salute the Serbian.
With shame at first, then prayer for that brave man.
“I.M. Draza Mihailovich (Murdered July 16, 1946)
by L. Aaronson, British Poet, July 1946

Posted in SerbiaComments Off on Drazha Mikhailovich: the Man Upon Which the Future Serbia Will be Rebuilt!

Tulsi Gabbard Is Right, and Nancy Pelosi Wrong.

It Was US Democrats Who Helped Cultivate the Barbarism of Isis

JONATHAN COOK 

There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump’s decision to pull troops out of Syria.

One does not need to defend Trump’s actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short term, by the departure of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger picture.

The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s meeting this week with Trump, who is described as having had a “meltdown”. Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the paper writes that “it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East”.

Hang on a minute! Let’s pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.

Islamic State, or Isis, didn’t emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. And I’m not even referring to the mountains of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington, in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.

No, I’m talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington’s local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn’t care.

Overthrow, not regime change

You don’t have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don’t even have to be concerned that these so-called “humanitarian” wars violated each state’s integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined in international law as “the supreme war crime”.

The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations, these haven’t so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.

The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called “Washington consensus” since 9/11.

The first was Israel’s long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that sucked out all the local population’s energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they could export to non-compliant states in the region.

The second was the Chicago school’s Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein’s book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction, the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable population that would be ripe for a US-controlled “colour revolution”.

The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.

Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted – from Pinochet’s Chile to Yeltsin’s Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning from past errors. As Bush’s senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the “reality-based community”: “We’re an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality.”

The birth of Islamic State

The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region’s finest public health services.

One can argue about the initial causes of the uprising against Assad that erupted in Syria in 2011. Did it start as a popular struggle for liberation from the Assad government’s authoritarianism? Or was it a sectarian insurgency by those who wished to replace Shia minority rule with Sunni majority rule? Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate change led to repeated crop failures? Or are all these factors relevant to some degree?

Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture I want to address.

The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be found and that served as the pretext for Bush’s campaign of Shock and Awe.

The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing, flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.

A dark US vanity project

After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington’s policy had engineered.

The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.

This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west’s chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria.

Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.

The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.

From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.

A giant red herring

Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East, one intimately tied to Islamic State.

What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should have no credibility on the matter to begin with.

But their claims that Trump has “no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East” is a giant red herring they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.

First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.

Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.

With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. The jihadists’ state-building project is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.

Doomed Great Game

The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army, which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.

The Syrian Kurds’ predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad’s protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army’s return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.

That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.

Nancy Pelosi’s purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump’s Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against the head-chopping extremists?

Axios@axios

Tulsi Gabbard calls The New York Times and CNN — the hosts of the debate — “completely despicable” for alleging she is a Russian asset and Assad apologist.19.7K2:19 AM – Oct 16, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy6,671 people are talking about this

Pelosi and the Democratic leadership’s bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party’s only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.

Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don’t care about Syria, or its population’s welfare. They don’t care about Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues to bestow on them.

Posted in USAComments Off on Tulsi Gabbard Is Right, and Nancy Pelosi Wrong.

The Putin-Nazis Are Coming (Again)!

C.J. HOPKINS 

So, it looks like that’s it for America, folks. Putin has gone and done it again. He and his conspiracy of Putin-Nazis have “hacked,” or “influenced,” or “meddled in” our democracy. Unless Admiral Bill McRaven and his special ops cronies can ginny up a last-minute military coup, it’s four more years of the Trumpian Reich, Russian soldiers patrolling the streets, martial law, concentration camps, gigantic banners with the faces of Trump and Putin hanging in the football stadiums, mandatory Sieg-heiling in the public schools, National Vodka-for-Breakfast Day, death’s heads, babushkas, the whole nine yards.

We probably should have seen this coming.

That’s right, as I’m sure you are aware by now, president-in-exile Hillary Clinton has discovered Putin’s diabolical plot to steal the presidency from Elizabeth Warren, or Biden, or whichever establishment puppet makes it out of the Democratic primaries. Speaking to former Obama adviser and erstwhile partner at AKPD Message and Media David Plouffe, Clinton revealed how the godless Rooskies intend to subvert democracy this time:

“I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate.”

She was referring, of course, to Tulsi Gabbard, sitting Democratic Member of Congress, decorated Major in the Army National Guard, and long shot 2020 presidential candidate. Apparently, Gabbard (who reliable anonymous sources in the Intelligence Community have confirmed is a member of some kind of treasonous, Samoan-Hindu, Assad-worshipping cult that wants to force everyone to practice yoga) has been undergoing Russian “grooming” at a compound in an undisclosed location that is probably in the basement of Mar-a-Lago, or on Sublevel 168 of Trump Tower.

In any event, wherever Gabbard is being surreptitiously “groomed” (presumably by someone resembling Lotte Lenya in From Russia With Love), the plan (i.e., Putin’s plan) is to have her lose in the Democratic primaries, then run as a third-party “spoiler” candidate, stealing votes from Warren or Biden, exactly as Jill Stein (who, according to Clinton, is also “totally a Russian asset”) stole them from Clinton back in 2016, allowing Putin to install Donald Trump (who, according to Clinton, is still being blackmailed by the FSB with that “kompromat” pee-tape) in the White House, where she so clearly belongs.

Clinton’s comments came on the heels of a preparatory smear-piece in The New York TimesWhat, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?, which reported at length on how Gabbard has been “injecting chaos” into the Democratic primaries. Professional “disinformation experts” supplied The Times with convincing evidence (i.e., unfounded hearsay and innuendo) of “suspicious activity” surrounding Gabbard’s campaign. Former Clinton-aide Laura Rosenberger (who also just happens to be the Director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, “a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group” comprised of former Intelligence Community and U.S. State Department officials, and publisher of the Hamilton 68 dashboard) “sees Gabbard as a potentially useful vector for Russian efforts to sow division.”

The Times piece goes on to list an assortment of unsavory, extremist, white supremacist, horrible, neo-Nazi-type persons that Tulsi Gabbard has nothing to do with, but which Hillary Clinton, the Intelligence Community, The Times, and the rest of the corporate media would like you to mentally associate her with. Richard Spencer, David Duke, Steve Bannon, Mike Cernovich, Tucker Carlson, and so on. Neo-Nazi sites like the Daily Stormer. 4chan, where, according to The New York Times, neo-Nazis like to “call her Mommy.”

In keeping with professional journalistic ethics, The Times also reached out to experts on fascism, fascist terrorism, terrorist fascism, fascist-adjacent Assad-apologism, Hitlerism, horrorism, Russia, and so on, to confirm Gabbard’s guilt-by-association with the people The Times had just associated her with. Brian Levin, Director of the CSU Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, confirmed that Gabbard has “the seal of approval” within goose-stepping, Hitler-loving, neo-Nazi circles. The Alliance for Securing Democracy (yes, the one from the previous paragraph) conducted an “independent analysis” which confirmed that RT (“the Kremlin-backed news agency”) had mentioned Gabbard far more often than the Western corporate media (which isn’t backed by anyone, and is totally unbiased and independent, despite the fact that most of it is owned by a handful of powerful global corporations, and at least one CIA-affiliated oligarch). Oh, and Hawaii State Senator Kai Kahele, who is challenging Gabbard for her seat in Congress, agreed with The Times that Gabbard’s support from Jew-hating, racist Putin-Nazis might be a potential liability.

“Clearly there’s something about her and her policies that attracts and appeals to these type of people who are white nationalists, anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers.”

But it’s not just The New York Times, of course. No sooner had Clinton finished cackling than the corporate media launched into their familiar Goebbelsian piano routine, banging out story after television segment repeating the words “Gabbard” and “Russian asset.” I’ve singled out The Times because the smear piece in question was clearly a warm-up for Hillary Clinton’s calculated smear job on Friday night. No, the old gal hasn’t lost her mind. She knew exactly what she was doing, as did the editors of The New York Times, as did every other establishment news source that breathlessly “reported” her neo-McCarthyite smears.

As I noted in my previous essay, 2020 is for all the marbles, and it’s not just about who wins the election. No, it’s mostly about crushing the “populist” backlash against the hegemony of global capitalism and its happy, smiley-faced, conformist ideology. To do that, the neoliberal establishment has to delegitimize, and lethally stigmatize, not just Trump, but also people like Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn … and any other popular political figure (left, right, it makes no difference) deviating from that ideology.

In Trump’s case, it’s his neo-nationalism. In Sanders and Corbyn’s, it’s socialism (or at least some semblance of social democracy). In Gabbard’s, it’s her opposition to the Corporatocracy’s ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the Middle East (and the rest of the entire planet), and their using the U.S. military to do it.

Ask yourself, what do Trump, Sanders, Corbyn, and Gabbard have in common? No, it’s not their Putin-Nazism … it’s the challenge they represent to global capitalism. Each, in his or her own way, is a symbol of the growing populist resistance to the privatization and globalization of everything. And thus, they must be delegitimized, stigmatized, and relentlessly smeared as “Russian assets,” “anti-Semites,” “traitors,” “white supremacists,” “fascists,” “communists,” or some other type of “extremists.”

Gabbard, to her credit, understands this, and is focusing attention on the motives and tactics of the neoliberal establishment and their smear machine. As I noted in an essay last year, “the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale) is to resist the temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible.” This will not save her, but it is the best she can do, and I applaud her for having the guts to do it. I hope she continues to give them hell as they finish off her candidacy and drive her out of office.

Oh, and if you’re contemplating sending me an email explaining how these smear campaigns don’t work (or you spent the weekend laughing about how Hillary Clinton lost her mind and made an utter jackass of herself), maybe check in with Julian Assange, who is about to be extradited to America, tried for exposing U.S. war crimes, and then imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life. If you can’t get through to Julian at Belmarsh, you could ring up Katharine Viner at The Guardian, which has ruthlessly smeared Assange for years, and published outright lies about him, and is apparently doing very well financially.

And, if Katharine is on holiday in Antigua or somewhere, or having tea with Hillary in the rooftop bar of the Hay-Adams Hotel, you could try Luke Harding (who not only writes and publishes propaganda for The Guardian, but who wrote a whole New York Times best-seller based on nothing but lies and smears). Or try Marty Baron, Dean Baquet, Paul Krugman, or even Rachel Maddow, or any of the other editors and journalists who have been covering the Putin-Nazi “Attack on America,” and keeping us apprised of who is and isn’t a Hitler-loving “Russian asset.”

Ask them whether their smear machine is working … if you can get them off the phone with their brokers, or whoever is decorating their summer places in the Hamptons or out on Martha’s Vineyard.

Or ask the millions of well-off liberals who are still, even after Russiagate was exposed as an enormous hoax based on absolutely nothing, parroting this paranoid official narrative and calling people “Russian assets” on Twitter. Or never mind, just pay attention to what happens over the next twelve months. In terms of ridiculous official propaganda, spittle-flecked McCarthyite smears, and full-blown psychotic mass Putin-Nazi hysteria, it’s going to make the last three years look like the Propaganda Special Olympics.

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on The Putin-Nazis Are Coming (Again)!

Revisiting the Win-Win-Win-Win Outcome in Syria

THE SAKER 

Assad and His Commanders

In his recent article “The Road to Damascus: How the Syria War Was Won” Pepe Escobar summarized the outcome of the war in Syria in the following way:

“It’s a quadruple win. The U.S. performs a face saving withdrawal, which Trump can sell as avoiding a conflict with NATO ally Turkey. Turkey has the guarantee – by the Russians – that the Syrian Army will be in control of the Turkish-Syrian border. Russia prevents a war escalation and keeps the Russia-Iran-Turkey peace process alive. And Syria will eventually regain control of the entire northeast.”

This otherwise excellent summary overlooks two out of three members of the “Axis of Kindness”, including Israel and the KSA. Of course, later in his analysis Pepe does address these actors, and also includes Kuwait. Furthermore, a thorough discussion of what took place would have to also include China, Hezbollah, Yemen and the EU (well, the ones that matter, the UK and France. The rest are just voiceless colonies of the US).

Most of the analyses of what just took place focused on the “what”. I will try to look into the “why” and the “how” of what just happened in Syria. Still, I don’t propose to make such a detailed analysis, but I do want to re-classify the actors in a somewhat different way: by their relative strength.

ActorTheoretical Strength
The “Axis of Kindness”:United States+CENTCOM+NATO+Israel+KSAby far the most powerful actor almost by any measure: a bigger military force then all the other actors combined (at least when looked at regionally), huge economic power (the dollar is still THE #1 currency on the planet), total control of the region (via CENTCOM) and quasi unconditional support from Europe (via NATO). Finally, Israel does pack a powerful military punch. This actor has only ONE weakness, but more about that later.
Iran+Hezbollah+Houthi+Shia forces in Iraqin regional terms, Iran is the local superpower which can even successfully defy the Axis of Kindness forces (and has done so since the Islamic Revolution of 1979).
Russia+SyriaI placed Russia and Syria in the same group and I could have added Iran, but since I believe that Russia objectively has more power over the Syrian government than Iran, I think that it is important to put Russia and Syria together simply because Damascus cannot say “no” to Moscow, but could do so, at least in theory, to Tehran. Finally, Russia and Iran agree on the main issues, but have different visions for the future of the Middle-East. Thus this is another reason to look at them separately, even if not necessarily in opposition to each other. In military terms, Russia is very strong, then very vulnerable, then very strong again, it all depends on your level of analysis (see below)
Turkey+pro-Turkish factions in SyriaThat one is a difficult one to classify. On one hand, Turkey does not have any regional allies (the Ottoman Empire left only hatred and deep resentment in its former colonies). For a while, the pro-Turkish factions, which were liberally showered with weapons, money, training, logistical support, etc, by the US and the KSA, but eventually these factions grew weaker and weaker until they reached a state of advanced impotence leaving Turkey pretty much alone (we will also look into that below).
The KurdsFor a while, they sure looked potentially powerful: not only did the Kurds have a pretty big military power (albeit mostly one restricted to infantry), they had the support of Axis of Kindness and, especially, Israel which saw any form of Independent Kurdistan as a great tool to weaken and even threaten Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. Furthermore, the Kurds happened to control a lot of oil rich regions and they could always retreat in the mountainous areas if needed.
The Takfiris (i.e. the many and constantly name-changing franchises of what used to be called “al-Qaeda”).In reality, the Takfiris really ought to be classified together with the Axis of Kindness since they have been the foot-soldiers/cannon-fodder for the AngloZionist since the 1980s (from Afghanistan then to modern day Syria). Nonetheless, we will consider them as distinct from the rest of the Axis of Kindness forces.

Of course, and just like any other taxonomy, this one is necessarily somewhat subjective and others might use different criteria or categories. Now let’s look at what I believe is the key to the control of the entire region: the ability to place “boots on the ground” or the lack of such an ability:

ActorAbility to place boots on the ground
The “Axis of Kindness”:United States+CENTCOM+NATO+Israel+KSAThis is The One Big Weakness of the Axis of Kindness members: while they have huge armed forces, and even nuclear weapons, while they can deploy numerically very large forces, while they can (arguably) achieve air and naval supremacy/superiority pretty much anywhere in the region, they cannot follow up any of these options with a credible ground force. While this is always carefully obfuscated by the legacy AngloZionist propaganda, the US, Israeli and KSA ground forces are only capable of murdering civilians or primitive resistance forces en masse. But as soon as any of these militaries meets a halfway decent enemy force which is willing to fight on the ground, they are defeated (name me ONE meaningful victory of these Axis of Kindness forces in the last couple of decades or more!).
Iran+Hezbollah+Houthi+Shia forces in IraqThe Iranians and their local allies (calling them “proxies” completely misses the real nature of the relationship between Iran and these regional forces!) are all capable of deploying very capable ground forces. In fact, they have all done so with tremendous success (especially Hezbollah). What Iran provides to this informal alliance is the capability to augment it with new, high-tech and modern weapons, including anti-shipping missiles, air defenses, ATGMs, communications, drones, etc. In terms of ground forces, this alliance is the #1 power in the region.
Russia+SyriaBoth Russia and Syria have very competent and well-balanced forces deployed in Syria. However, truth be told, I believe that Hezbollah+Iran currently have even more military weight, at least in terms of ground forces in Syria. The thing to keep in mind is this: if only Russian forces existed inside Syria (Tartus, Khmeimin, plus assorted special units all over Syria) then Russia is definitely weaker than the Axis of Kindness. But if we assume that Russian forces outside Syria could (and probably would!) intervene to defend the Russian forces inside Syria, then we would have to flip much of this equation around and categorize Russia as even more powerful than the Axis of Kindness (I will explain in more detail why and how below).
Turkey+pro-Turkish factions in SyriaThere can be no doubt that at the initiation of the international aggression against Syria, Turkey had a credible and powerful military. Then something went very wrong and with each new development (starting with the coup attempt against Erdogan) Turkey only got weaker and weaker. The country which dared to shoot down a Russian Su-24 eventually found itself in the humiliating position to have to ask for Russian help not once, but over and over again. The latest Turkish invasion of northern Syria has proven that, while the Turks can still beat the Kurds, that’s about all they can do, and even that not very well.
The KurdsFrankly, I never believed in the chances of the Kurds for anything even remotely resembling an independent Kurdistan. Oh sure, my sympathies were often with the Kurds (at least in their struggle against Turkey), but I always knew that the notion of imposing some new (and very artificial) state against the will of ALL the regional powers was both naive and self-defeating. The truth is that the US and Israel simply used the Kurds if and when needed, and ditched them as soon as it became obvious that the Kurds outlived their utility. The best the Kurds will ever get is a regional autonomy in Iran, Iraq and Syria. Anything else is a dangerous pipe dream.
The Takfiris (i.e. the many and constantly name-changing franchises of what used to be called “al-Qaeda”).Just like the Turks, the various Takfiris appeared as a formidable force when the aggression against Syria was initiated. And if the the US GWOT appeared to be a true blessing for the “good terrorists” (that’s, of course, all the terrorists in this region) it is because it was. Then something went very very wrong, and now they look as weak and clueless as the Kurds.

Now let’s sum this up. This is how the relative strength of these regional actors has changed since the initiation of the AngloZionist aggression against Syria:

ActorEvolution of strength of each regional power
The “Axis of Kindness”:United States+CENTCOM+NATO+Israel+KSADOWN: from strongest to one of the weakest in the region
Iran+Hezbollah+Houthi+Shia forces in IraqUP: arguably the most balanced military force in the region
Russia+SyriaUP: in a process which only looked like sheer “good luck” Russia and Syria grew stronger and stronger with each passing year.
Turkey+pro-Turkish factions in SyriaDOWN: in sharp contrast to Russia, a weird process of what looked like sheer “bad luck” Turkey and its allies in Syria just seemed to get weaker and weaker with each passing year.
The KurdsDOWN: the Kurds made the immense mistake of believing all the empty promises (often called “plan B”, “plan C”, “plan D”, etc.) made by the AngloZionists. Now all their dreams are over and they will have to settle for autonomy inside Iraq and Syria.
The Takfiris (i.e. the many and constantly name-changing franchises of what used to be called “al-Qaeda”).DOWN: their situation is almost as bad as the one of the Kurds. Their sole advantage is that they are not linked to any one piece of land and that they can try to regroup somewhere else in the region (or even the world); never say never again, but it looks to me like this will not happen in the foreseeable future.

It is now time to try to make sense of all this and try answer the question of why one group of relatively strong actors had so much bad luck as to become weaker and weaker, while the weaker became stronger and stronger.

The first thing we need to agree upon is that irrespective of the public posturing, everybody is, and has been, talking to everybody else. This “conversation” could be official and public, or behind closed doors, or even by means of intermediaries and, last but not least, a state version of “body language”: by means of actions which send a message to the other party or parties. Still, while this is certainly true, it is the quality of the communications between the various parties which made all the difference. When, say, Netanyahu or Trump publicly proclaim they they don’t give a damn about anything at all (including international law) and that they reserve the right to threaten or even attack anybody, at any time, for any reason whatsoever, this is a very clear message to, say, the Iranians. But what is that message, really? It says a couple of things:

  1. Resistance is futile because we are so much stronger than you and therefore
  2. We don’t give a damn about you or your national interests and therefore
  3. We are not interested in negotiating with you (or anybody else for that matter). Your only solution is to submit to us

This is really crucial. The US and Israel have proclaimed their total superiority over the entire planet and, specifically, over every single actor in the Middle-East. Furthermore, their entire worldview and ideology is predicated on this very strong sense of military superiority. Ask any Israeli or American what their countries will do if some coalition of local powers is successful in attacking them: they will reply something along the lines of “we will simply nuke all the friggin’ ragheads and sand-niggers – f**k them!”. This line is always delivered with a tone of absolute finality, a total certitude and the mental equivalent of “’nuff said!”.

Alas, for the Axis of Kindness, this is a completely counter-factual belief. Why?

First, the quick appeal to nukes is an implicit admission that there is something very wrong with the rest of the armed forces of the Axis of Kindness. Furthermore, the real regional powers all understand that it is not in their interest to give the US or Israel a pretext to use nukes. Thus, while, say, the Iranians sure have the means to strike Israel or any one of the many CENTCOM facilities in the Middle-East, they have been very careful to keep their counter-attacks below the dangerous threshold in which the legacy AngloZionist corporate media would be unable to conceal the magnitude of the disaster and demand that nukes be used (yes, if it comes to that, both the Israeli and the US media will demand nuclear strikes just as they cheered for every war of aggression ever committed by the US and Israel).

Second, precisely because the US and Israel are unable to have real allies (they only have colonies run by comprador elites), they cannot operate successfully in a multi-lateral kind of relationship with other actors. The contrast between the US/Israel, on one hand, and Russia and Iran, on the other, could not be greater. Both Russia and Iran understand that having real allies is much more advantageous than having puppets. Why? Because in order to convince somebody to become your ally you absolutely have to offer that party something tangible as part of a compromise goal setting. When this is done, the weaker ally feels that it is defending its own interests and not the interests of a patron which might be unreliable or which might even backstab you.

Third, one of the best US experts on the theory of negotiations, Professor William Zartman, wrote in his seminal book “The Practical Negotiator” that

One of the eternal paradoxes of negotiations is that it allows the weak to confront the strong and still come away with something which should not be possible if weakness and strength were all that mattered (…). Weaker parties tend to seek more formal negotiating forums and to strengthen their hand through organizations (…). Weak states can afford erratic or irresponsible behavior more easily than stronger parties, particularly when the rules of regularity and responsibility favor the strong (…). Weak states do best by rewarding stronger states’ concessions rather than than by “hanging tough” and by opening high to indicate needs and to facilitate rewards (…). The tactics of toughness and softness vary according to the strength of the parties: under symmetry, toughness tends to lead to toughness and under asymmetry to softness, with weaker parties following the leader of stronger parties.

There is a lot to unpack here (and there is much more in this book which I highly recommend to everybody!).

First, let’s compare and contrast the Russia and US approaches to creating negotiation fora. The US cooked up the “Friends of Syria” forum which was most remarkable in two unique ways: first, in spite of calling itself “Friends of Syria” this group only contained a who’s who of Syria’s, Iran’s and Russia’s enemies (just like to “Friends of Libya” was a cornucopia of countries hostile to Libya). Secondly, the self-evident (and not really denied) purpose and function of this group was to bypass the UNSC. There is nothing new here, the US has been trying to replace the UN and its role in upholding international law with all sorts of gimmicks including “coalition of the willing” or appeals for a “rules-based international order”. Needless to say, with the possible exception of a few truly dim propagandists, all these tricks are designed to avoid the already existing international fora, beginning with the United Nations. Russia, in contrast, not only used the UN for all its (admitted limited) worth and succeeded in forcing the US to accept resolutions on Syria (or the Ukraine for that matter) which the US did not want to agree to, but which they could not veto on political considerations. Not only that, Russia also created the Astana peace process which, unlike the US created fantasies, brought together different parties including parties hostile to each other. The most brilliant move of the Russians was to impose on all parties the notion that “those willing to negotiate are legitimate parties whose interests must be considered while those who refused to sit down are all terrorists“. Of course, the many al-Qaeda franchises tried to play the “rebranding game”, but this did not help: you can change names once every 24 hours if you want, but if you ain’t sitting down at the negotiating table you are a terrorist and, therefore, a legitimate target for Russian/Iranian/Syrian attacks. Once the Empire had to accept these terms, backed by a UNSC resolution, it became locked-in in a process which they could only stop by means of a military victory.

And here we come back to the boots on the ground issue. For all its combined military power, the Axis of Kindness does not have a ground force it can put on the ground. Whereas the Syrians, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia very neatly and most effectively (even if informally) agreed to the following assignment of tasks:

  1. The Syrians will let the Russians reorganize their armed forces, especially a few elite units, and slowly, step-by-step liberate their lands.
  2. The Iranians and Hezbollah will act like a fire-brigade and will directly support the Syrian operations with their own forces in crucial sectors of the line of contact.
  3. The Russians will take control of the Syrian airspace and provide the Syrians, Iran and Hezbollah protection from AngloZionist missile and bomb strikes. Finally, Russian special operation forces will be engaged in high priority operations which are beyond Iranian or Hezbollah capabilities.

What was the biggest obstacle to the Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah-Russian plans?

Turkey, of course. The Turks have always hated Assad (father and son) and their Neo-Ottoman delusions still give them a, shall we say, “special desire” to intervene beyond their own borders. Furthermore, Turkey also very much saw Syria as a contributing factor to their “Kurdish problem”. Finally, Turkey did have the kind of military which made it possible for it to threaten intervention or even intervene in Iraq and Syria (obviously not against Iran). Thus, what Russia needed to do was take Turkey out of the equation or, at least, weaken Turkey as much as possible. And that is exactly what Russia did.

For the Kremlin the shooting down of the Su-24 was tantamount to a declaration of war. Except that the Russians, quite aware of their relative weakness if compared to the US+NATO+CENTCOM+Turkey, wisely decided not to retaliate in kind and, say, strike Turkish military facilities. But Putin did promise “you won’t get away with just not selling us tomatoes” (Russia imposed an embargo on a number of Turkish export goods). Besides a number of political and economic sanctions, you can be sure that the Russians decided to use all their methods and means to weaken and destabilize both Erdogan personally and Turkey as a whole. Then, here is what happened:

  • On November 24th, 2015, Turkey shot down a Russian Su-24
  • In the next days, Russia closed down the north Syrian airspace, severed all contacts with the Turkish military, promised to shoot down any other Turkish aircraft attacking any target in Syria (regardless from what airspace) and imposed political and economic sanctions.
  • In December Putin ominously declared “Если кто-то думает, что, совершив подлое военное преступление: убийство наших людей — они отделаются помидорами, или какими-то ограничениями в строительной и других отраслях, то они глубоко заблуждаются” (“if somebody thinks that by committing a vile war crime they will get away with tomatoes or some type of restrictions in the construction and other industries, they are profoundly mistaken“).
  • In June 2016, Erdogan sent a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin expressing sympathy and ‘deep condolences’.
  • On 15 July 2016, a coup d’état was attempted against Erdogan and almost cost him his life. By all accounts, Russia played some kind of behind-the-scenes role and saved Erdogan’s life and power.
  • Following the failed coup, Turkey embarked on a major re-alignment and cast its lot with Russia and Iran, even if that meant having to accept Assad in power in Syria.

What exactly Russia did behind the scenes (versions range from warning Erdogan to actually using Russian special forces to evacuate him in extremis) will probably remain a secret for many years, but neither does it really matter. All we know for sure, is that after the coup, Erdogan made a 180 and completely changed his tune. My personal belief is that the Russians used their covert means to entice the US and its Gulenist CIA puppets to try to overthrow Erdogan only to then foil their coup attempt. I find the two other main options (the US is fantastically stupid and incompetent and Russia is an amazingly lucky country) much harder to believe. But even if we accept these options, or some combination thereof, Russia still superbly played her cards (by, for example, using the pretext of Turkey’s downing the Su-24 to strongly beef up Russian air defense capabilities in Syria) and Turkey was removed as a “powerful hostile actor” from the Russian equation of the Middle-East.

After that, what was left was only a kind of “political and military mopping-op operation.

Russia repeatedly tried to make the Kurds realize that their strategy of fighting every single neighbor they had was a non-starter which will inevitably backfire. Alas for the Kurdish people, their leaders were either too delusional, or too corrupt, to understand this. In the meantime, Erdogan and the rest of the Turkish political establishment were adamant they Turkey would under no circumstances allow the Syrian (or Iraqi) Kurds to ever establish their own state.

I really feel sad for the Kurds, but I also have to say that they really did it to themselves. This ought to be systematically studied, but their appears to be two kinds of small nations: those who are smart enough to play one big neighbor against the other while collaborating with both (say Kazakhstan or Mongolia) and then there are those who have no sense of history at all and who end up repeating the same mistakes over and over again like, say, the Poles or the Kurds. These nations always have a bloated sense of self-worth which leads them to act as if they were the big guys on the block and every time all they achieve is alienating all their truly big neighbors. Apparently, irrespective of the number of times these folks were smacked down by others in history, their narcissistic self-aggrandizement and, frankly, arrogance, gets them invaded, then invaded again and then invaded some more. You could say that they are born losers or that they “failed to learn the lessons of history”. Same difference, really.

For the Kremlin, the solution was obvious: use the Turks to force the Kurds to accept the inevitable but don’t let the Turks establish a permanent invasion force in northern Syria.

True, the Russians have voiced their rather flaccid disapproval of the Turkish operation and they called everybody to come back to the negotiation table. This is one rather rare example in which Russia’s rhetoric did not match her actions because in reality the Turkish operation would have been absolutely impossible if the Russians had not given Ankara an unofficial, but very trustworthy, go ahead beforehand. Furthermore, according to at least one report (which I find reasonably credible) the Russian Aerospace Forces even scrambled a pair of Su-35S to engage a Turkish pair of F-16 which, as soon as they saw what was about to happen, decided to make a run for their lives. Yet, in other instances, we know for a fact that F-16’s were used against Kurdish targets. It is pretty clear that the Russians not only told Erdogan what was acceptable and what was not, they also “fine tuned” the Turkish operation just so it would force the Kurds to negotiate while not making it possible for the Turks to establish any kind of meaningful presence in northern Syria.

What happened next was a domino effect. The Kurds tried to fight as best they could, but everybody realized that they were doomed. The Americans, very predictably and, I would argue, very logically, also ran for their lives. Trump used this (totally true, but nevertheless pretext) to get out of Syria (at least officially) not only to protect US lives, but to also get out of the political quicksand which Syria has become for the Axis of Kindness.

Last but not least, the Israelis were absolutely livid, and for good reason: there is no doubt that they are the biggest losers in this entire process and they now find themselves in the situation of depending on a pretend superpower which cannot deliver anything of value (except loads of dollars which the Israelis spend on a lot of useless hardware). The recent events in the region have not only shown that US ground forces plainly suck, they have also show that US guarantees are worthless while US weapons systems are vastly over-rated.

Here we come to what I believe is the single most important development of this conflict: ALL the many Israeli plans for the region collapsed one after the other. Most pathetically, all the trips Netanyahu made to Russia to try to con the Russians into taking Israel seriously have failed. Why? Because the Russians have long understood that Israel is a paper tiger with impressive “roar” (aka the massive international Zionist propaganda machine known as the “western free media” among infants and dull people) but who is unable to follow up its loud roaring with anything more tangible. Yes, I know, the worse things go for the Israelis, the bigger their boastful propaganda becomes: after having promised that the “invincible IDF” conducted “hundreds” of strikes in Syria and Iraq they now make noises about having a “killing list” which includes Hassan Nasrallah. Right. As for their “hundreds” of airstrikes, they must be the most inept and poorly executed air campaign since the total failure of NATO’s air campaign in Kosovo. Ask yourself this basic question:

If the Israelis have been conducting “hundreds” of airstrikes in Syria – why have they not resulted in any tangible effects on the military situation on the ground?

After all, when the Russians intervened, they changed the course of the entire war. In fact, the (very small) Russian Aerospace task force in Syria reversed the course of that war.

Why did the Russian air campaign yield such truly phenomenal results and why did the Israel air campaign yield absolutely nothing (except some much needed psychotherapy for the many Zionists who suffer form what Gilad Atzmon brilliantly referred to as “pre-traumatic stress disorder”)?

The answer is simple: one was a real military campaign while the other was just “feel good” PR.

A very good example of Zartman’s thesis that “Weak states can afford erratic or irresponsible behavior more easily than stronger parties, particularly when the rules of regularity and responsibility favor the strong” can be found in the relative position of, on one hand, Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis and, on the other, the US and Israel. Not that Iran or its allies have acted irresponsibly, they have not, but when they reacted, it was always with a double message: we don’t want war, but we are ready for it. But when the US engages in rather crude threats (just think of all the silly threats Trump has made during his presidency, including the most recent ones to wage war on Turkey if needed, not a joke, check here), these threats always end up further weakening the US. It is a true blessing for Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and the Syrians that their enemies are not only so inept, but also so good at cornering themselves in the worst kind of situations. In the end, the US still managed to lose face, even if you were never told about it. What do I mean?

Just look at what just took place: Trump sent Erdogan such a crude and rude letter (he sounds like a 10 year old), which was so insulting to Erdogan that he not only tossed it in the trash bin, but he also made sure to tell his aides to “leak” to the media how Erdogan treated Trump’s silly threats and insults. Turkey also launched a full-scale invasion and clearly challenged the US to do something about it. At this point, the two other “geniuses” in the White House (Pompeo and VP Pence) had to scramble to Ankara in what was clearly a desperate “damage control” mission, beg for a meeting, and then beg the Turks to agree to an entirely symbolic ceasefire which gave just enough time for the Kurds to agree to all the Syrian terms and to let the Syrian army take control of huge swaths of land without firing a single shot. Now here is the beauty of it all:

Pompeo and Pence demanded that Erdogan agree exactly to the kind of balanced outcome the Russians have been advocating all along! I am amazed that the Dem-media has not accused Pompeo and Pence of being Russian agents because what they just “demanded” and “obtained” from Turkey is exactly what Putin wanted 

Of course, this was all wrapped in all sorts of threats and promises to wipe out this or that country (including Turkey, a NATO member state which could, in theory, invoke Art 5 and ask NATO to defend it against the US! Of course, this would not happen as this would mark the end of NATO) and all the rest of the obligatory barking we always hear from the US when the “best military in world history” fails to achieve anything at all (even if Trump seriously claims that the US – not Russia – defeated the Takfiris the West has so lovingly been federating, supporting, I strongly believe, directing them for decades). Yes, Trump did the right thing when he declared that he wanted the US forces out of Syria, but let’s not be naive about that either: he did not order that because he is some great humanitarian, but because if the Turks, the Kurds, the Syrians or anybody else had taken a hard shot at the US forces in the region, this would have resulted in a bigger war which would certainly cost Trump his presidency.

Which brings us to the Russian task force in Syria. As I said, it is strong, then weak and then strong again. It all depends on your assumptions:

If we look just at the Russian task force in Khmeinim and Tartus, we see that it is protected by cutting edge Russian weapons systems including S-400s, Su-34s, Su-35S, EW stations, battle management stations, etc. This is more than enough to beat back a pretty powerful missile and/or bombing strike. In this case we can think of the Russian task force in Syria as very powerful and capable of dealing with many types of attack.

On the next level, however, it becomes obvious that the biggest weakness of the Russian task force in Syria has been, from day 1, its very small size. Irrespective of its sophistication, the Russian air defenses can be over-run by a determined attack by any combination of Axis of Kindness forces simply because at the end of the day, air defenses are always a part of a numbers game. Even in the best of cases, one Russian air defense missile can only engage one attacking missile or aircraft. For an attack to be successful, all the Axis of Kindness forces need to do is calculate how many missiles the Russians have, then shoot about 1.5x that number of (rather antiquated) Tomahawks, and once the Russians use up their stores, follow up with a second wave of missiles, this time modern and difficult to target ones. At this point the Russians would have to reply with only their AA artillery and their EW capabilities. Inevitably, there will come a point when they will be overwhelmed. In this scenario, Russia is the weaker party and the Russian task force is doomed in case of a sustained US/NATO/CENTCOM attack.

Finally, there is a third level which the AngloZionists have to consider: the Russians have made it pretty clear that in case of an attack on the Russian task force in Syria, Russia will use her strategic striking capabilities to protect her task force. Such measures could include: long range cruise missile attack and air strikes (possibly coming from the Iranian airspace). In this case, as my friend Andrey Martyanov explained many times, including in his article “Russia’s Stand-Off Capability: the 800 Pound Gorilla in Syria” which he concluded by the follow words:

“This simple, single operational fact shows precisely why for two years a relatively small Russian military contingent has been able to operate so effectively in Syria and, in fact, dictate conditions on the ground and in the area of its operations. The answer is simple—many adrenaline junkies are lowered in a cage into the water to face sharks, with only metal rods separating them and sharks’ deadly jaws. Yet, up there, in the boat one can always put a man with a gun which can be used in case of emergency to a deadly effect should the cage give. The Russian military contingent in Syria is not just some military base—it is the force tightly integrated with Russian Armed Forces that have enough reach and capability to make anyone face some extremely unpleasant choices, including the fact that it is Russia, not the US, who controls escalation to a threshold and that can explain a non-stop anti-Russian hysteria in US media since the outcome of the war in Syria became clear”

Here, again, we have the same stance as Iran’s: we don’t want war, but we are ready for it. One could say that the US stance is the polar opposite: we do want war (heck, we need it for political and economic reasons!), but we are completely unprepared for it (including psychologically).

Conclusion: remember all those who are now proven wrong!

Remember all the folks who predicted with absolute confidence that Russia was “selling out” Syria? They began their tune when Russia prevented a US attack on Syria by catching the US at its word and offering to remove all chemical weapons from Syria. Not only were these weapons useless, they were a prefect pretext for the Axis of Kindness to strike Syria. The US was livid, but had to accept. Well, all the “Putin/Russia is/are selling out” Syria immediately claimed that Russia was disarming Syria to make it easier for Israel to attack.

Yet, in reality, no (meaningful) Israeli attack ever materialized.

Then the same folks claimed that Russia “allowed” Israel to strike Syria, that the Russians turned off their S-300s/S-400s, etc, etc, etc.

Yet, in reality, the US pretty much gave up, while the Israelis claimed “hundreds” of sorties. Maybe they even did hit a few empty and therefore unprotected buildings, who knows?

Then there was the massive choir of trolls declaring that Russia would partition Syria. Yet, for all the convincing sounding arguments (at least to those who did not understand Russia or the Middle-East), one by one the various “good terrorists” strongholds fell to the Syrian military. Now more Syrian land has been liberated than ever before. As for the Turks, they can dream on about a bigger Turkey or about creating some kind of security/buffer zone, but they understand that they cannot do that if Russia and Syria both oppose this. In fact, Turkey has officially promised to respect the territorial integrity of Syria (see here, in Russian)

Memorandum of Understanding Between Turkey and the Russian Federation

October 22, 2019 (emphasis added by me, VS)

President of the Republic of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President of The Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin agreed on the following points:

1. The two sides reiterate their commitment to the preservation of the political unity and territorial integrity of Syria and the protection of national security of Turkey.

2. They emphasize their determination to combat terrorism in all forms and manifestations and to disrupt separatist agendas in the Syrian territory.

3. In this framework, the established status quo in the current Operation Peace Spring area covering Tel Abyad and Ras Al Ayn with a depth of 32 km will be preserved.

4. Both sides reaffirm the importance of the Adana Agreement. The Russian Federation will facilitate the implementation of the Adana Agreement in the current circumstances.

5. Starting 12.00 noon of October 23, 2019, Russian military police and Syrian border guards will enter the Syrian side of the Turkish-Syrian border, outside the area of Operation Peace Spring, to facilitate the removal of YPG elements and their weapons to the depth of 30 km from the Turkish-Syrian border, which should be finalized in 150 hours. At that moment, joint Russian-Turkish patrols will start in the west and the east of the area of Operation Peace Spring with a depth of 10 km, except Qamishli city.

6. All YPG elements and their weapons will be removed from Manbij and Tal Rifat.

7. Both sides will take necessary measures to prevent infiltrations of terrorist elements.

8. Joint efforts will be launched to facilitate the return of refugees in a safe and voluntary manner.

9. A joint monitoring and verification mechanism will be established to oversee and coordinate the implementation of this memorandum.

10. The two sides will continue to work to find a lasting political solution to the Syrian conflict within Astana Mechanism and will support the activity of the Constitutional Committee. The key elements of this MoU are

  1. US out, Russia in
  2. Syria’s borders cannot be changed

You can see the full press conference of Putin and Erdogan by clicking here.

Finally, this is the reaction of one of the worst AngloZionist propaganda outlets in Europe:

”Die Kapitulation des Westens” (The Capitulation of the West)

”Die Kapitulation des Westens” (The Capitulation of the West)

I can’t say that I disagree with their conclusion 

Finally, does this “capitulation talk” not remind you of something else we have all seen recently?

Yes, of course, the Ukronazi “Ні капітуляції!” (no to the capitulation!).

Again, what does all that talk of “capitulation” strongly suggest?

If this is not a triumph of Russian diplomacy then I don’t know what this is!

And, just for those who disagree, let me throw in a rhetorical question:

If Putin is such a loser who “sells out” everything and who works with/for Israel and for Netanyahu specifically, if Russia is so weak and clueless, why is it that it is not the Russian people who are denouncing a “capitulation” but, instead, why are all the enemies of Russia freaking out about capitulating?

* * *

And now, where do we go from here?

Actually, I am very cautiously optimistic since there is a huge difference between Russia and the US: the US needs constant wars simply in order to survive, whereas Russia needs peace to flourish. Now that the Russians are the biggest player in the Middle-East (well, with the Iranians, of course), they will use the fact that they have pretty good relationships with everybody, including (former?) enemies of Russia like the KSA or the UAE.

Of course, there shall be no peace between Israel and the rest of the Middle-East, if only because by its very nature Israel is a mortal threat to every country in the region, even for countries which currently eagerly collaborate with Israel (like the KSA). The only way for the long suffering Middle-East to finally live in peace again would be for the Zionist “occupation regime over Jerusalem to vanish from the arena of time” to use the famous, and often mistranslated, words of Ayatollah Khomeini. The current Iranian Supreme leader also clearly spelled out the only manner in which the Palestinian question can be solved peace will be achieved in the Middle-East:

“The Islamic Republic’s proposal to help resolve the Palestinian issue and heal this old wound is a clear and logical initiative based on political concepts accepted by world public opinion, which has already been presented in detail. We do not suggest launching a classic war by the armies of Muslim countries, or throwing immigrant Jews into the sea, or mediation by the UN and other international organizations. We propose holding a referendum with [the participation of] the Palestinian nation. The Palestinian nation, like any other nation, has the right to determine their own destiny and elect the governing system of the country.”

Both Iranian leaders are absolutely correct. There shall never be peace in the region as long as a crazed racist regime which has only contempt for the rest of the planet continues its slow motion genocide of the indigenous population of Palestine.

In the meantime, now that Syria, Russia, Iran, the Houthis, Hezbollah and the Shia forces in Iraq have successfully shown Uncle Shmuel the door out of Syria, the last Israeli plan (a “plan Z” perhaps) has now collapsed along with any hopes of creating an independent Kurdistan.

Israel is in no condition to take on such a powerful coalition. I would argue that even the US cannot win against this force, even if it still is capable of triggering a bloodbath (just like the Israelis did in 2006).

Of all the strategic collapses we have seen under the Obama and Trump presidencies, the loss of influence in the Middle-East is probably the biggest one of them all. This is a very positive development for the region and for the world. Now let’s just hope that whoever makes it into the White House in 2020 will understand that this is a done deal and will not try to make “the Empire great again” and reverse that course as any such attempts will result in a major regional war.

PS: here is a video of the “best military in history” being pelted by stones and veggies by disgusted Kurds while the US forces evacuate in a hurry. Really says it all, doesn’t it? Feel the love 

It also appears that the same sentiment is shared by the Iraqis who are now trying to take legal action to finally also give the boot to Uncle Shmuel, see here: https://www.rt.com/news/471645-iraq-pleads-un-help-us-troops/

Again, feel the love, the respect and the (lack) of fear ← Zelenskii in Free Fall

Posted in Middle East, SyriaComments Off on Revisiting the Win-Win-Win-Win Outcome in Syria

9/11 Was an Israeli Job

How America was neoconned into World War IV

Technical impossibilities

Thanks to courageous investigators, many anomalies in the official explanation of the events of 9/11 were posted on the Internet in the following months, providing evidence that this was a false flag operation, and that Osama bin Laden was innocent, as he repeatedly declared in the Afghan and Pakistani press and on Al Jazeera.[1] The proofs of this appalling fraud have been accumulating ever since, and are now accessible to anyone willing to spend a few hours of research on the Web. (Although, while preparing this article, I noticed that Google is now making access to that research more difficult than it was five years ago, artificially prioritizing anti-conspiracy sites.)

For example, members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have demonstrated that it was impossible for plane crashes and jet fuel fires to trigger the collapse of the Twin Towers. Even Donald Trump understood this. In fact, speaking of “collapse” is perhaps misleading: the towers literally exploded, pulverizing concrete and projecting pieces of steel beams weighing several hundred tons hundreds of meters laterally at high speeds. The pyroclastic dust that immediately flooded through the streets, not unlike the dust from a volcano, indicates a high temperature mixture of hot gasses and relatively dense solid particles, an impossible phenomenon in a simple collapse. It is also impossible that WTC7, another skyscraper (47 stories), which had not been hit by a plane, collapsed into its own footprint at near free-fall speed, unless by “controlled demolition.”

Testimonies of firefighters recorded shortly after the events describe sequences of explosions just before the “collapse”, well below the plane impact. The presence of molten metal in the wreckage up to three weeks after the attack is inexplicable except by the presence of incompletely burned explosives. Firefighter Philip Ruvolo testified before Étienne Sauret’s camera for his film Collateral Damages (2011): “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel—molten steel running down the channelways, like you were in a foundry—like lava.”

Aviation professionals have also reported impossibilities in the behavior of the planes. The charted speeds of the two aircraft hitting the Twin Towers, 443 mph and 542 mph, exclude these aircraft being Boeing 767s, because these speeds are virtually impossible near ground level. In the unlikely event such speeds could be attained without the aircraft falling apart, flying them accurately into the towers was mission impossible, especially by the amateur pilots blamed for the hijacking. Hosni Mubarak, a former pilot, said he could never do it. (He is not the only head of state to have voiced his doubts: Chavez and Ahmadinejad are among them.) Recall that neither of the black boxes of the jetliners was ever found, an incomprehensible situation.

And of course, there are the obvious anomalies of Shanksville and Pentagon crash sites: no plane or credible plane debris can be seen on any of the numerous photos easily available.

Inside Job or Mossad Job?

Among the growing number of Americans who disbelieve the official version of the 9/11 attacks, two basic theories are in competition: I called them “inside job” and “Mossad job”. The first one is the dominant thesis within the so-called 9/11 Truth movement, and blames the American government, or a faction within the American Deep State. The second one claims that the masterminds were members of a powerful Israeli network deeply infiltrated in all spheres of power within the US, including media, government, military and secret services.

This “Mossad job” thesis has been gaining ground since Alan Sabrosky, a professor at the U.S. Army War College and the U.S. Military Academy, published in July 2012 an article entitled “Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake”, where he voiced his conviction that September 11thwas “a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation.”

We can notice from the outset that incriminating Israelis or Arabs are both “outside job” theories (in fact, they are mirror images of each other, which is understandable in light of what Gilad Atzmon explains about Jewish “projected guilt”).[2] Before even looking at the evidence, “outside job” sounds more credible that “inside job”. There is something monstrous in the idea that a government can deceive and terrorize its own citizens by killing thousands of them, just for starting a series of wars that are not even in the nation’s interest. By comparison, a foreign power attacking the U.S. under the false flag of a third power almost seems like fair play. Indeed suspicion of Israel’s role should be natural to anyone aware of the reputation of the Mossad as: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act,” in the words of a report of the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies quoted by the Washington Times, September 10th, 2001 — the day before the attacks.

This is an important point, because it raises the question of how and why the 9/11 Truth movement has been led to endorse massively the outrageous “inside job” thesis without even considering the more likely thesis of an attack by a foreign power acting under an Islamic false flag—and what foreign power but Israel would do that?

Of course, the two dissenting theses do not necessarily exclude each other; at least, no one incriminating Israel denies that corrupted elements from the American administration or deep state were involved. The “passionate attachment” between Israel and the U.S. has been going on for decades, and 9/11 is one of its monstruous offsprings.

I can think of no better symbol of that reality than the marriage of Ted and Barbara Olson. Ted Oslon, after having defended Bush in the disputed 2000 election, had been rewarded with the post of Solicitor General (he also defended Dick Cheney when he refused to submit to Congress Enron-related documents). Barbara was a famous CNN reporter, but before that, she was born Barbara Kay Bracher of Jewish parents, educated at Yeshiva University School of Law, and hired by the legal firm WilmerHale, of which Jamie Gorelick, a future member of the 9/11 Commission, was also a member, and whose clients include powerful Israeli firms like Amdocs, a digital communication company charged with spying for Israel in the United States. On September 11, 2001, Barbara Olson alledgedly was on flight AA77, from which she made two telephone calls to her husband. Her calls were reported on CNN in the afternoon, and contributed to crystallize some details of the official story, such as the “box cutters” used as only weapons by the hijackers. Repeatedly invited on television shows after 9/11, Ted Olson frequently contradicted himself when questioned about the calls from his wife. In a 2006 report, the FBI identified only one call from Barbara Olson, and it was an unconnected call lasting 0 seconds. Like all other reported phone calls from desperate passengers (including the famous “Hi, Mom. This is Mark Bingham”), Barbara’s call was simply impossible, because the technology required to make high-altitude phone calls was not developed until 2004.[3]

9/11 was made possible by an alliance between secret worshippers of Israel and corrupted American elements. The question is: who, of the two, were the masterminds of this incredibly daring and complex operation, and for what “higher purpose”?

Another question is: why do those who keep repeating as a mantra “9/11 was an inside job” ignore totally the compelling evidence pointing to Israel? In other words, to what extent do they constitute a “controlled opposition” intended to cover up for Israel? Asking this type of question does not mean suspecting anyone who defends an erroneous or incomplete theory of being a hypocrite. Most people defending one theory or the other do so sincerely, based on the information to which they have access. I have myself been a believer in the official theory for 7 years, and in the “inside job” theory for 2 years, before progressively moving on to the present argument from 2010. On the other hand, we can assume that those who lead the public into error on a long term are not just mistaken but lying. In any case, it is legitimate to investigate the background of opinion makers, and when they are caught lying or distorting the truth, we can speculate on their motivation. I will come back to this issue at the end of the article.

The dancing Israelis

Researchers who believe Israel orchestrated 9/11 cite the behavior of a group of individuals who have come to be known as the “dancing Israelis” since their arrest, though their aim was to pass as “dancing Arabs.” Dressed in ostensibly “Middle Eastern” attire, they were seen by various witnesses standing on the roof of a van parked in Jersey City, cheering and taking photos of each other with the WTC in the background, at the very moment the first plane hit the North Tower. The suspects then moved their van to another parking spot in Jersey City, where other witnesses saw them deliver the same ostentatious celebrations.

One anonymous call to the police in Jersey City, reported the same day by NBC News, mentioned “a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there. They look like Palestinians and going around a building. […] I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniforms. […] He’s dressed like an Arab.” The police soon issued the following BOLO alert (be-on-the-look-out) for a “Vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack. White, 2000 Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration with ‘Urban Moving Systems’ sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center. Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion.”

By chance, the van was intercepted around 4 pm, with five young men inside: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omer Marmari. Before any question was asked, the driver, Sivan Kurzberg, burst out: “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem”.The Kurzberg brothers were formally identified as Mossad agents. All five officially worked for a moving company (a classic cover for espionage) named Urban Moving Systems, whose owner, Dominik Otto Suter, fled the country for Tel Aviv on September 14.[4]

This event was first reported the day after the attacks by journalist Paulo Lima in the New Jersey newspaper The Bergen Record, based on “sources close to the investigation” who were convinced of the suspects’ foreknowledge of the morning’s attacks: “It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park”.The 579-page FBI report on the investigation that followed (partially declassified in 2005) reveals several important facts. First, once developed, the photos taken by the suspects while watching the North Tower on fire confirm their attitudes of celebration: “They smiled, they hugged each other and they appeared to ‘high five’ one another”. To explain their contentment, the suspects said they were simply happy that, thanks to these terrorist attacks, “the United States will take steps to stop terrorism in the world”. Yet at this point, before the second tower was hit, most Americans believed the crash was an accident. The five Israelis were found connected to another company called Classic International Movers, which employed five other Israelis arrested for their contacts with the nineteen presumed suicide hijackers. In addition, one of the five suspects had called “an individual in South America with authentic ties to Islamic militants in the middle east”. Finally, the FBI report states that the “The vehicle was also searched by a trained bomb-sniffing dog which yielded a positive result for the presence of explosive traces”.

After all this incriminating evidence comes the most puzzling passage of the report: its conclusion that “the FBI no longer has any investigative interests in the detainees and they should proceed with the appropriate immigration proceedings”. In fact, a letter addressed to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, dated September 25, 2001, proves that, less than two weeks after the events, the FBI federal headquarter had already decided to close the investigation, asking that “The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service should proceed with the appropriate immigration proceedings”. The five “dancing Israelis”, also known as “the high fivers”, were detained 71 days in a Brooklyn prison, where they first refused, then failed, lie detector tests. Finally, they were quietly returned to Israel under the minimal charge of “visa violation.” Three of them were then invited on an Israeli TV talk show in November 2001, where one of them ingenuously declared: “Our purpose was simply to document the event.”

The Israeli spy network

The five “dancing Israelis,” the only suspects arrested on the very day of the 9/11 attacks, were just the tip of an iceberg. In September 2001, the federal police were busy dismantling the largest Israeli spy network ever uncovered on American soil. In the summer preceding the attack, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) compiled a report which would be revealed to the public by the Washington Post on November 23rd, 2001, followed by a Carl Cameron’s four-part documentary broadcast on Fox News from December 11th, 2001. On March 14th, 2002, an article in French newspaper Le Monde signed by Sylvain Cypel also referred to the report, shortly before the French magazine Intelligence Online made it fully accessible on the Internet.[5]It said that 140 Israeli spies, aged between 20 and 30, had been arrested since March 2001, while 60 more were arrested after September 11. Generally posing as art students, they visited at least “36 sensitive sites of the Department of Defense.” “A majority of those questioned have stated they served in military intelligence, electronic signal intercept, or explosive ordnance units. Some have been linked to high-ranking officials in the Israeli military. One was the son of a two-star general, one served as the bodyguard to the head of the Israeli Army, one served in a Patriot mission unit.” Another, Peer Segalovitz, officer in the 605 Battalion of the Golan Heights, “acknowledged he could blow up buildings, bridges, cars, and anything else that he needed to.”[6]

Of special interest is the mention that “the Hollywood, Florida, area seems to be a central point for these individuals.”[7] More than 30 out of the 140 fake Israeli students identified before 9/11 lived in that city of 140,000 inhabitants. And this city also happens to be the place where fifteen of the nineteen alleged 9/11 Islamist hijackers had regrouped (nine in Hollywood, six in the vicinity), including four of the five supposed to have hijacked Flight AA11. What was the relationship between the Israeli spies and the Islamist terrorists? We were told by mainstream news that the former were monitoring the latter, but failed to report suspicious activities of these terrorists to American authorities. From such a presentation, Israel comes out clean, since a spy agency cannot be blamed for not sharing information with the country it is spying in. At worst, the Israeli Intelligence can be accused of “letting it happen”—a guarantee of impunity. In reality, the Israeli agents were certainly not just monitoring the future “hijackers,” but financing and manipulating them, before disposing of them. We know that Israeli Hanan Serfaty, who rented two flats near Mohamed Atta, had handled at least $100,000 in three months. And we also learned from the New York Times on February 19, 2009, that Ali al-Jarrah, cousin of the alleged hijacker of Flight UA93 Ziad al-Jarrah, had spent twenty-five years spying for the Mossad as an undercover agent infiltrating the Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah.

Israeli agents apparently appreciate operating under the cover of artists. Shortly before September 11, a group of fourteen Jewish “artists” under the name of Gelatininstalled themselves on the ninety-first floor of the north tower of the World Trade Center. There, as a work of “street art,” they removed a window and extended a wooden balcony. To understand what role this piece of scaffolding may have played, it must be remembered that the explosion supposedly resulting from the impact of the Boeing AA11 on the North Tower took place between the ninety-second and the ninety-eighth floors. With the only film of the impact on the North Tower being that of the Naudet brothers, who are under suspicion for numerous reasons, many researchers are convinced that no aircraft hit this tower, and that the explosion simulating the impact was provoked by pre-planted explosives inside the tower.

Floors ninety-three to one hundred of the North Tower were occupied by Marsh & McLennan, whose CEO was Jeffrey Greenberg, son of wealthy Zionist (and financier of George W. Bush) Maurice Greenberg, who also happens to be the owner of Kroll Inc., the firm in charge of security for the entire World Trade Center complex on 9/11. The Greenbergs were also the insurers of the Twin Towers and, on July 24, 2001, they took the precaution of having the contract reinsured by competitors. In November 2000, the board of directors of Marsh & McLennan was joined by (Lewis) Paul Bremer, the chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, who, on September 11, 2001, two hours only after the pulverization of the North Tower, would appear on NBC to name bin Laden as prime suspect, perfectly calm as 400 of his employees are missing (295 will finally be declared dead). “It is the day that will change our lives,” he said. “It is the day when the war that the terrorists declared on the US [. . .] has been brought home to the US.” In 2003, Bremer would be appointed administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to level the Iraqi state to the ground and oversee the theft of almost a trillion dollars intended for its reconstruction.

The super-sayanim

With Goldberg and Bremer, we have reached the upper level of the conspiracy, comprising a number of influential Jewish personalities, working inside and outside the U.S. government — super-sayanim, so to speak. The most representative of those outside government is Larry Silverstein, the real estate shark who, with his partner Frank Lowy, leased the Twin Towers from New York City in the spring of 2001. The head of the New York Port Authority, who granted Silverstein and Lowy the lease, was none other than Lewis Eisenberg, another member of the United Jewish Appeal Federation and former vice-president of AIPAC. It appeared that Silverstein had made a disastrous deal, because the Twin Towers had to be decontaminated for asbestos. The decontamination process had been indefinitely postponed since the 1980s because of its cost, estimated at nearly $1 billion in 1989. In 2001, the New York Port Authority had been all too happy to shift responsibility to Silverstein.

Immediately after acquiring the Twin Towers, Silverstein renegotiated the insurance contracts to cover terrorist attacks, doubling the coverage to $3.5 billion, and made sure he would retain the right to rebuild after such an event. After the attacks, he took his insurers to court in order to receive double compensation, claiming that the two planes were two separate attacks. After a long legal battle, he pocketed $4.5 billion. Silverstein is a leading member of the United Jewish Appeal Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, the biggest fundraiser for Israel (after the US government, which pays about $3 billion per year in aid to Israel). Silverstein also maintained “close ties with Netanyahu,” according to Haaretz (November 21, 2001): “The two have been on friendly terms since Netanyahu’s stint as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations. For years they kept in close touch. Every Sunday afternoon, New York time, Netanyahu would call Silverstein.” Besides being a powerful man, Larry is a lucky man: as he explained in this interview, every morning of the week, he had breakfast at the Windows on the World on top of the North Tower, but on September 11th, he had an appointment with his dermatologist.

Accomplices to the 9/11 false flag attack with strong Israeli connections should also be tracked at the other end of the trajectory of the planes reported to have crashed into the Twin Towers. Flights AA11 and UA175 took off from Logan Airport in Boston, which subcontracted their security to International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), a firm based in Israel and headed by Menachem Atzmon, a treasurer of the Likud. So did Newark Airport where flight UA93 reportedly took off before crashing in Shanksville.

A serious investigation would follow many other trails, such as the Odigo instant messages received by employees at the WTC two hours before the plane crashes, as reported by Haaretzon September 27th, 2001. The first plane hit the WTC at the precise time announced, “almost to the minute,” admitted Alex Diamandis, vice-president of Odigo, headquartered in Israel. Also disturbing is the behavior of the American branch of Zim Israel Navigational, a maritime shipping giant 48% owned by the Jewish state (occasionally used as a cover for the Israeli secret services), which moved its offices from the WTC, along with its 200 employees, September 4th, 2001, one week before the attacks —“like an act of God, we moved”said the CEO Shaul Cohen-Mintz when interviewed by USA Today, November 17th, 2001.

But of course, none of these trails were ever pursued. That is because the most powerful conspirators were at the highest level of the Justice Department. Michael Chertoff was head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice in 2001, and responsible, among many other things, for securing the release of the Israeli agents arrested before and after 9/11, including the “dancing Israelis.” In 2003, this son of a rabbi and of a Mossad pioneer would be appointed Secretary of Homeland Security, in charge of counter-terrorism on the American soil, which allowed him to control dissenting citizens and restrain access to the evidence under the pretext of Sensitive Security Information.

Another chief of the cover-up was Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 presidential Commission established in November 2002. Zelikow is a self-styled specialist in the art of making “public myths” by “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene” (Wikipedia). In December 1998, he co-signed an article for Foreign Affairs entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated on what would have happened if the 1993 WTC bombing (already attributed to bin Laden) had been done with a nuclear bomb: “An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. … Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force.” This is the man who controlled the governmental investigation on the 9/11 terror attacks. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, who nominally led the commission, revealed in their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (2006), that the commission “was set up to fail” from the beginning. Zelikow, they claim, had already written a synopsis and a conclusion for the final report before the first meeting. He controlled all the working groups, prevented them from communicating with each other, and gave them as sole mission to prove the official story; Team 1A, for example, was tasked to “tell the story of Al-Qaeda’s most successful operation—the 9/11 attacks.”

A tight control of mainstream media is perhaps the most delicate aspect of the whole operation. I will not delve into that aspect, for we all know what to expect from the MSM. For a groundbreaking argument on the extent to which 9/11 was psy-op orchestrated by MSM, I recommend Ace Baker’s 2012 documentary 9/11 The Great American Psy-Operachapters 6, 7 and 8.

Machiavellian meta-Zionists

If we move up to the very highest level of the conspiracy, we find ourselves in Tel Aviv. The preparation for 9/11 coincided with the coming to power of Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, followed by Ehud Barak in July 1999, and Ariel Sharon in March 2001, who brought back Netanyahu as minister of Foreign Affairs in 2002 (with Netanyahu again becoming prime minister in 2009). It must be noted that both Netanyahu and Ehud Barak were temporarily out of the Israeli government in September 2001, just like Ben-Gurion at the time of Kennedy’s assassination (read my article on JFK). A few months before 9/11, Barak, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, was “recruited” as a consultant to a Mossad front company, SCP Partner, specializing in security and located less than seven miles from Urban Moving Systems.[8] One hour after the explosion of the North Tower, Barak was on BBC World to point the finger at bin Laden (the first to do so), and concluded: “It’s a time to launch an operational, complete war against terror.”

As for Netanyahu, we are not surprised to hear him boast, on CNN in 2006, of having predicted in 1995 that, “if the West doesn’t wake up to the suicidal nature of militant Islam, the next thing you will see is militant Islam bringing down the World Trade Center.” Netanyahu is exemplary of the ever closer “special relationship” between the US and Israel, which started with Truman and blossomed under Johnson. Netanyahu had lived, studied, and worked in the United States from 1960 to 1978, between his 11th and his 27th year—except during his military service—and again after the age of 33, when he was appointed deputy ambassador to Washington and then permanent delegate to the United Nations. Netanyahu appeared regularly on CNN in the early 1990s, contributing to the transformation of the world’s leading news channel into a major Zionist propaganda tool. His political destiny was largely planned and shaped in the United States, under the supervision of those we now call neoconservatives, and the only thing that distinguishes him from them is that, for public relations reasons, he does not possess American nationality.

“What’s a neocon?” once asked Bush 43 to his father Bush 41, after more than three years in the White House. “Do you want names, or a description?” answered 41. “Description.” “Well,” said 41, “I’ll give it to you in one word: Israel.”[9] That anecdote, quoted by Andrew Cockburn, sums it up. The neoconservative movement was born in the editorial office of the monthly magazine Commentary, which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945 as the press organ of the American Jewish Committee. “If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it,” wrote Gal Beckerman in the Jewish Daily ForwardJanuary 6, 2006. “It is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren.”

The founding fathers of neoconservatism (Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Donald Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Adam Shulsky) were self-proclaimed disciples of Leo Strauss, a German Jewish immigrant teaching at the University of Chicago. Strauss can be characterized as a meta-Zionist in the sense that, while an ardent supporter of the State of Israel, he rejected the idea that Israel as a nation should be contained within borders; Israel must retain her specificity, which is to be everywhere, he said in essence in his 1962 lecture “Why We Remain Jews.” Strauss would also approve of being called a Machiavellian, for in his Thoughts on Machiavellihe praised the “the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech” (p. 13). Machiavelli’s model of a prince was Cesar Borgia, the tyrant who after having appointed the cruel Ramiro d’Orco to subdue the province of Romania, had him executed with utter cruelty, thus reaping the people’s gratitude after having diverted their hatred onto another. Machiavelli, writes Strauss, “is a patriot of a particular kind: He is more concerned with the salvation of his fatherland than with the salvation of his soul” (p. 10). And that happens to be exactly what Jewishness is all about, according to Jewish thinkers such as Harry Waton: “The Jews that have a deeper understanding of Judaism know that the only immortality there is for the Jew is the immortality in the Jewish people” (read more here). As a matter of fact, in the Jewish World Review of June 7, 1999, Michael Ledeen, a neocon and founding member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), assumed that Machiavelli must have been a “secret Jew,” since “if you listen to his political philosophy you will hear Jewish music.”

The neoconservatives of the first generation originally positioned themselves on the far left. Irving Kristol, one of the main editors of Commentary, had long claimed to be a Trotskyist. It was soon after the 1967 successful annexation of Arab territories by Israel that the Straussians experienced their conversion to right-wing militarism, to which they owe their new name. Norman Podhoretz, editor-in-chief from 1960 to 1995, turned from anti-war activist to defense budget booster in the early 70s. He gave the following explanation in 1979: “American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs—from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood [. . .] that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.” (Breaking Ranks, p. 336). Leading the U.S. into war for the benefit of Israel is the essence of the Machiavellian crypto-Zionists known deceptively as neoconservatives.

The Project for a new (((American))) Century

The story of how the neoconservatives reached the position of influence they held under George W. Bush is a complicated one, which I can only outline. They entered the state apparatus for the first time in the baggage of Rumsfeld and Cheney, during president Ford’s cabinet reshuffle known as the “Halloween Massacre,” following Nixon’s resignation. When the Cold War calmed down after America evacuated its troops from Vietnam in 1973, and the CIA produced reassuring analyses of the USSR’s military capabilities and ambitions, Rumsfeld (as Secretary of Defense) and Cheney (as Chief of Staff) persuaded Ford to appoint an independent committee, known as Team B, to revise upward the CIA estimates of the Soviet threat, and reactivate a war attitude in public opinion, Congress, and Administration. Team B was chaired by Richard Pipes and co-chaired by Paul Wolfowitz, both introduced by Richard Perle.

During the Democratic parenthesis of the Carter presidency (1976–80), the neoconservatives worked at unifying the largest number of Jews around their policies, by founding the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which became the second-most powerful pro-Israel lobby after AIPAC. According to its “mission statement”, it is “dedicated to educating Congressional, military and civilian national security decision-makers on American defense and strategic interests, primarily in the Middle East, the cornerstone of which is a robust U.S.-Israeli security cooperation.” In 1980, the neocons were rewarded by Ronald Reagan for their support by a dozen posts in national security and foreign policy: Richard Perle and Douglas Feith to the Department of Defense; Richard Pipes at the National Security Council; Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Michael Ledeen in the State Department. They helped Reagan escalate the Cold War, showering billions of dollars on the military-industrial complex.

The long term planning of 9/11 probably started then. Isser Harel, founder of Israeli secret services (Shai in 1944, Shin Bet in 1948, Mossad until 1963) is reported as prophesizing in 1980, in an interview with Christian Zionist Michael Evans, that Islamic terrorism would end up hitting America in their “phallic symbol”: “Your biggest phallic symbol is New York City and your tallest building will be the phallic symbol they will hit”.[10] (A whole article would be needed to document and explain the revival of the Jewish gift of apocalyptic prophecy in recent decades.)

In 1996, during the Clinton years, the neoconservatives threw all their weight into their ultimate think tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), directed by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC recommended taking advantage of the defeat of communism to reinforce American hegemony by preventing the emergence of any rival. Their Statement of Principles vowed to extend the current Pax Americana, which entailed “a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges.” In its September 2000 report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses, PNAC anticipated that US forces must become “able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars.” This required a profound transformation, including the development of “a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements.” Unfortunately, according to the authors of the report, “the process of transformation […] is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” It is certainly no coincidence that the three-hour-long blockbuster Pearl Harbor was released in the summer 2001, conveniently entrenching the “New Pearl Harbor” meme into the minds of millions.

PNAC’s architects played the American hegemony card by draping themselves in the super-patriotic discourse of America’s civilizing mission. But their duplicity is exposed in a document brought to public knowledge in 2008: a report published in 1996 by the Israeli think tank Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realmwritten specifically for the new Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The team responsible for the report was led by Richard Perle, and included Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, who figured the same year among the signatories of PNAC. As its title suggests, the Clean Break report invited Netanyahu to break with the Oslo Accords of 1993, which officially committed Israel to the return of the territories it occupied illegally since 1967. The new prime minister should instead “engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism” and reaffirm Israel’s right to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

In November 2000, Bush Jr. was elected under conditions that raised protests of electoral fraud. Dick Cheney, who had directed his campaign, named himself vice-president and introduced two dozens neoconservatives in foreign policy key positions. The State Department was entrusted to Colin Powell, but he was surrounded with neocon aides such as David Wurmser. As National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, a specialist of Russia with no expertise in the Middle East, was entirely dependent on her neocon adviser Philip Zelikow. William Luti and Elliott Abrams, and later Eliot Cohen, were also tasked with steering Rice. But it was mainly from within the Defense Department under Donald Rumsfeld that the most influential neocons were able to fashion US foreign and military policy. Richard Perle occupied the crucial position of director of the Defense Policy Board, responsible for defining military strategy, while Paul Wolfowitz became the “soul of the Pentagon” as deputy secretary with Douglas Feith as under secretary.

The Hanukkah miracle to start WWIV

After eight months in the presidency, Bush was confronted with the “catastrophic event,” the “new Pearl Harbor” that PNAC had wished for a year earlier. 9/11 was a real “Hanukkah miracle” for Israel, commented Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy and Israeli National Security Council chairman Uzi Dayan. Netanyahu rejoiced: “It’s very good […] it will generate immediate sympathy […], strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.” On September 21, he published an op-ed in the New York Post entitled “Today, We Are All Americans,” in which he delivered his favorite propaganda line: “For the bin Ladens of the world, Israel is merely a sideshow. America is the target.” Three days later theNew Republic responded with a headline on behalf of the Americans: “We are all Israelis now.” Americans experienced 9/11 as an act of hatred from the Arab world, and they felt an immediate sympathy for Israel, which the neoconservatives relentlessly exploited. One of the aims was to encourage Americans to view Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians as part of the global fight against Islamic terrorism.

It was a great success. In the years preceding September 11, Israel’s reputation had bottomed out; condemnations had been raining from around the world for its policy of apartheid and colonization, and its systematic war against Palestinian command structures. Increasing numbers of American voices questioned the merits of the special relationship between the United States and Israel. From the day of the attacks, it was all over. As Americans now intended to fight Arab terrorists to the death, they would stop demanding from Israel more reasonable, proportionate retaliation against Palestinian suicide bombers and rockets.

Instead, the president’s speeches (written by neocon David Frum) characterized the 9/11 attacks as the trigger for a world war of a new type, one fought against an invisible enemy scattered throughout the Middle East. First, vengeance must come not only against bin Laden, but also against the state harboring him: “We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them” (Sept. 11). Second, the war extends to the world: “Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated” (Sept. 20). Third, any country that does not support Washington will be treated as an enemy: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (Sept. 20).

In an article in the Wall Street Journal dated November 20, 2001, the neoconservative Eliot Cohen dubbed the war against terrorism as “World War IV,” a framing soon echoed by other American Zionists (the odd choice of the name WWIV rather than WWIII comes, I suspect, from the neocons’ ethnocentric worldview, in which every world war is a step toward Greater Israel; since one major step was accomplished in 1967, the Cold War counts as WW3). In September 2004, at a conference in Washington entitled “World War IV: Why We Fight, Whom We Fight, How We Fight,” Cohen said: “The enemy in this war is not ‘terrorism’ […] but militant Islam.” Like the Cold War, the imminent world war, according to Cohen’s vision, has ideological roots, will have global implications, and will last a long time, involving a whole range of conflicts. The self-fulfilling prophecy of a new World War centered in the Middle East has also been popularized by Norman Podhoretz, in “How to Win World War IV” (Commentary, February 2002), followed by a second article in, “World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win,” (September 2004), and finally a book titled World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (2007).[11]

The hijacked conspiracy and the controlled opposition

In the case of 9/11 as in the case of Kennedy, controlled opposition operates on many levels, and many honest scholars now realize that the 9/11 Truth movement itself is partly channeled by individuals and groups secretly aiming at drawing suspicions away from Israel. Such is certainly the case of the three young Jews (Avery, Rowe, and Bermas) who directed the film Loose Change (2005), the most widely watched 9/11 conspiracy film since its first version in 2005. They hitched their whole thesis on a comparison with the never carried-out false flag project Operation Northwoods (timely revealed to the public in May 2001 in James Bamford’s book Body of Secrets, written with the support of former NSA director Michael Hayden, now working for Michael Chertoff), but they failed to mention the attack on the USS Liberty, a well-documented false flag attack by Israel on its U.S. ally. They did not breathe a word about the neoconservatives’ loyalty to Israel, and treat anyone who cited the Israeli role in 9/11 as anti-Semitic. The same can be said of Bermas’s more recent film Invisible Empire (2010), also produced by Alex Jones: a compilation of anti-imperialist clichés focusing on the Bushs and the Rockefellers, without a single hint of the (((Others))).

It is interesting to note that the 9/11 scenario put forward by Loose Change had actually been prewritten by Hollywood: on the 4th of March, 2001, Fox TV broadcast the first episode of the series The Lone Gunmenwatched by 13 million Americans. The plot is about computer hackers working for a secret cabal within the U.S. government, who hijack a jet by remote control with the intent to crash it into one of the Twin Towers, while making it appear to have been hijacked by Islamic terrorists. At the last seconds, the pilots manage to regain control of the plane. The purpose of the failed operation was to trigger a world war under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Truthers of the “inside job” school fancy that this episode must have been written by some whistleblower inside Fox. Unlikely!

There is, of course, some truth in the “inside job” theory, as I said at the beginning. Israel (in the wider sense) would not be able to pull such an operation and get away with it, without complicity at the highest level of U.S. government. How does that work? Pretty much like for the Kennedy assassination, if you consider that the country was then ruled by its vice-president Dick Cheney, the president being a mere dummy (see Lou Dubose and Jake Bernstein, Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency, Random House, 2006). In my book JFK-9/11, I have proposed a plausible scenario of how Israel had in fact hijacked a smaller false flag attack on the Pentagon fabricated by the American Deep State, for the limited purpose of justifying the overthrow of the Talibans in Afghanistan, a goal fully supported by such “Great Gamers” as Zbigniew Brzezinski, but which didn’t in itself interest the neocons.

What the neocons wanted was a new war against Iraq and then a general conflagration in the Middle East leading to the crumbling of all the enemies of Israel, with Syria and Iran high on the list. So they outbid everyone and gave the operation the scale they wanted with the help of their New York super-sayan Silvertein. George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and other goyim who had been kept out of the loop, finding themselves embroiled in geopolitical machinations of global scope, could merely try to save face. On September 19 and 20, Richard Perle’s Defense Policy Board met in the company of Paul Wolfowitz and Bernard Lewis (inventor of the self-fulfilling prophecy of the “clash of civilizations”) but in the absence of Powell and Rice. They prepared a letter to Bush, written on PNAC letterhead, to remind him of his historic mission: “Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”[12]This was an ultimatum. Bush was certainly aware of the leverage that the neocons had acquired over the major print and television media. He was obliged, under penalty of ending in the proverbial trash bin of history, to endorse the invasion of Iraq that his father had refused the Zionists ten years earlier.

As for Brzezinski and other genuine U.S. imperialists, their support for the invasion of Afghanistan made their timid protests against the Iraq war ineffective. It was a little late in February 2007 when Brzezinski denounced before the Senate “a historical, strategic and moral calamity […] driven by Manichaean impulses and imperial hubris.” In 2012 he declared, regarding the risk of conflagration with Iran, that Obama should stop following Israel like a “stupid mule.” He soon disappeared from the MSM, as a useful idiot no longer useful.

The “half truth” of the exclusively “inside job” theory, which denounces 9/11 as a false flag operation perpetrated by the American state on its own citizens, functions like a secondary false flag hiding the real masters of the operation, who are in fact agents in the service of a foreign nation. One of the aims of this inside-jobish controlled opposition is to force American officials to maintain the “bin Laden did it” masquerade, knowing that tearing apart the fake Islamic flag would only reveal the U.S. flag, not the Israeli flag. No longer controlling the media, they would not have the means to raise this second veil to expose Israel. Any effort to get at the truth would be political suicide. Everyone understands what is at stake: if one day, under mounting pressure from public opinion or for some other strategic reason, the mainstream media abandons the official bin Laden story, the well-rehearsed slogan “9/11 was an inside job” will have prepared Americans to turn against their own government, while the neocon Zionists will remain untouchable (Machiavelli’s method: make another accomplish your dirty ends, then turn popular vengeance against him). And God knows what will happen, if the government has not by then succeeded in disarming its citizens through Sandy Hook-type psy-ops. Government officials have little choice but to stick to the Al-Qaeda story, at least for the next fifty years.

After reaching this conclusion in JFK-9/11, I had the satisfaction of finding that Victor Thorn, in a book that had eluded me (Made in Israel: 9-11 and the Jewish Plot Against America, Sisyphus Press, 2011), had already expressed it in harsher terms: “In essence, the ‘9-11 truth movement’ was created prior to Sept. 11, 2001 as a means of suppressing news relating to Israeli complicity. By 2002–2003, ‘truthers’ began appearing at rallies holding placards that read ‘9-11 was an inside job.’ Initially, these signs provided hope for those who didn’t believe the government and mainstream media’s absurd cover stories. But then an awful realization emerged: The slogan ‘9-11 was an inside job’ was quite possibly the greatest example of Israeli propaganda ever devised. […] The mantra, ‘9-11 was an inside job’ is only partially true and is inherently damaging to the ‘truth movement’ because it shifts all attention away from Israel’s traitorous assault against America. […] Leaders of these fake 9-11 groups know the truth about Israel’s 9-11 barbarity. Their willingness to perpetuate or cover it up ultimately makes them as guilty and vile as those who launched the attacks. There are no degrees of separation in this matter. It’s a black-and-white issue. Tell the entire truth about Israel’s Murder, Inc. cabal, or sleep in the same infected bed as these murdering dogs lie in. […] Faux conspiratologists complain about the government and news sources not telling the truth, yet they’ve erected an utter blackout on data regarding Israel and 9-11.”

The missing .3 trillion

Some readers will complain that I am making a very complex operation appear too simple. I plead guilty: I have merely tried here to outline the case against Israel in the short scope of an article. But I am fully aware that creating Greater Israel through a world war fought by the U.S. might not have been the only consideration in the preparation of 9/11. Many private interests had to be involved. Yet I believe none of them interfered with Israel’s plan, and most of them supported it.

There is, for example, the missing gold in the WTC basement : $200 million were recovered from the estimated $1 billion stored: who took the rest? But that is nothing compared to the $2.3 trillion that were missing from the accounts of the Department of Defense for the year 2000, in addition to $1.1 trillion missing for 1999, according to a televised declaration made on September 10th, 2001, the day before the attacks, by Donald Rumsfeld. Just for comparison, this is more than one thousand times the colossal losses of Enron, which triggered a chain of bankruptcies that same year. All this money evaporated into thin air under the watch of William Cohen, Defense Secretary during Bill Clinton’s second term. In 2001, the man who was tasked to help track down the missing trillions was Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Dov Zakheim, a member of PNAC and an ordained rabbi. Practically, the mystery had to be resolved by financial analysts at Resource Services Washington (RSW). Unfortunately, their offices were destroyed by “al-Qaeda” the following morning. The “hijackers” or Flight AA77, rather than hitting the command center on the eastern side of the Pentagon, chose to attempt a theoretically impossible downward spiral at 180 degrees in order to hit the west side of the building precisely at the location of the accounting offices. The 34 experts at RSW perished in their offices, together with 12 other financial analysts, as is noted in the biography of the team leader Robert Russell for the National 9/11 Pentagon Memorial: “The weekend before his death, his entire office attended a crab feast at the Russell home. They were celebrating the end of the fiscal-year budget completion. Tragically, every person that attended that party was involved in the Pentagon explosion, and are currently missing”.

By an incredible coincidence, one of the financial experts trying to make sense of the Pentagon financial loss, Bryan Jack, was reported to have died at the precise location of his office, not because he was working there that day, but because he was on a business trip on Flight AA77. In the words of the Washington Post database: “Bryan C. Jack was responsible for crunching America’s defense budget. He was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77, bound for official business in California when his plane struck the Pentagon, where, on any other day, Jack would have been at work at his computer”. Yahweh must have a sense of chutzpah!

Laurent Guyénot is the author of JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State, Progressive Press, 2014, and From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018. (or $30 shipping included from Sifting and Winnowing, POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556).

Footnotes

[1] Philippe Broussard, “En dépit des déclarations américaines, les indices menant à Ben Laden restent minces,” Le Monde, September 25, 2001.

[2] Gilad Atzmon, Being in Time: a Post-Political Manifesto, Interlink Publishing, 2017 p. 142.

[3] David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions, Arris Books, 2008, pp. 170-182; Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA, Progressive Press, 2008, pp. 321-324.

[4] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, pp. 278–280.

[5] It is quoted here from Bollyn’s book and from Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection, iUniverse, 2003.

[6] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, p. 159.

[7] Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection, iUniverse, 2003, p. 3.

[8] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World, 2012 pp. 278-280.

[9] Quoted by Andrew Cockburn, who claims to have heard the anecdote from “friends of the family”, in Rumsfeld: His Rise, His fall, and Catastrophic Legacy, Scribner, 2011, p. 219.

[10] Michael Evans told of this prophecy in an interview with Deborath Calwell and in his book The American Prophecies, Terrorism and Mid-East Conflict Reveal a Nation’s Destiny), quoted in Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, p. 71.

[11] Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, Enigma Edition, 2008, p. 193.

[12] Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, Enigma Edition, 2008, p. 144.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on 9/11 Was an Israeli Job

“Do Jews Think Differently?”: Aspects of Jewish Self-Glorification

ANDREW JOYCE 

“What hollow, offensive self-glorification! Here it is ‘proved’ that the nation of Kant was really educated to humanity by the Jews only, that the language of Lessing and Goethe became sensitive to beauty, spirit, and wit only through Boerne and Heine!”
Heinrich von Treitschke, A Word About Our Jewry, 1879.

As indicated by the above quote from the nineteenth-century German historian and politician Heinrich von Treitschke, self-glorification has long been a noted feature of Jewish ethnocentrism and has frequently contributed to anti-Jewish feeling in host populations. It is almost entirely absent, however, from existing studies of anti-Semitism. Primarily, this absence can be explained by way of the fact anti-Semitism is, in the received wisdom, something that Jews are subjected to by hostile host populations for irrational reasons, rather than something that Jews have a role in causing or provoking. Jewish behavior, especially the kind of behavior involving traits that are negative or antagonistic to outgroups, is therefore remarkably neglected in Jewish historiography and social science studies concerning Jews. A secondary explanation for the neglect of Jewish self-glorification in the development of anti-Semitism, or even simply as an aspect of the Jewish identity or personality, is the scarcity of serious studies of Jewish ethnocentrism. The following essay attempts to address this gap by exploring aspects and examples of Jewish self-glorification, and puts forward the hypothesis that Jewish self-glorification should be regarded as an example of both positive and negative ethnocentrism — that it reinforces in-group loyalties and self-esteem while weakening the loyalties and self-esteem of outgroups.

Jews have a joke among themselves that goes something like this: A class of schoolchildren is asked to produce an essay about giraffes; little Tom Smith hands in a piece on the neck; little John Baker writes about its diet; others write about the tail, the environment, and so on. Then little Benny Cohen hands in his paper, and it is titled “The Giraffe and the Jews.”

The joke, little-known among non-Jews, conveys an important truism — that, for Jews, everything, no matter how distant or abstract, often comes back to the idea and feeling of being Jewish. In other words, it is a joke about Jewish ethnocentrism. That non-Jews aren’t very familiar with the joke speaks to the fact that Jewish ethnocentrism is something that is very frequently discussed and celebrated by Jews, but also something that is frequently downplayed, obscured, or even denied when queried by outgroups. As such, it shouldn’t be surprising that there is very little objective scholarly literature that explicitly deals with the way in which Jews see and regard one another, and how they regard themselves as Jews. More generally, it has been noted that Jews are averse to being objectively studied at all, and are notoriously unresponsive to census questions, resulting in a persistent inability to accurately determine their population size in almost every Diaspora country.[1] This aversion to censuses has been explained as a cultural relic of reactive past responses to persecution, although there is a case to be made that it developed over time for more proactive, deliberate and strategic reasons, such as assisting in the avoidance of military service in the Russian Empire, and the evasion of quantitative population restrictions in Jewish residence charters issued in early modern Europe.[2]

Jewish Ethnocentrism

In addition to census avoidance, it is notable that there is a general air of hostility towards other forms of gathering data about Jews and their behavior. It is especially interesting that, while studies of Jewish ethnocentrism carried out in the last fifty years are rare, objective studies of Jews have frequently been regarded as controversial or even as examples of prejudice. The quintessential case in this regard is of course that of Kevin MacDonald, but as Sander Gilman has demonstrated in Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence (1996), there have also been very negative responses to work carried out on Jewish intelligence and behaviors by Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, Henry Harpending, Charles Murrary, and Richard Lynn. One could speculate that Jews are averse to objective studies of their aptitudes and behaviors because they are aware that at least some of these findings would reflect negatively on their group and provide some cause for revising the prevailing understanding of anti-Semitism and contemporary Jewish politics. Jews, it could be argued, are averse to studies of Jewish ethnocentrism because they are probably aware that such studies would reveal them to be highly ethnocentric, a fact that could prove extremely problematic if it became widespread cultural knowledge in a host population.

The small number of studies that have explicitly and directly examined Jewish ethnocentrism have unanimously concluded that Jews are a highly ethnocentric group that scores very highly in both positive (ingroup self-esteem) and negative (hostility to outgroups) ethnocentrism. Jewish children identify themselves as Jews as early as five years of age.[3] Smooha’s 1987 study of Jewish ethnocentrism in Israel, published in the Routledge journal Ethnic and Racial Studies, found it to “contain an excessive or unjustified element of superiority,” and “an unwarranted expectation of Jews to be treated preferentially.” Smooha’s findings “clearly expose ethnocentric excesses among the Jews,” and indicated that by certain metrics “virtually all Israeli Jews are racist.” It was found that while Arab ethnocentrism in Israel was “mainly reactive and transformable,” “Jewish ethnocentrism looks both genuine and intractable.”[4] In a more recent study (2003), Brown et al. examined ingroup romantic preferences among American Jewish and non-Jewish White undergraduates and found that Jews had a “significantly greater” preference for their own group, and that the stronger a respondent identified as a Jew, the stronger was the respondent’s preference for a Jewish romantic partner.[5] These respondents were also more likely to more favorably evaluate the Jewish people as a whole “on every target rating.” In short, Jewish identity is very strongly linked to positive ethnocentrism and endogamy (marrying within one’s group).

A particularly interesting aspect of the study by Brown et al. is the response to increasing rates of intermarriage among American Jews. Jewish intermarriage has been raised as evidence by some scholars objecting to analyses of Jewish ethnocentrism, most notably and recently by Nathan Cofnas.[6] However, as Brown et al. note, given more than a century of intense assimilation and acceptance by the host population and a population size of only around 3%, “an endogamy rate [among Jews] of 50% is surprisingly high.” They add that intermarriage rates are highest in those areas where the number of eligible in-group partners is very low, and point out that their study of college students indicates that ethnocentric preferences remain very strong in Jews, even the young. Cofnas has also posited that intermarriage and subsequent gene dilution should be regarded as evidence against Kevin MacDonald’s theory that Jews have acted to facilitate the continued genetic distinctiveness of the Jewish gene pool in the United States. Here it is worth considering the Judaic scholar Simon Rawidowicz who coined the term “the ever-dying people” to describe the Jews. In every generation, he noted, there are concerns (real or imagined) about Jewish survival. Yet this very concern about survivability was what helped to ensure that the community would continue to live, and even thrive. In plain terms, Jews, still enjoying a “surprisingly high” rate of endogamy, can afford the collateral damage of moderate levels of intermarriage, and in some respects the panic it causes can even be beneficial in facilitating the continued genetic distinctiveness of the Jewish gene pool among the strongly-identified and highly ethnocentric core of the population.

Jewish Self-Glorification

As a highly ethnocentric population, Jews would be expected to exhibit high levels of self-esteem at group level. Individual self-esteem has been linked to both sense of ethnic identity, and to ethnic self-esteem,[7] and although direct studies of the extent and nature of Jewish self-esteem are almost non-existent one study of Jewish adolescents has indicated a strong correlation between feeling Jewish and feeling good about oneself and one’s group.[8] In fact, one 1968 study found that Jewish individuals with low personal self-esteem could boost their overall self-esteem by adopting a stronger group identity and, in a sense, drawing on the self-esteem of simply being Jewish.[9] Similarly, a 1981 study found that Jews, as a group, had higher self-esteem than both Protestants and Catholics, who were roughly equal in self-esteem.[10] A more anecdotal indicator of Jewish self-esteem at the group level is the very strong group reaction towards those Jews who are even slightly critical of Jewish identity and “being Jewish,” most obviously in the form of the obviously excessive “self-hating Jew” accusation that is often made against Jewish defectors from the self-esteem norm. It is especially interesting that scholars who oppose work on Jewish ethnocentrism are also prominent in making Jewish “self-hatred” accusations, and Sander Gilman is again notable in this regard with his Jewish Self-Hatred (1986). This policing of positive perspectives of Jews among the in-group and outgroup is an excellent example of the dual function of Jewish self-glorification, which is arguably the most flamboyant and contentious aspect of Jewish positive ethnocentrism and high Jewish self-esteem.

Self-glorification is commonly defined as the exaltation of oneself and one’s abilities, though one could add that it entails excessive or unjustified elements of superiority. Individually, high levels of self-glorification are correlated strongly with psychopathy.[11] A small number of studies have found that groups demonstrating feelings of exaggerated self-love and superiority were more prone to desires or attempts to dominate other groups.[12] It is interesting in this respect that Patai (1996) quotes Menahem Nahum, an eighteenth century rabbi as follows: “All nations, with the exception of Israel, lack understanding [intelligence], and because they lack understanding no country can forgo Jewish leadership.”[13] Jews have exhibited excessive or unjustified elements of superiority for many centuries, most evidently in the foundational texts of their religion which posit Jews as favored by a sole universal deity, destined to dominate other groups, and establish moral hierarchies in which outgroups can be treated badly. Even in the New Testament of Christians, one finds the statement that “Salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22), and Jesus is mentioned as comparing a non-Jew to a dog (Matthew 15:26).

Later, in their interactions with Western culture, Jews frequently had recourse to the exaltation of themselves and their real or imagined abilities. Patai argues that by the twentieth century such forthright confessions of supremacist thinking had evolved into a more guarded “environmentalist explanation of Jewish superiority.” These explanations follow a formulation that asserts Jewish superiority from a less aggressive stance, often accompanied by claims that Jews simply don’t have the cultural baggage of their hosts. As an example, Patai cites French Jews of the nineteenth century who claimed superiority over Frenchmen because they didn’t have the religious and cultural baggage of a Catholic upbringing. This compares remarkably well with a writer in the Times of Israel who, commenting on the activities of the Jewish politician Alan Shatter in promoting divorce and contraception in Ireland, has argued that Shatter’s Jewishness “appeared to put him at an advantage, freeing him from the baggage that weighed on his Catholic counterparts.” Similarly, David Dresser and Lester Friedman, Jewish scholars of the media, maintain the position that Jewish filmmakers have a unique, untainted objectivity because of their Jewishness. They write that “Jewish artists’ marginality allows them a vantage point denied other, more culturally absorbed, creative thinkers.”[14]

Environmentalist explanations of Jewish superiority, and therefore examples of Jewish self-glorification, are certainly alive and well in the present. On October 5th, Norman Lebrecht, the Jewish British commentator on music and cultural affairs, published a piece at The Spectator titled “Do Jews Think Differently?,” in which he argues that Jews possess “a common ancestral way of thinking” that has allowed them to “change the world as we know it.” He insists that there exists “a way of thinking that has allowed Jews to see the world from an oblique angle,” and continues “Do Jews think differently? The moment I asked that question, there could be only one answer. … Some dissenting Jew, somewhere, right now, is about to change the way the world revolves.” Lebrecht refers at length to his recently published Genius & Anxiety: How Jews Changed the World, 1847–1947 (Simon & Schuster, 2019), in the course of which he profiles 36 Jews who he claims are responsible (in a positive sense) for modernity. Lebrecht is a strongly identified Jew who clearly has a high level of self-esteem at the group level. He also has a history of producing texts that have advanced Jewish self-glorification. For example, in a 2011 Occidental Observer review essay (of Lebrecht’s Why Mahler? How One Man and Ten Symphonies Changed the World), Brenton Sanderson argues that

The focus here is on alerting us to fact of Mahler’s towering genius, and how this genius was inextricably bound up with his identity as a Jew. Overlaying this, as ever, is the lachrymose vision of Mahler the saintly Jewish victim of gentile injustice. Lebrecht’s new book is another reminder of how Jewish intellectuals have used their privileged status as self-appointed gatekeepers of Western culture to advance their group interests through the way they conceptualize the respective artistic achievements of Jews and Europeans. … This betokens an acknowledgement of the importance of ethnic role models in the promotion of ethnic pride and group cohesion, and how ethnocentric Jews, like Lebrecht, have hyped the former to promote the latter. This form of Jewish intellectual activity is clearly directed at influencing ‘social categorization processes in a manner that benefits Jews.’

The unique aspect of Jewish self-glorification is not just the production of books like Lebrecht’s, but the scale and uniformity of such production, and the resulting broader cultural impact. Other groups have at times produced self-glorifying texts, for example, Thomas Cahill’s How the Irish Saved Civilization (1995), and Arthur Herman’s How the Scots Invented the Modern World (2001), but these are extreme rarities, these authors have also written about unrelated subjects, and these texts do not appear to be accompanied by particularly high levels of ethnic self-esteem or associated factors of ethnocentrism in their respective ethnic groups. By contrast, Lebrecht’s book is simply part of a steady production of texts in which Jews celebrate themselves, often with extremely tendentious claims and outlandish and misplaced self-congratulation. Lebrecht’s latest text, for example, is almost a reprint of Jacques Picard’s Makers of Jewish Modernity: Thinkers, Artists, Leaders, and the World They Made (Princeton, 1998), and this in turn is part of a tradition that includes Heinrich Graetz’s 11-volume Geschichte der Juden (1853-1870), Cecil Roth’s The Jewish Contribution to Civilization (1938), Fredric Bedoire’s The Jewish Contribution to Modern Architecture (2004), and Rebecca Goldstein’s Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity (2006) ( see here for an examination of how Spinoza has been a particular focus for Jewish self-glorification).

A fundamental problem with many of these texts, and a contributing factor to anti-Semitism, is that they very frequently involve Jews taking exclusive credit for accomplishments in which their role has been disputed, minor, or even entirely absent. Heinrich von Treitschke’s 1879 complaint at the opening of this essay concerned the efforts of the Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz to promote the idea that Jews were due credit for the work of Kant and the literature of Lessing and Goethe. It is noteworthy that the effort to claim credit for the work of Goethe is ongoing among Jews today, most prominently in two works, Klaus Berghahn’s Goethe in German-Jewish Culture(2001) and Karin Schutjer’s Goethe and Judaism (2015). Efforts have also been made, on the flimsiest of evidence, to suggest that Miguel de Cervantes, author of Don Quixote (1605), was Jewish, and as Sanderson has noted, there have been claims that Shakespeare’s works were actually written by a Jewish woman named Amelia Bassano Lanier. Jews have also attempted to demonstrate the Plato’s “dependence on Moses” (see, for a modern example, Carlos Fraenkel’s Philosophical Religions from Plato to Spinoza).

Richard Popkin (1923–2005), a Manhattan-born Jewish academic working in the history of philosophy, was particularly notable for his efforts in Jewish self-glorification. While working on raising the profile of Spinoza via dubious methodologies, Popkin employed equally questionable methods and arguments to raise the profile of another Enlightenment-era Jew, Isaac La Peyrere. Popkin wrote: “I have tried for over a decade to make him one of the central figures in modern thought, but have not yet succeeded in completely rescuing him from obscurity.”[15] Even though La Peyrere’s accomplishments are regarded as marginal by almost every non-Jewish academic in the field, Popkin was at the forefront of efforts in the 1970s to displace Thomas Hobbes with La Peyrere as the most influential and significant critic of the idea of Mosaic authorship of the Old Testament, an attempt which ultimately failed because of a resolute scholarly consensus on the “archetypal originality” of Hobbes’ critique of religion. Popkin later turned his attention to linking La Peyrere to Spinoza, even though he admitted “no document attesting to this has been found,” and that in relation to Spinoza’s supposed use of La Peyrere’s works “one can only speculate.” Elsewhere, Popkin devoted himself to “proving” the “Jewish inheritance” of Isaac Newton, whom he wished to present as a “follower of Maimonides.”[16]

The Zionist thinker Walter Goldstein wrote in 1942, in relation to figures like Goethe, Mozart, Bach, Schiller, Lessing and Kant, that the meaning of the Diaspora was to “absorb the alien and learn from it — but to learn from it for us, for our own purpose”[17] [emphasis in original]. Trends in modern Jewish academia and culture suggest that a quite literal absorption is taking place, whereby almost every major figure of Western culture is being reinterpreted by Jews as owing much of their accomplishment to Jewish sources. Other major European figures and events that have been subjected to revisionist interpretations for Jewish self-glorification include John Milton (Jeffrey Shoulson’s 2012 Milton and the Rabbis: Hebraism, Hellenism, and Christianity), Leonardo Da Vinci (Leonardo Da Vinci’s Musical Gifts and Jewish Connections, 2010), and the scientific revolution (André Neher’s 1986 Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth Century). Dante Alighieri is now said to have been influenced by Kabbalah (Mark Mirsky’s 2003 Dante, Eros, and Kabbalah), while Louis Pasteur’s revolutionary research on immunization is now said to have been based on the Talmud. Other figures claimed as Jews, or to have been heavily influenced by Jews and Judaism, include Pythagoras (Louis Feldman’s 1996 Jewish and Gentile in the Ancient World), Christopher Columbus, Rembrandt (Steven Nadler’s 2003 Rembrandt’s Jews), and John Locke (Yechiel Leiter’s 2018 John Locke’s Political Philosophy and the Hebrew Bible).

Another aspect of Jewish self-glorification is implicit in claims that certain aspects of modern society would not exist without Jews, and even that outgroups need Jews in order to survive. A good example in this regard is the blurb for Norman Lebrecht’s latest book, Genius & Anxiety: How Jews Changed the World, in which it is argued: “Without Karl Landsteiner, for instance, there would be no blood transfusions or major surgery. Without Paul Ehrlich no chemotherapy. Without Siegfried Marcus no motor car. Without Rosalind Franklin genetic science would look very different. Without Fritz Haber there would not be enough food to sustain life on earth.” These incredibly hyperbolic claims are demonstrably false from a factual point of view. The case of Siegfried Marcus is worth discussing. The earliest form of the automobile was pioneered by François de Rivaz around 1808, and the four-stroke petrol internal combustion engine that still constitutes the most prevalent form of modern automotive propulsion was in fact patented by Nikolaus Otto in the 1860s. While some have claimed that Siegfried Marcus had developed a fully functioning motor car by the 1870s, there is remarkably little evidence for this. By contrast, in 1885, Karl Benz developed a petrol or gasoline powered automobile, and this is also considered to be the first “production” vehicle as Benz made several other identical copies. In either event, it is clear that Benz was operating independently of anything Marcus was building, and that Marcus himself was dependent on technological innovations developed by non-Jews in order to pursue his project. In short, without Siegfried Marcus we would indeed have the motor car, and since the chain of modern production goes back through the Benz technological genealogy, it can be confidently asserted that we did in fact have the motor car without Siegfried Marcus.

The same pattern can be ascertained in every example given in the blurb for Lebrecht’s book, and it is particularly ironic that Lebrecht should include Landsteiner who was an excellent example of a defector from the Jewish norm of high ethnic self-esteem. Landsteiner, a convert to Catholicism, took legal action in 1937 against an American publisher who had included him in the book Who’s Who in American Jewry and was highly ambivalent about his Jewish origins. One assumes that, had he been alive today, he would have taken legal action against Lebrecht also. The inclusion of Landsteiner in Lebrecht’s book is, however, indicative of another aspect of Jewish self-glorification — a tendency to exaggerate the Jewishness of the subject so that his ‘world-changing’ achievement is held to be the natural expression of his Jewish origins and identity.

This pattern is observed even in circumstances where there is ample evidence that the subject distanced themselves from Jews and Judaism, and even held hostile attitudes towards them. The best example in this regard is Spinoza, who was exiled from the Amsterdam Jewish community and later survived an assassination attempt arranged by the same Jews. Spinoza also wrote very disparagingly of Judaism and Jews in his 1670 Tractatus Theologico-Politicus in which he expressed his thoughts on Judaism. According to Spinoza, Judaism “commands the hatred of the enemy,” and is “carnal and particularistic.”[18] Spinoza argued that Mosaic Law was “merely national,” and was “a particularistic and tribal law that serves no other end than the earthly or political felicity of the Jewish nation.” Claims that Judaism was a universal religion were seen as nonsense by Spinoza, who saw in the God of Israel only “a tribal God who is not the God of all mankind.” He stated that, in relation to the Jews “it is the hatred of the Nations that above all keeps them in existence as a people.”[19] Such statements and contexts haven’t prevented Spinoza from being adopted by an extraordinary Jewish academic cottage industry as the quintessential Jewish genius who saved outgroups and ushered in modernity with his putative Jewish brilliance.[20]

A further aspect of Jewish self-glorification is the promotion or exaggeration of Jewish figures whose accomplishments would ordinarily (without Jewish self-glorification efforts) be regarded as moderate to mediocre. Lebrecht’s book is again a useful example because he cites figures like Franz Kafka and Marcel Proust as world-changing. While these authors produced works that are unquestionably unique and, if nothing else, interesting, their status as world-changing is hyperbolic by any objective standards. The works of both authors, which equally orbit the same themes of neuroticism and paranoia, did not resonate in the mass cultural consciousness in the same way that some of their non-Jewish literary contemporaries did (Joyce, Woolf, Beckett, Eliot, and Yeats to name just a few). And, in any event, there are questions as to why novelists (especially those of long-winded niche texts like Proust’s In Search of Lost Time) should be considered world-changing at all, especially in a century that saw multiple major wars, massive innovations against disease, and the development of the television and aircraft. Lebrecht’s focus on Jews is instead highly revealing of a certain type of Jewish perspective prominent in strongly identified Jews exhibiting high levels of ethnocentrism and ethnic self-esteem. From the perspective of these extraordinarily ethnocentric individuals, only Jews matter — regardless of the meaning or meaninglessness of their work or achievement. Perhaps the quintessential example in this regard is the reception by Jews of the Jewish Abstract Expressionist painter Mark Rothko. Sanderson (2011) comments:

For critics like [Klaus] Ottmann, Rothko’s genius is indisputable and he possessed an “extraordinary talent” that enabled him to transfer his metaphysical “impulses to the canvas with a power and magnetism that stuns viewers of his work. … In fact Rothko’s skill in achieving this result — whether intentional or not — perhaps explains why he was once called “the melancholic rabbi.” For prominent Jewish art historian Simon Schama, Rothko’s “big vertical canvasses of contrasting bars of colour, panels of colour stacked up on top of each other” qualify Rothko as “a maker of paintings as powerful and complicated as anything by his two gods — Rembrandt and Turner.” For the ethnocentric Schama “these [Rothko’s] paintings are equivalent of these old masters … Can art ever be more complete, more powerful? I don’t think so.”

A Rothko Masterpiece

In trying to explain these aspects of Jewish self-glorification, one can’t escape the possibility that the most ethnocentric strata of Jews have indeed retained the same perspective of Menahem Nahum, the eighteenth-century rabbi who insisted that all nations, with the exception of Jews, lack “understanding” and that no country can forgo Jewish leadership. It is likely that the level of ethnic self-esteem in such individuals is so high that they, in some sense, simply find it inconceivable that outgroups could succeed, let alone outperform Jews. Such a perspective would certainly go some way to explaining what appears to be an obsessive search for the often-imagined Jewish origins of leading Western figures and their accomplishments, and an equally obsessive search for Jewish figures who can be successfully boosted in the popular consciousness of outgroups, and positioned as lightning rods for Jewish ethnic pride.

Adaptive Qualities of Contemporary Jewish Self-Glorification

There are a number of features of Jewish self-glorification that could be regarded as highly adaptive in the contemporary social and cultural environment. Most obviously, by creating and sustaining an environment in which the in-group is seen as uniquely gifted and tasked with a world-historical mission, Jews promote high levels of ethnic cohesion and discourage defection. The most remarkable example of this dynamic at play can be found during the Middle Ages when some Jews opted for suicide over conversion to Christianity. The argument could be made that, for those choosing suicide, it was psychologically easier to die as a member of a gifted chosen people than to defect to a status that, in elements of Jewish theology, was less than human.

High self-esteem is also very strongly correlated with the General Factor of Personality (GFP), which in turn is associated with high degrees of social success and effectiveness.[21] In essence, by promoting high levels of in-group self-esteem, Jews make themselves more effective as individuals in acquiring, and helping to expand, positions of social, economic, and political influence for the broader group. In short, high self-esteem produces better and more effective activists. The generally higher level of self-esteem found among Jews, when compared to Catholics and Protestants[22], would indeed suggest an elevated GFP and social effectiveness in general. It could also be reasonably posited that feelings of high ethnic self-esteem would provide encouragement and justification for psychological aggression and various forms of activism against outgroups, assumed to be intellectually or morally wrong in issues of inter-ethnic dispute, and this aggression could extend to attempts at cultural and political domination. An interesting case study in this respect is the Jewish New Left of the 1960s and their self-concept as engaging in “heroic action” against outgroup norms. Both Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin quite literally used superhero allegories to describe themselves and their activities, with Rubin comparing himself to the Lone Ranger and Hoffman claiming “I’m just the guy who flies around in a cape and has the hots for Lois Lane.”[23] In such cases, highly narcissistic Jews act aggressively in the cultures of outgroups at least partly, or ostensibly, in the belief that Jewish heroic “assistance” is required for the outgroup’s own good — with the outgroup patronizingly seen as incapable or unready to even understand what that “good” is. Some degree of self-deception among Jews would be required in such cases, and this is discussed further by the present writer elsewhere.

A further adaptive quality of contemporary Jewish self-glorification is that there is always a possibility that outgroups, in whole or in part, might be convinced by the cultural atmosphere of Jewish self-glorification, accept it as truth, and willingly submit themselves to Jewish leadership. This can occur on an individual level, in which outgroup members are so accustomed to believing that Jews are uniquely talented or gifted that they are more prone to following certain Jewish ‘guru’ figures, or it can occur on a more broad ethnic basis in which Jews in general are regarded as a special people by outgroups. In the former case, there are certainly no shortage of examples of Jews of moderate significance gaining very widespread followings and acclaim from outgroup members, with all the allusions to “Jewish genius” one might expect from such a scenario. In the latter case, Jews have long held a privileged status as victims and gurus on the Left (though this is now waning), and Jews and Israel continue to hold Christian Zionists and aspects of the European Right in thrall, and are indeed regarded by many as “the apple of God’s eye.” Examples of non-religious ethnic Europeans producing texts glorifying Jews include Paul Johnson’s 1987 A History of the Jews and Thomas Cahill’s 1998 panegyric The Gifts of the Jews.

Yet another adaptive quality of Jewish self-glorification, and related to the one above, is that it can act to simultaneously reduce ethnic pride among outgroups and elevate Jewish prestige. If highly ethnocentric Jews can successfully disseminate the falsehood that the outgroup’s accomplishments are in fact Jewish accomplishments, then there will be a clear diminishment in the level of ethnic self-esteem in the outgroup. A similar effect can be accomplished by culturally “spamming” the outgroup with discussions of Jewish genius and exceptionalism, and these can be exacerbated further by combining such efforts with cultural “spamming” depicting Jews as the blameless victims of irrational violence perpetrated by the same outgroup. In this case, the Jews become intellectual and moral heroes, boosting in-group self-esteem, while the outgroup is paralyzed by a twin sense of inferiority and guilt.

The converse, of course, is that Jews have been prominent in promoting White guilt—in effect glorifying their own past while vilifying the people and culture of the West. Mainstream media messages promoting White guilt are ubiquitous, and Jewish involvement with the media and projects such as “Whiteness Studies” is notorious.

Maladaptive Qualities of Jewish Self-Glorification

The most obvious maladaptive quality of Jewish self-glorification is its potential to provoke anti-Semitism, as seen in the quote opening this essay. It is especially interesting that the rise of modern forms of anti-Semitism coincided with the rise of European nationalisms, which could in some sense be regarded as a form of political activity designed to raise ethnic self-esteem. Jewish attempts to assert cultural superiority over the highly-accomplished and pride-filled Germans of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries appear to have been an especially volatile source of ethnic friction.

Jewish self-glorification is also something that needs to be carefully expressed, and even highly ethnocentric Jews appear to be aware of safe limits to the expression of their ethnic pride. For example, Cecil Roth in his The Jewish Contribution to Civilisation wrote:

The Jew is distinguished, perhaps, by a slightly greater degree of intellectualisation, possibly by a freshness of outlook, natural in one whose approach tends to be external; and, in consequence, by a faculty for synthesis and for introducing new ideas. He is apt to show, in fact, certain characteristics inevitable in persons who belong, through the circumstances of their history, to a single sociological group. To say more is hazardous. [emphasis added]

Not only is Roth’s comment an excellent example of an environmentalist explanation of Jewish superiority, but his caution is also extremely noteworthy. Jewish self-glorification can be hazardous because the very point of contending for credit for a particular invention/accomplishment is a potential point of ethnic conflict. Additionally, Jewish self-glorification takes the risk of publicly posturing Jews as a group, a position that is normally avoided and downplayed by Jews in almost every other cultural scenario. Jews must also exercise caution in what exactly the claim credit for. Claiming Karl Marx, for example, despite his baptism and some anti-Semitic remarks, is an endeavor not without risk, and the same can be said for texts like Neal Gabler’s 1998 An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. Jewish claims of responsibility for creating “modernity” and the “modern world” also assume a level of cultural consensus that these are in fact good things worth taking the credit for. One imagines that if a cultural consensus was reached that “modernity” was bad, or negative for Europeans, texts like Norman Lebrecht’s latest book would quietly disappear.

Most catastrophically, Jewish self-glorification efforts can potentially be identified for what they truly are, with these efforts failing and then in fact coming to reflect badly on Jews. Writing in the 1970s, Dutch Spinoza expert, Hubertus G. Hubbeling, expressed awareness of the fundamental and longstanding difference between Jews and non-Jews in interpretations of Spinoza’s importance. Hubbeling, with barely concealed irritation at the specifically Jewish character of the effort to exaggerate Spinoza’s significance, wrote towards the end of his Spinoza’s Methodology that:

there are some Jewish writers who emphasize very strongly the importance of Spinoza’s contribution to the development of democratic ideas. Joseph Dunner, for example, places him above Locke in this respect. L. Feuer makes of Spinoza the first democratic political philosopher: ‘The political philosophy of Spinoza is the first statement in history of the standpoint of democratic liberalism’ … According to the opinion of the present writer Spinoza’s importance is exaggerated here.[24] [emphasis added]

If the full implications and impact of Jewish self-glorification became common knowledge, fuelling anti-Semitism, it would clearly have a deleterious effect on the Jewish position in Western culture and society.

Conclusion

Although Jewish self-glorification is almost entirely absent from existing studies of anti-Semitism, it has played an important role in generating inter-ethnic friction over historical time. Jewish self-glorification, which continues to thrive both in Israel and the Diaspora, should be regarded as an extreme example of both positive and negative ethnocentrism — that it reinforces Jewish in-group loyalties and self-esteem while weakening the loyalties and self-esteem of outgroups. At time of this writing, Jewish self-glorification is highly adaptive for Jews who occupy a position of cultural prestige in almost all sections of Western culture and society, and who use self-glorification to secure this prestige and expand it further. Jewish self-glorification has been highly successful in boosting Jewish activism against outgroups, and together with victimhood narratives, which are themselves a form of historical glorification, have succeeded in paralyzing European outgroups with a twin sense of inferiority and guilt. Attempts to further lower European ethnic pride, through accusations of putative historical evils or by co-opting, relativizing, or universalizing their ethnic achievements will continue to be a key point of inter-ethnic conflict between Europeans and Jews. A crucial task for those interested in improving the prospects of the European peoples will therefore rest to some extent in finding ways to elevate group pride and creating a cultural consensus to diminish that of the Jews.

Notes

[1] Saxe, L. et al. “Measuring the Size and Characteristics of American Jewry: A New Paradigm to Understand an Ancient People,” in Rehbun, U (ed) The Social Scientific Study of JewrySources, Approaches, Debates (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 37-8.

[2] See, for example, the Charter Decreed for the Jews of Prussia (April 17, 1750) by Frederick II, which outlined the number of Jews, by occupation, permitted to reside in Berlin.

[3] Hartley, E. L., Rosenbaum, M., & Schwartz, S. (1948). Children’s Perceptions of Ethnic Group Membership. The Journal of Psychology, 26(2), 387—397.

[4] Smooha, S. (1987). Jewish and Arab ethnocentrism in Israel. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 10(1), 1—26.

[5] Brown, L. M., McNatt, P. S., & Cooper, G. D. (2003). Ingroup romantic preferences among Jewish and non-Jewish White undergraduates. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(3), 335—354.

[6] Cofnas, N. (2018). Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy. Human Nature, 29(2), 134—156, (153).

[7] Rosenberg, M. (1989) Society and the adolescent self-image (Rev. ed), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

[8] Markstrom, C. A., Berman, R. C., & Brusch, G. (1998). An Exploratory Examination of Identity Formation among Jewish Adolescents According to Context. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13(2), 202—222.

[9] Rutchik, A. (1968). Self‐Esteem and Jewish Identification. Jewish Education, 38(2), 40—46.

[10] Rovner, R. A. (1981). Ethno-Cultural Identity and Self-Esteem: A Reapplication of Self-Attitude Formation Theories. Human Relations, 34(5), 427—434.

[11] Hofer, P. (1989). The Role of Manipulation in the Antisocial Personality. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 33(2), 91—101.

[12] De Keersmaecker, J., Onraet, E., Lepouttre, N., & Roets, A. (2017). The opposite effects of actual and self-perceived intelligence on racial prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 112, 136—138.

[13] Patai, R. (1996) The Jewish Mind Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 324.

[14] Dresser, D and Friedman, L. (2004) American Jewish Filmmakers University of Illinois, 7.

[15] Popkin, R.H. (1978) ‘Spinoza and La Peyrere’ in R. Shahan and J. Biro, Spinoza: New Perspectives Norman, Oklahoma.

[16] Popkin, R.H. (1990) Essays on the Context, Nature, and Influence of Isaac Newton’s Theology Boston: Kluwer.

[17] Quoted in Biemann, A (2012) Dreaming of Michelangelo: Jewish Variations on a Modern Theme Stanford, California.

[18] Strauss, L. (1965) Spinoza’s Critique of Religion New York, 18.

[19] Donagan, A. (1988) Spinoza New York, 9.

[20] See, for example, Harry Wolfson’s two-volume The Philosophy of Spinoza, Joseph Dunner’s Baruch Spinoza and Western Democracy, Lewis Feuer’s Spinoza and the Rise of Liberalism, Leon Roth’s Spinoza, Descartes, and Maimonides, the many works of Richard Popkin, Margaret Jacob’s The Radical Enlightenment, Marjorie Glicksman Grene’s Spinoza and the Sciences, Steven Nadler’s Spinoza: A Life and his Spinoza’s Heresy: Immortality and the Jewish Mind, Jonathan Israel’s Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650—1750, Michael Mack’s Spinoza and the Specters of Modernity: The Hidden Enlightenment of Diversity from Spinoza to Freud, Steven Nadler’s A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza’s Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age, and Rebecca Goldstein’s Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity.

[21] Erdle, S., Irwing, P., Rushton, J. P., & Park, J. (2010). The General Factor of Personality and its relation to Self-Esteem in 628,640 Internet respondents. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(3), 343—346.

[22] Rovner, R. A. (1981). Ethno-Cultural Identity and Self-Esteem: A Reapplication of Self-Attitude Formation Theories. Human Relations, 34(5), 427—434

[23] Jezer, M. (1993) Abbie Hoffman: American Rebel Rutgers University Press.

[24] Hubbeling, H.G. (1964) Spinoza’s Methodology Royal Van Gorcum, Netherlands.

Posted in EducationComments Off on “Do Jews Think Differently?”: Aspects of Jewish Self-Glorification

Kashmir Solidarity Day on 3 October 2019

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

According to the BJP, Operation Kashmir has been the biggest achievement so far of Modi 2.0. Admittedly, vast sections of the general public got swayed in favour of this supposedly complete integration of Kashmir with India, and initially it was difficult to find many takers for our bold opposition to this despotic step of the Modi government. But now as more and more people wake up to the reality of growing mass resentment and massive violation of democratic rights in Kashmir valley and international opposition to Indian state’s unilateral violation of the historical and constitutional conditions of Kashmir’s merger withMore

adivasi yatra up

Adivasi Rights Yatra concludes with Conference at Sonbhadra

The Adivasi Rights and Justice Yatra led by party State Secretary Comrade Sudhakar Yadav reached Chowkia, Duhur, Manaur, Tiyari and other villages in Jamalpur Block (Mirzapur District) on 26-27 August 2019. Everywhere the Yatra was welcomed by the poor, who shared their troubles and sorrows with the people.

The Adivasi Rights and Justice Yatra culminated in an Adivasi Rights conference on 7 September 2019 at Robertsganj Kutchery Complex in Sonbhadra. Party General Secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya was the main speaker at the conference.More

GS

Memorial Meetings For Comrade Arun Singh

ASankalp Sabha (Memorial Meeting) was organized at Garhani Block Maidan on 31 August 2019 against the killing of CPI(ML) and Kisan leader Arun Singh and against the increasing incidents of feudal attacks in Agiaon Assembly constituency.

The meeting was addressed by main speaker Comrade Dipankar Bhattacharya, CC members Manoj Manzil and Raju Yadav, Tarari MLA Sudama Prasad, RYA State President Ajit Kushwaha, Insaf Manch State Secretary Qayamuddin Ansari, AIPWA District Secretary Indu Singh, Arun Singh’s son Anshu Singh and others.More

mid day meal kolkata

Mid-day Meal Workers Protest in Kolkata

29 August 2019, Defying heavy rain and inclement weather, thousands and thousands of Mid day meal workers’ marched through the main thoroughfare and two rallies, one from Sealdah & the other from Howrah Station culminated at Hogg Street, adjacent to the main building of Kolkata Municipal Corporation, where this massive gathering took place.More

defence

Victory for Ordnance Factory Workers

80,000 workers of the Ordnance Factories who had been on a one-month strike since 20 August 2019 called off their strike on the 6th day after the BJP government bowed under pressure and withdrew the decision of corporatization and privatisation of the Ordnance Factories. Thus the workers forced the government, drunk with power based on brute majority in Parliamentarian, to surrender.

Following the Ordnance Factory strike, labour leaders held talks with the government after which the strike was called off with effect from 6 am on the morning of 26 August 2019; therefore, the program scheduled for 27 August 2019More

370 delhi

‘Stand With Jammu And Kashmir’ Protests All Over India

Protests broke out all over India against the Modi Government coup which dissolved the state of Jammu and Kashmir and abrogated Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.More

Netaji indoor 30 July 2019

Unite And Resist Convention At Kolkata

“We won’t let the communal fascist RSS destroy West Bengal and India” – that was the spirit of thousands of people who gathered to fill the Netaji Indoor Stadium, Kolkata on 30 July 2019, at the ‘Unite and Resist’ Convention. The convention had been organised to mark 50 years of the CPIML, and the birth centenary of CPIML founding General Secretary Charu Mazumdar.

West Bengal has been witnessing the ominous rise of the BJP and RSS, with communal incidents being reported nearly every day in the state. During the elections, BJP cadres vandalised a statue of the social reformer andMore

Modi Hatao Desh Bachao" Rally on 8 October 2018 at Kodarma

“Modi Hatao Desh Bachao” Rally on 8 October 2018 at Kodarma Block Maidan, Jharkhand

Rally photo 1

CPIML LIBERATION – Rally in Patna on 27 September 2018

THE ‘Oust BJP-Save Democracy’ rally to be organized at the Gandhi Maidan in Patna on 27 September 2018 is going to be historic in many ways.

The 10th Party Congress at Mansa (Punjab) had called for the eviction of fascism and the building of a people’s India. Carrying this call forward, the Bihar State Committee organized statewide people’s rights campaigns in Bihar under the ‘Oust BJP-Save Bihar’ drive for 3 months from April to June. During these movements we could see that the people have become disillusioned with the Modi government at the centre and the Nitish-Modi government in Bihar,More

Darbhanga

All India Strike on September 10 Reflects People’s Anger Against Modi Government

All India Strike The all India strike called by Left parties on September 10 met a huge response from the masses reflecting their resentment against Modi government’s policies, cronyism and economic burdens being mounted on the people. The all India strike call coincided with the bandh call by the Congress party and other opposition parties. People all over the country came to the streets and voiced a big no to policies of escalating prices of petro-products, rising unemployment, land acquisitions, corporate plunder of banks, and demonetisation, and the RSS-BJP attempts of spreading venom of hatred to communalise and divide Indian society. The strike gave a message that days of Modi regime are numbered. The huge success of this all India strike call reflects people’s mood and anger against Modi Rule and is going to be the beginning of the countdown for the end of an atrocious, corrupt and fascist regime.

Posted in India, Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Kashmir Solidarity Day on 3 October 2019


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

October 2019
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031