Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
| Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers | |
|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-) Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better |
|||||||
Due to the size an introduction was converted to a separate page Neoconservatism, an introduction
Years ago, whilst this reactionary putsch was still in it's infancy,
my mom would
listen to the "news" on the local CBS affiliate,
and many times I heard her gasp and say,
referring to the "reporters"
jabbering, "My God, they're a bunch of dopes!"
The dopes areascendant; stupid, scared, violent-minded, and very well-paid.
Comment from Veteran NBC-MSNBC Journalist Blasts Network in Resignation
Neoconservatives, which like Bolsheviks in the past are mostly Jewish intellectuals, are frequently described as ideologues with pro-Israel and anti-Russian bent, but the truth is that they are far more interested in gaining access to money and power. Most of them are useless smacks with degree in journalism or history and they would starve if not fed by military industrial complex. Being a lobbyist of military industrial complex is the only job they can get. Add to that that most of them are personal cowards and chicken hawks and you get the picture: they are just bottom-feeders. "National security parasites" is a very apt definition for this category of people.
The ideology of Neoconservatism was explicitly formulated in Wolfowitz Doctrine which contains the key postulates of Neoconservatism in foreign policy. They can be summarized as "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge". That partially explains unprecedented level of military expenses of the USA since 1991 (after the dissolution of the USSR) when, effectively, the USA has not external enemies and those money can be used to improve well being of common people in the USA. But neoliberal elite engage in building global neoliberal empire rules from Washington and that empire needed the dominant military force to protect and expand it . From other point of view that was an attempt of the US MIC to preserve its position acquired during the Cold War, if necessary by inventing or creating a new threats. Neocons just happen perfectly suit the role of lobbyists of MIC interest in Washington and thus were financially and politically supported by MIC.
Large part of neocons consist of so-called "elite-wannabes," often well-educated and highly capable, who has been denied access to elite positions and who decided to use warmongering backdoor to get there.
Proselytizing their own brand of global regime change is just a mean to sustain the access to funds and political power. They know perfectly well which side of the bread is buttered and by whom. We can suspect that for many of them (Max Boot is a good example here) access to money from MIC and Israel lobby is the primary driving force. Often they are viewed as Likud lobby in the USA: "The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they’ve got it." ( Israel lobby in the United States - Wikipedia ):
The formal component of the Israel lobby consists of organized lobby groups, political action committees (PACs), think tanks and media watchdog groups. The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks all lobbies and PACs, describes the ‘background’ of those ‘Pro-Israel’ as, “A nationwide network of local political action committees, generally named after the region their donors come from, supplies much of the pro-Israel money in US politics. Additional funds also come from individuals who bundle contributions to candidates favored by the PACs. The donors' unified goal is to build stronger US-Israel relations and to support Israel in its negotiations and armed conflicts with its Arab neighbors.”[24]According to Mitchell Bard, there are, three key formal lobbying groups:
- Christians United for Israel, the US "largest" pro-Israel lobby.[25][26]
- The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which directly lobbies the United States Congress
- The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations which "is the main contact between the Jewish community and the executive branch" of the US government.[23]
... ... ...
A summary of pro-Israel campaign donations for the period of 1990–2008 collected by Center for Responsive Politics indicates current totals and a general increase in proportional donations to the US Republican party since 1996.[46] The Center for Responsive Politics' 1990–2006 data shows that "pro-Israel interests have contributed $56.8 million in individual, group and soft money donations to federal candidates and party committees since 1990."[47] In contrast, Arab-Americans and Muslim PACs contributed slightly less than $800,000 during the same (1990–2006) period.[48] In 2006, 60% of the Democratic Party’s fundraising and 25% of that for the Republican Party's fundraising came from Jewish-funded PACs. According to a Washington Post estimate, Democratic presidential candidates depend on Jewish sources for as much as 60% of money raised from private sources.[49]
... ... ...
AIPAC does not give donations directly to candidates, but those who donate to AIPAC are often important political contributors in their own right. In addition, AIPAC helps connect donors with candidates, especially to the network of pro-Israel political action committees. AIPAC president Howard Friedman says “AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel’s predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a ‘position paper’ on their views of the US-Israel relationship – so it’s clear where they stand on the subject.”[43]
.... ... ...
Mearsheimer and Walt state that “pro-Israel figures have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). These think tanks are all decidedly pro-Israel and include few, if any, critics of US support for the Jewish state.”[50]
When strategic interests of Israeli (for example remaking of the Middle East so that Israel can exercise dominant power in this region; which includes fragmentation of several existing states) deviate from the strategic interests of the USA (which mostly are interested in uninterruptable supply of cheap oil) neocons do betray the USA national interests with ease. The US-Israel relationship significantly damages the relationship between the United States and the Arab world. They also were serving as propagandists and influencers for all recent Middle East military adventures and regime change efforts. Recently that was the case in Syria: in no way Assad government represented a threat to the USA interests. Still the pressure of "likudniks" was such that the USA engaged in the "regime change" efforts.
But in reality they should be viewed more like lobbing group of MIC then lobbing group of Israel. As well as transnational corporations interested in opening new markets. But recently facts that Israel spend large sums on money on trying to influence the USA politicians came to light and to this extent one gets impression that the tail is wagging the dog.
They should probably be viewed as the lobbying and propaganda arm of military industrial complex. Is both Republican and Democratic Party position themselves as a "War Party" they represent an important political force on the USA political landscape. The fact that some of staunch neocons such as Max Boot recently defected to Democratic Party just confirm the fact that in forign policy there is only one party in the usa -- the neocon party.
And there is not much conservative in neocon ideology -- it is basically a revamped Trotskyism, if not neo-fascism. Just look at Nuland's fraternization with Ukrainian far right nationalists despite her Jewish roots (and despite the fact that this movement was hell-bent on killing Jewish people during WWII and served as capos in concentration camps). This was not accidental; this was a conscious political choice -- they are birds of the feather.
Ideologically they are a more militant flavor of neoliberals ("neoliberals with the gun", so to speak). They also are more openly statist, then a typical neoliberal. But their neo-Trotskyites roots are mostly demonstrated in foreign policy (they do not have a coherent domestic policy; but generally their views in this area are more aligned with the Democratic Party than Republican Party views).
All-in-all, we will essentially view them as lobbyists of MIC, "neoliberals with a gun".
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
| Home | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 |
For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section
|
|
 |
 |
 |
Aug 22, 2019 | www.unz.com
However, as the people cannot spontaneously make and express their opinion on a mass scale, the media comes to play a critical role in shaping public opinion: "The decisive question is: Who enlightens the people? Who educates the people?" The answer is, of course, the media. In this, Hitler's assessment is an exaggerated version of what Alexis de Tocqueville had observed a century earlier in his classic work, Democracy in America :
When a large number of press organs manage to march along the same path, their influence in the long run becomes almost irresistible, and public opinion, always struck upon the same side, ends up giving way under their blows.
In the United States, each newspaper has little power individually; but the periodical press is still, after the people, the first of powers. [1] Alexis de Tocqueville, De la Démocratie en Amérique (Paris: Gallimard, 1986), volume 1, p. 283-84. Hitler and Tocqueville shared a surprising number of views concerning mordern democracy, see: https://www.counter-currents.com/2016/08/tocqueville...itler/
In Western democracies, Hitler claims: "Capital actually rules in these countries, that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth." Furthermore "freedom" refers primarily to "economic freedom," which means the oligarchs' "freedom from national control." In a classic self-reinforcing cycle, the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful through influence over the political process. Today, this has culminated in the existence of the notorious "1%" so demonized by Occupy Wall Street.
The oligarchs, according to Hitler, establish and control the media:
These capitalists create their own press and then speak of "freedom of the press." In reality, every newspaper has a master and in every case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor tries to write something other than what suits the master, he is outed the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and character slave of its owners, molds public opinions.
Hitler also emphasizes the incestuous relations and purely cosmetic differences between mainstream democratic political parties:
The difference between these parties is small, as it formerly was in Germany. You know them of course, the old parties. They were always one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged so that families are divided up, one member being conservative, another liberal, and a third belonging to the Labour Party. Actually all three sit together as members of the family and decide upon their common attitude.
This cliquishness means that "on all essential matters . . . the parties are always in agreement" and the difference between "Government" and "Opposition" is largely election-time theatrics. This critique will resonate with those who fault the "Republicrats," the "Westminster village," or indeed the various pro-EU parties for being largely indistinguishable. This is often especially the case on foreign policy, Chomsky's area of predilection.
Hitler goes on, with brutally effective sarcasm, to describe how it was in these democracies where the people supposedly rule that there was the most inequality: "You might think that in these countries of freedom and wealth, the people must have an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no!" Britain not only controlled "one-sixth of the world" and the impoverished millions of India, but itself had notoriously deep class divisions and suffering working classes. There was a similar situation in France and the United States: "There is poverty – incredible poverty – on one side and equally incredible wealth on the other." These democracies had furthermore been unable to combat unemployment during the Great Depression, in contrast to Germany's innovative economic policies.
Hitler then goes on to mock the Labour Party, which was participating in the government for the duration of the war, for promising social welfare and holidays for the poor after the war: "It is is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that traveling should not be something for millionaires alone, but for the people too." Hitlerite Germany, along with Fascist Italy, had long pioneered the organization of mass tourism to the benefit of working people. (Something which traditionalists like the Italian aristocrat Julius Evola bitterly criticized them for.)
Ultimately, in the Western democracies "as is shown by their whole economic structure, the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of democracy; the egoism of a very small social class." Hitler concludes: "It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters is the existence a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the factories and their stock and, through them, control the people."
... ... ...
In practice, Western liberal regimes' democratic pretensions are exaggerated. Various studies have found that when elite and majority opinion clash, the American elite is over time able to impose its policies onto the majority (examples of this include U.S. intervention in both World Wars and mass Third World immigration since the 1960s, opposed by the people and promoted by the elite)
... ... ...
In fact, all regimes have different elite factions and bureaucracies competing for power. All regimes have a limited ideological spectrum of authorized opinion, a limited spectrum of what can and cannot be discussed, criticized, or politically represented. This isn't to say that liberal-democratic and openly authoritarian regimes are identical, but the distinction has been exaggerated. I have known plenty of Westerners who, frothing at the mouth at any mention of the "authoritarian" Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen, were quite happy to visit, do business, or work in China, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, or Israel (the latter being a perfect Jewish democracy but highly authoritarian towards the Palestinians). Westerners really are sick in the head.
The liberals' claim to uphold freedom of thought and democracy will ring hollow to many: to the Trump supporters and academics (such as Charles Murray) who were physically assaulted for attending public events and to those fired or punished for their scientific beliefs (James Watson, James Damore, Noah Carl).
What the ideal regime is surely depends on time and place. Jean-Baptiste Duchasseint, a politician of the French Third Republic, had a point when he said: "I prefer a parliamentary chamber than the antechamber of a dictator." Liberal-democracies allow for regular changeovers of power, transparent feedback between society and government, and the cultivation of a habit of give-and-take between citizens. But it would be equally dishonest to deny liberal-democracy's leveling tendency, its unconscious (and thereby, dangerous) elitism and authoritarianism (dangerous because unconscious), its difficulty in enforcing values, its promotion of division among the citizenry, or, frequently, its failure to act in times of emergency. The democrats claim they are entitled to undermine and destroy, whether by peaceful or violent methods, every government on this Earth which they consider "undemocratic." This strikes me as, at best, unwise and dangerous.
The question is not whether a society "really has" free speech or democracy. In the absolute, these are impossible. The question is whether the particular spectrum of free discussion and the particular values promoted by the society are, in fact, salutary for that society. In China, unlike the West, you are not allowed to attack the government. Yet, I understand that in China one is freer to discuss issues concerning Jews, race, and eugenics than in the West. These issues, in fact, may be far more important to promoting a healthy future for the human race than the superficial and divisive mudslinging of the West's reality-TV democracies.W
Durruti , says: August 20, 2019 at 1:09 am GMT
Nice well written & researched thought provoking article by Guillaume Durocher.German_reader , says: August 20, 2019 at 1:12 am GMTHitler most likely served the Zionist Bankers, as his "Night of the Longknives" – 1934, rid the Nazi movement of its anti-capitalist element.
Hitler did not effectively criticize Zionism or the ruinous financial system. He blamed the Versailles Treaty for most of Germany's ills.
Noam Chomsky has had more serious political and economic analysis to offer over the decades, than most any other American. He has authored more than 100 books.
Hitler and his movement led the German people into the trap (perhaps a Zionist trap), of ruinous (to Europe), Imperialist Conflict, and in that, and in his racialist approach, resembles Churchill, and the British Royal Family more than he could ever admit.
Counterinsurgency , says: August 20, 2019 at 6:57 am GMTStrikingly, Hitler does not mention Jewish media ownership or influence at all,
At 3:21 in the archive.org video he refers to "das auserwählte Volk" (the chosen people) which supposedly controls and directs all parties for its own interests.
Anyway, do you really think it's a good idea for modern nationalists to link themselves to Hitler and the 3rd Reich (because many of your articles could be interpreted that way, as if Hitler was some profound thinker who has to be read by every nationalist today)?Yes, the man wasn't as stupid as is often claimed today, and some elements of Nazism are certainly attractive if seen in isolation but the fact remains that Hitler, without any really compelling necessity, initiated one of the most destructive wars in history and then had his followers commit some of the worst mass murders ever.
The "revisionists" posting on UR may be able to ignore that, but most people won't.
Parfois1 , says: August 20, 2019 at 8:27 am GMTIn practice, Western liberal regimes' democratic pretensions are exaggerated. Various studies have found that when elite and majority opinion clash, the American elite is over time able to impose its policies onto the majority (examples of this include U.S. intervention in both World Wars and mass Third World immigration since the 1960s, opposed by the people and promoted by the elite).
That's it? "Western liberal regimes' democratic pretensions are exaggerated"?
There are differences in _every_ society between different groups, which include different income levels. In the Western liberal regimes of the 1950s and 1960s, daily life was more or less left alone, and it was quite possible to over-rule the rich. There was a 90% tax on income over a fairly modest amount of income! As for the "American elite is over time able to impose its policies onto the majority" it wasn't the rich who do that back then, nor is it the rich who do it now. It's the Left, acquiesced to by the rich. The difference is that the rich now rich with political sufferance, or perhaps because of politics, which was much less the case back then.
In other words, the article as a deception from start to end. Minerva's owl flies at dusk (you understand things when they're ending), and the deception becomes more obvious as our current system fails.
Counterinsurgency
Another one whitewashing Fascism to make it an acceptable ideology to save the white race. The first edition killed 12 million Germans, twice as many Russians and many more millions of other Europeans. What for? To make America great, perhapsHans Vogel , says: August 20, 2019 at 10:25 am GMTThe author is unfurling his full colours; maybe grateful for Hitler's mercy on France?
Agree that the article is a very good one. Clever idea to compare Hitler with Chomsky, "bien étonnés de se trouver ensemble." However, Hitler was certainly not alone in his lucid criticism of "western democracy," nor is Chomsky the only lucid post-Hitlerian critic of what is called democracy. Who does not recall Michael Parenti's wonderful Democracy for the Few, from 1974?Saggy , says: Website August 20, 2019 at 1:31 pm GMTAs for Hitler being genuine, or intellectually honest in his criticism, better not even ask. Like all major politicians, including FDR, the repulsive Churchill, Stalin e tutti quanti, Hitler was a psychopath and a murderer. Anyone still nurturing romantic thoughts on Hitler better read Guido Giacomo Preparata, Conjuring Hitler. How Britain and America Made the Third Reich (2005). Best proof that Preparata was absolutely right with his richly documented book is the fact that his academic career was abruptly ended: no tenure for dissidents, especially when they write books containing uncomfortable truths.
The only people allowed to tell "uncomfortable truths" are used-car salesmen and swindlers such as Al Gore.
From an even more pointed speech,Arnieus , says: August 20, 2019 at 1:46 pm GMTAdolf Hitler Speech: Löwenbräukeller Munich November 8 1940
When I came to power, I took over from a nation that was a democracy. Indeed, it is now sometimes shown to the world as if one would be automatically ready to give everything to the German nation if it were only a democracy. Yes, the German people was at that time a democracy before us, and it has been plundered and squeezed dry. No. what does democracy or authoritarian state mean for these international hyenas! That they are not at all interested in. They are only interested in one thing: Is anyone willing to let themselves be plundered? Yes or no? Is anyone stupid enough to keep quiet in the process? Yes or no? And when a democracy is stupid enough to keep quiet, then it is good. And when an authoritarian government declares: "You do not plunder our people any longer, neither from inside nor from outside," then that is bad. If we, as a so-called authoritarian state, which differs from the democracies by having the masses of the people behind it; if we as an authoritarian state had also complied with all the sacrifices that the international plutocrats encumbered us with; if I had said in 1933, "Esteemed Sirs in Geneva" or "Esteemed Sirs," as far as I am concerned, somewhere else, "what would you have do? Aha, we will immediately write it on the slate: 6 billion for 1933, 1934, 1935, all right we will deliver. Is there anything else you would like? Yes, Sir we will also deliver that" Then they would have said: "At last a sensible regime in Germany."
Western media is not "cooperative", they are owned.Sollipsist , says: August 20, 2019 at 1:59 pm GMT
JP Morgan famously bought up controlling interest in major newspapers in 1917 to prevent significant media opposition to the US entering WWI. The Counsel on Foreign Relations was created in the early 1920s to maintain control over the national dialog and they have ever since. The CIA Project Mockingbird tightened control. Every presidential cabinet since is saturated with CFR members. As a result most Americans are disastrously misinformed about just about everything. 1984 happened decades before 1984.@Hans Vogel Parenti's book is one of the few assigned college textbooks I still have on my shelf. A classic that I rarely hear spoken of; I guess my liberal arts education wasn't entirely wasted.Irish Savant , says: Website August 20, 2019 at 2:48 pm GMTExtolling Hitler and/or the Nazis is, apart from anything else, totally counter-productive. We can argue about the rewriting of history but the simple fact is that any association with him/them is poisonous to the public mind.BCB232 , says: August 20, 2019 at 3:03 pm GMTWhat I took from the piece was that Hitler, despite being an evil bastard, was right about some things. This shouldn't be surprising and isn't a defense of Nazism (which as a Christian I have to regard as evil.) The fact that Hitler and Chomsky agree shows this isn't a defense of Nazism.Bardon Kaldian , says: August 20, 2019 at 3:29 pm GMT@German_reader So called revisionists are bunch of morons. Hitler was, without lapsing into moralizing, a very specific product of a very specific time, a charismatic leader of a great humiliated nation during a deep crisis in all Western civilization (this includes Russia, too).Emslander , says: August 20, 2019 at 3:43 pm GMTNow, Europe & Europe-derived peoples face a completely different crisis (or various crises), so that what Hitler was or wasn't is utterly irrelevant to our contemporary condition & its challenges.
It does no good to try to defend Hitler, regardless of the many correct observations he made over the years of his public life. He was as important a commentator as, say, Paul Krugman, but his opinions will never overcome his actions. Comparing him to Krugman or Chomsky makes an interesting debating point, but ultimately fails for lack of context.annamaria , says: August 20, 2019 at 4:45 pm GMTIf you are trying to argue that capitalist democracy, Anglo-American style, has grievous flaws, you're going to have to show what they are and why they will lead to calamity. I'd say we need a real discussion on federal budgeting insanity, for one, which threatens the economic downfall of the West and, probably, of the universe, except maybe for Russia, which has already suffered through its great downfall. How that connects to Anglo-American democracy is simple: the British borrowed and made war around the world to its virtual collapse and then had the great insight to be able, via FDR, to tie the prosperity of the United States to its failures, until the great engine of prosperity that we once were comes clanking to pieces.
The fascists weren't wrong on policy during peacetime, but were too optimistic about being able to take over the world by war.
@Biff https://thesaker.is/the-russiagate-hoax-is-now-fully-exposed/Republic , says: August 20, 2019 at 5:40 pm GMT
Eric Zuesse:Both the liberal (Democratic) and conservative (Republican) wings of the U.S. aristocracy hate and want to conquer Russia's Government. The real question now is whether that fact will cause the book on this matter to be closed as being unprofitable for both sides of the U.S. aristocracy; or, alternatively, which of those two sides will succeed in skewering the other over this matter.
At the present stage, the Republican billionaires seem likelier to win if this internal battle between the two teams of billionaires' political agents continues on. If they do, and Trump wins re-election by having exposed the scandal of the Obama Administration's having manufactured the fake Russiagate-Trump scandal, then Obama himself could end up being convicted. However, if Trump loses -- as is widely expected -- then Obama is safe, and Trump will likely be prosecuted on unassociated criminal charges.
To be President of the United States is now exceedingly dangerous. Of course, assassination is the bigger danger; but, now, there will also be the danger of imprisonment. A politician's selling out to billionaires in order to reach the top can become especially risky when billionaires are at war against each other -- and not merely against some foreign ('enemy') aristocracy. At this stage of American 'democracy', the public are irrelevant. But the political battle might be even hotter than ever, without the gloves, than when the public were the gloves.
G , says: August 20, 2019 at 5:45 pm GMT"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum -- even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
Yes that quotation by Chomsky is exactly correct, and Chomsky is an expert in that area.
He is a loyal servant of the oligarchs, the MIT intellectual who has devoted his life
to keeping the lid on acceptable debate but is silent on the most important event of the 21st Century in order to serve his Zionist masters.Any person who goes beyond that accepted level of debate is either ostracized, imprisoned or assassinated.
niceland , says: August 20, 2019 at 5:58 pm GMTLiberal-democracies allow for regular changeovers of power, transparent feedback between society and government, and the cultivation of a habit of give-and-take between citizens.
Except that is not true at all. All major Western countries today, UK, France, USA and Germany, are ruled by an effective one-party state, stabilized and its agenda multiplied by its media companies, often state owned, the agenda enforced by apparatschiks, secured by the police force and internationalized physically with the military and with great propaganda by the media-entertainment complex – today even effectively monopolized by US companies like Google/YouTube and Facebook.
Whether you look at BREXIT, votes on an EU constitution, or the Donald Trump presidency: what the majority of the people want is not important to the permanent ruling and owning class.
The politicians and sanctioned talking-heads are there to deceive us. Obama und Trump are two sides of the same coin: carefully crafted advertisement campaigns to secure the interests and goals of the elite in the long run.
Progressiv interests first with Obama and now reactionary interests have been encorporated as messages and propaganda to neuter both. Now the left talks about gender neutral toilets, trans kids and pronouns, instead of stagnant wages for decades and a predatory elite. Just like the right talks about Trump's tweets, Q and is lost in the media skinner-box and his personality cult, while Trump himself broke every single point he campaigned on (Except those that serve the 1% and Israel.) and is owned by the same lobby which produces the artificial reality Trump cultists bought into.
Political-media theater was and is orchestrated, so the true core of power stays untouched and stable: the very small capitalist class who owns 90% of the net wealth in the USA (it's getting increasingly similar in Europe as it is being Americanized in the process of globalization); the superordinate megacompanies; the military-industrial complex; Wall Street and (Central) Banking; special interests and lobbies of which the Israeli-Jewish Lobby is the strongest.
And the cultural totalitarianism of today and its artifical reality is superior to that of the old physical dictatorships, because in mass-media democracy not only does the subject believe himself to be free, because the tools of his own enslavement are not visible; only in it the subject gives his own concession to his own subjugation by his vote. While all paths to real change, revolution or revolt are as cut off from him as under Stalin or Mao.
Well, if the idea is to spread the message, any mention or reference to Hitler will be totally devastating in the public arena. It's like participating in a marathon run and start off by cutting off your legs.The Nine Tailed Fox , says: August 20, 2019 at 6:01 pm GMTJust recently I saw some posts on facebook from someone local to me preaching about Nordic brotherhood. He posted few pictures and all of them had Hitlers face somewhere in the background. FB shut it down within hours
What's interesting is the same message could have been presented differently without much effort. Sliding past FB filters for days or even weeks and possibly influenced some people in the meantime. So I wonder who was actually behind it – my guess is either a complete idiot or someone eager to vilify nationalism and people concerned with racial issues.
@G As always, the best slaves are those who don't know they're wearing chains.JackOH , says: August 20, 2019 at 9:48 pm GMT@Exile " . . . [I]f sources as divergent as Hitler and Chomsky agree on the flaws of capitalism/neo=liberal democracy, it lends credibility to those criticisms . . .".Counterinsurgency , says: August 20, 2019 at 10:18 pm GMTExile, that's exactly how I read it.
Our political problems aren't that difficult to understand:
Democrats – Sell-out to crony capitalism and global capitalism. Offers an Identity Politics Plantation for rent-seekers and legitimacy-seekers as political camouflage.
Republicans – Sell-out to crony capitalism and global capitalism. Offers a Freedom and Opportunity Plantation as political camouflage.
As far as I can tell, we really don't have an American or Americanist politics that tells me I ought to give a meaninful damn about my fellow citizens in the 'hood, the gated 'burbs, and everywhere else because, fuckin' 'ey, they're my fellow Americans.
@ExileMiggle , says: August 21, 2019 at 1:05 am GMTDurocher's not romanticizing or white-washing here, he's making a serious point: if sources as divergent as Hitler and Chomsky agree on the flaws of capitalism/neo=liberal democracy, it lends credibility to those criticisms and makes it harder to refute them by ad hominem or accusations of bias on the part of the critics.
Lordy. _That_ is your argument? The big loser in WW II and an academic agree that US society should be reorganized? Add in Pol Pot, Stalin, Marx, Trotsky, Putin, Mussolini, and BLM, not to mention the Wobblies, if you like. The argument remains unconvincing. Peterson's "first, demonstrate your competence by cleaning and organizing your room and then your home and your affairs, _then_ try to re-make the world. None of the above, except perhaps Putin, could have passed that test.
Q: Is Marxism a science or a philosophy?
A: Philosophy. If it were a science they'd have tried it out on dogs first.Counterinsurgency
@Miggle And how can there be "checks" when everything is "classified", and when Julian Assange has to be murdered in a US prison but it will be made to look like suicide?Professional Stranger , says: August 21, 2019 at 2:52 am GMTBuzz Mohawk , says: August 21, 2019 at 3:34 am GMT"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum -- even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. – Noam Chomsky"
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/516842-the-smart-way-to-keep-people-passive-and-obedient-is
COMMENT: Chomsky is talking about the Overton window: the range of ideas that "The Powers That Be" (TPTB) will allow in public discussion.
EXAMPLES:
(1) Tucker Carson recently went outside the Overton window, when he said "white supremacy is a hoax", then TPTB immediately "vacationed" him for political reeducation, and now he is safely back within the window, rattling his cage on issues harmless to TPTB.(2) The Controlled Protest Press (CPP) will often blame economic problems on the Federal-Reserve making wrong moves, and suggest the right moves the Fed should make instead, as the correct solution. But the CPP will never suggest that the correct solution is to end the Fed and the private currency they issue, and to return the currency-issuing power to the government, as required by the constitution (Article I Section 8). Because that's outside the Overton window.
(3) The CPP will often complain about the government ignoring warning signs before the 9/11 attack, and botching their response after it happened. But the CPP will never suggest the whole thing was an inside job to garner public support for bankers oil wars in the middle east. Because that's outside the Overton window.
Professional Stranger , says: August 21, 2019 at 3:40 am GMTwhen elite and majority opinion clash, the American elite is over time able to impose its policies onto the majority (examples of this include U.S. intervention in both World Wars and mass Third World immigration since the 1960s, opposed by the people and promoted by the elite).
True. True. True.
@Professional Stranger CHOMSKY himself always stays within the Overton window, and makes a show of it:Pater , says: August 21, 2019 at 3:46 am GMT
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZrEDo9ChSdQ?feature=oembed
Chomsky goes beyond maintaining a strategic silence on 9/11, to inciting smear-campaigns against skeptics of the official narrative of 9/11. He demeans "truthers": "Their lives are no good Their lives are collapsing They are people at a loss Nothing makes any sense They don't understand what an explanation is They think they are experts in physics and civil engineering on the basis of one hour on the Internet."I think you should ask the Slavic untermenschen; Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Byelorussians & Ukranians what their experience of occupation by the Wehrmacht was like. Poland alone lost 5 million civilians with Ukraine losing a similar number.Biff , says: August 21, 2019 at 10:18 am GMT@annamariaParfois1 , says: August 21, 2019 at 10:25 am GMTTo be President of the United States is now exceedingly dangerous. Of course, assassination is the bigger danger; but, now, there will also be the danger of imprisonment. A politician's selling out to billionaires in order to reach the top can become especially risky when billionaires are at war against each other -- and not merely against some foreign ('enemy') aristocracy.
Interesting concept. When the elites go after each other; that is when you know empire is in rapid decline.
Other powers may just simply wait it out.@JackOH You summed up very well the nature of the duopoly ruling the US for donkey's years. Representative democracy is a licence for political power by a small clique over the people. Obviously, both Fascism (Hitler) and Socialism (Marx) agree on that, but for different reasons. And so does anyone with some basic understanding of how the political process works.lysias , says: August 21, 2019 at 5:14 pm GMTBut the article goes further than stating the obvious: the intention – in my mind – is to show that, because Hitler and Chomsky are in agreement about the deception of "democracy", then Fascism is a reputable ideology, so much so that Chomsky, by association, gives his imprimatur to that perception. Durocher (a self-declared racist) is just another purveyor of the Nazis' lies attempting to dress that ideology with respectable robes.
Nothing new there. Afterall Hitler also called his political party "Socialism", the term stolen from the party he infiltrated for its popular appeal. As soon as he grabbed dictatorial power he imprisoned the socialists.
@Biff Roman elites started to attack each other in 133 B.C., and the civil wars lasted a century. The Roman Empire survived several centuries after that.Skeptikal , says: August 21, 2019 at 6:25 pm GMT@Mikemikev Why not stick to discussing the ideas in the essay?BCB232 , says: August 21, 2019 at 7:58 pm GMT
It is pathetic to fall back on the ad hominem "Hitler!" excuse for not engaging with the ideas.
Perhaps Durocher is wrong in the ideas he attributes to Hitler.
For myself I have always found it interesting that the basic concept of "national" "socialism" (let's just look at those words separately) seems to bear thinking over: A socialism that is not a international system but is based on a nation. Obviously how you define a nation is pretty important.Interestingly, now the Jews/Zionists have defined themselves as a nation (whether or not the citizens of this nation actually live in Israel). And the point of this nation certainly appears to be to confer all of the benefits of citizenship in the nation only on that nation's citizens and on no others. Many of the benefits of citizenship seem to be of a socialist nature: quite a few freebies such as education, health care, vacations at the seashore in special hotels, free housing (on land stolen from the natives), etc. etc. So, this Jewish nation certainly seems to espouse a version of socialism that is nation-based. I.e., national socialism.
@The_seventh_shape We'll see. Stalin asked "how many divisions does the Pope have?" The Chair is still there, the Soviet Union is gone – God works in mysterious ways.Professional Stranger , says: August 21, 2019 at 10:04 pm GMTMolly , says: August 22, 2019 at 1:58 am GMTTURTLE in COMMENT 169: There is. or at least was, a professor in the Department of Materials Science & Engineering at MIT, where Chomsky is Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, who spoke out publicly regarding certain anomalies found in the debris of the twin towers (not Building 7). Prof. Chomsky could have simply walked across campus and, no doubt, gotten an audience with his fellow faculty member, had he chosen to do so.
Ridiculing the public statements of someone with actual expertise in a relevant field by implying that none who have spoken out are qualified to do so is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.
Chomsky is a fraud.
STRANGER: Agreed! There are also the 1500 architects and engineers at "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" https://www.ae911truth.org/ who have spoken out, and who are well qualified to do so. Same goes for Pilots for 9/11 Truth http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ .
Fascinating! I'm reminded of Noam Chomsky's Manufactured Consent quite a bit lately due to the reckless deplatforming. As a "recovering anarchist," I sometimes wonder have I moved right? Or has the left moved left? Thank you for writing!Lancelot Link , says: August 22, 2019 at 2:28 am GMTChomsky has valid critiques of US power and its use. He points out the evil done in the name of the people re: capitalism (which benefits those who live off their capital. These people travel the world in search of people to screw over and drop like bad habits. See – wood and coal industries in West Virginia, USA.That Israel is a ethno state is no coincidence, it is exactly the belonging to the group which makes for a strong nation. All of "us" against all of "them". That Israel doesn't have the mass influx of aliens as white European nations must suffer should be instructive. They learned this from the NDSP as evidenced by the tactics of ghettoization on the Palestinians. They even have the strange belief that walls work.
Civic nationalism makes a lotta sense, but one must feel connection to the land, the people and the overarching nation of which they are a part. What multicultural gubbamint has lasted without friction between its peoples and for how long? Most western nations are the only ones with the multiculti death wish. Why do people migrate to hideous racist white nations? Do they can gripe about whatever they want while living high on the hog, of course!
Why don't people migrate to Israel, Japan, Cape Verde or Burundi? Because they either don't let many "others" in by defacto law or nobody wants to go because of dejure common sense.
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2019 | www.theepochtimes.com
Halper
Halper has links to the CIA and MI6. He also served in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations.
Halper met with Carter Page, a volunteer adviser to the Trump campaign, at a Cambridge symposium held on July 11 and 12, 2016. Page had just returned from a trip to Russia a few days prior and said he remained in contact with Halper for a number of months after that.
Page's trip became the core subject of the Steele dossier -- a collection of unsubstantiated claims about Trump-Russia collusion put together by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele that was paid for by Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The dossier was used by the FBI as the core evidence to obtain from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a warrant to spy on Page several weeks before the presidential election
On Sept. 2, 2016, Halper also contacted George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign aide, and offered $3,000 and a paid trip to London to write a paper about a gas field in the Mediterranean Sea. Papadopoulos accepted the offer and flew to London, where he met Halper and his assistant.
On Aug. 31 or Sept. 1, 2016, Halper also met with Trump campaign co-Chairman Sam Clovis in Northern Virginia and offered help to the Trump campaign with foreign policy, The Washington Post reported .
Halper's concern about Lokhova is portrayed as feigned in her complaint, since he seemed to have shown no concern for about two years after the 2014 Flynn meeting, only showing concern after Flynn started to aid Trump.
In fact, Halper appears himself to be rather close to Russian intelligence, having invited Vladimir Trubnikov, former director of Russian intelligence, to teach at CIS at least twice -- in 2012 and in 2015 -- according to the complaint. Trubnikov obliged him both times.
Between 2012 and 2017, Halper was paid more than a $1 million by the Office of Net Assessment, a strategy think tank that falls directly under the U.S. secretary of defense.
Adam Lovinger, an analyst at the think tank, raised alarm about the contracts to Halper, but was punished for it , according to his lawyer.
FlynnFlynn was one of the most consequential post-9/11 intelligence officials in the world.
"Mike Flynn's impact on the nation's War on Terror probably trumps any other single person as his energy and skill at harnessing the Intelligence Community into a focused effort was literally historic," wrote then-Brig. Gen. John Mulholland in Flynn's 2007 performance review.
At the time, Flynn headed intelligence at the Joint Special Operations Command.
Mulholland, himself a former special forces officer, called Flynn "easily the best intelligence professional of any service serving today."
In 2014, however, he was forced into retirement over disagreements with the Obama administration.
More than a year ago, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to two FBI agents about conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place when former President Barack Obama imposed additional sanctions on Russia in December 2016.
He also pleaded guilty to lying about asking Russia to vote against or delay the vote on a U.N. Security Council resolution.
Finally, he pleaded guilty to lying about his foreign lobbying disclosures regarding the extent to which his work benefiting the Turkish government was overseen by that government. Foreign lobbying paperwork violations are seldom prosecuted. Flynn said the work started in August 2016; he shut down his lobbying firm in November 2016.
In March, Flynn asked a federal judge to delay his sentencing to give him more time to continue in his cooperation with a case in Virginia against two of his former associates, who face charges for concealing that they lobbied in the United States on behalf of Turkey.
Flynn has extensively cooperated with government prosecutors on multiple investigations and further cooperation will give him yet more grounds to ask for a lenient sentence. Even before the delay, the prosecutors were asking for a lenient sentence, including no prison time, while the defense wanted no more than a year of probation and community service.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2019 | www.theepochtimes.com
Share News AnalysisLt. Gen. Michael Flynn appears to have put the team of former special counsel Robert Mueller on the defensive, unraveling what had been suggested to be a possible unofficial deal with the prosecutors.
Flynn, former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty in 2017 to one count of lying to the FBI. The Mueller team recommended a light sentence for him, including no prison time, officially because of his contrition for the crime and extensive cooperation with multiple Justice Department investigations.
But it appears that another, unofficial, deal may have been in place.
Several weeks before Flynn signed his plea, NBC News reported , based on unnamed sources, that the Mueller team was trying to get Flynn's cooperation by threatening to indict his son, Michael Flynn Jr.
"If the elder Flynn is willing to cooperate with investigators in order to help his son it could also change his own fate, potentially limiting any legal consequences," the article stated.
This isn't how an official plea deal would work, according to former FBI agent and Epoch Times contributor Marc Ruskin.
"It would be done with a wink and a nod," he said in a previous phone interview, later adding that "it wouldn't be binding, but it would be like an understanding."
It's not clear whether any such deal was reached and if so, what specifically it entailed. But Flynn's case involves a number of peculiarities that suggest something was going on behind the scenes.
'Star Witness' StrzokFlynn's statement of offense attached to his plea acknowledges that he lied to the FBI during a Jan. 24, 2017, interview.
However, the FBI agent that wrote the report from the interview was Peter Strzok, who was later kicked off the Mueller team after the revelation of his animus toward Trump in texts then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an extramarital affair. Strzok was later fired from the bureau, while Page left on her own.
"Michael Flynn would have faced no legal jeopardy at all if he just wouldn't have pleaded guilty because they would have never gotten a conviction with Peter Strzok as their star witness," Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox News on Dec. 4.
Lobbying FormsFlynn's statement also included an admission that the forms submitted by lawyers for his now-defunct lobbying company, Flynn Intel Group (FIG), contained false and misleading statements.
Flynn was never charged with lying on the forms and neither was his son, who also worked for the firm.
The Mueller team simply used Flynn's admission to charge Flynn's former partner in FIG, Bijan Rafiekian, and Ekim Alptekin, a Turkish businessman and FIG's client, with false statements on the lobbying forms and for conspiring to act as unregistered lobbyists for Turkey.
The lobbying involved an op-ed published in The Hill under Flynn's name about Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic cleric living in exile in Pennsylvania who runs a group that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan blamed for an attempted 2016 coup.
Flynn was supposed to testify on the case and has asked the court to delay his sentencing until after that matter is concluded.
Flynn's MoveLast month, however, Flynn made an unexpected move. He fired his lawyers -- the same lawyers he hired to do the lobbying paperwork for his firm. His new team includes Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor who is a critic of corruption in the Justice Department in general and of Mueller in particular.
Later that month, the Mueller team asked Flynn to testify that he signed the lobbying forms knowing about the false statements and intending for them. He refused , saying he only acknowledged the falsities with hindsight, but wasn't aware of them at the time.
This angered Brandon Van Grack, one of Mueller's main prosecutors, according to Flynn's lawyers.
'Retaliation'Shortly after that, the Mueller team did several things that Powell called a "retaliation."
They called off Flynn's testimony and tried to put a gag order on him to stop him from disclosing that fact.
Then they tried to recast him as a co-conspirator in the lobbying case, despite earlier telling the court multiple times that he wasn't one.
They also had an FBI agent directly call and question Flynn Jr. "despite knowing that he was represented by counsel," Flynn's lawyers said in a court filing. "The Agent persisted in trying to speak with him even after he said to call his attorney."
Then, on July 11, they designated Flynn Jr. as a witness in the lobbying case, though he wasn't on the original witness list from the day before ( pdf ).
No Deal?If Flynn is indeed being punished for reneging on the "wink and a nod" deal, the Mueller team seems to have the short end of the stick now because, officially, there is no deal.
The judge in the lobbying case made it clear that the government has yet to prove there was a conspiracy to begin with, not to mention that Flynn was a co-conspirator. Meanwhile, Powell told the judge in the Flynn case that the severity of his sentence shouldn't be affected because he's still cooperating with the government -- he simply clarified that what the Mueller team wanted him to say went beyond what he'd previously acknowledged and wasn't true.
If there was a deal, the Mueller team has by and large already delivered on its side of it. Whatever leverage it had over Flynn now appears about spent. Does Van Grack still have a card or two to play? And if so, does he really want to tip his hand?
New QuestionsOn July 12, the Mueller team handed a statement to Rafiekian's lawyers saying that the government has "multiple independent pieces of information relating to the Turkish government's efforts to influence United States policy on Turkey and Fethullah Gulen, including information relating to communications, interactions, and a relationship between Ekim Alptekin and Michael Flynn because of Michael Flynn's relationship with an ongoing presidential campaign without any reference to [Rafiekian] or FIG."
Rafiekian's lawyers seized on the statement, arguing that Flynn was "secretly acting on behalf of Turkey."
But they also acknowledged that they haven't seen any such evidence.
Powell seemed unimpressed.
"We have no idea what the government is talking about. It smacks of desperation," she said in a statement , highlighting that during Trump's presidential campaign "countless people" reached out to Flynn, who was an adviser to Trump.
"Whatever it is, it cannot be new information to the prosecution, and it was only a few months ago prosecutors recommended probation for him," Powell said. "As we have said in our recent filings, this can only be retaliation for his refusal to answer a question the way they wanted."
The Mueller team's claim raises more questions: How did it get this information? How long have they been sitting on it and why? If Alptekin reached out to Flynn on behalf of Turkey explicitly because Flynn advised Trump, why haven't we heard about it by now? Did Turkey reach out to the Clinton camp too? After all, it was Clinton who was widely expected to replace President Barack Obama, who already had an amicable relationship with Erdogan.
In fact, just days before Rafiekian and Alptekin engaged in talks about the Gulen job in July 2016, Obama called Erdogan "to deliver what a senior administration official described as a 'shout-out' for his resilience in the face of a failed coup attempt, and to express relief that the Turkish president and his family were safe," The New York Times reported .
Turkey was trying to make the Obama administration extradite Gulen, but why it would try to get help specifically from Flynn, who was known to be at odds with the Obama administration, remains unclear.
If the Obama administration, however, somehow learned that Flynn's firm, unregistered to boot, was working for Alptekin, who is known to have ties to Erdogan, it would have given it a perfect pretext to target Flynn for FISA surveillance as an "agent of a foreign power."
While it has been speculated that the FBI took out a FISA warrant on Flynn to spy on the Trump campaign, that hasn't been confirmed.
Update: The article has been updated to reflect that Michael Flynn continues to cooperate with prosecutors.
Follow Petr on Twitter: @petrsvab Share this article Show Discussion RECOMMENDED TOP VIDEOSSpygate Special Coverage May 26, 2019 FBI Informant Fed Media Lies to Smear Flynn, Defamation Lawsuit Alleges
<img alt="The Story Behind America’s Fastest-Growing Newspaper" src="https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/08/21/sddefault-e1566405454391-205x123.jpg"> The Story Behind America's Fastest-Growing Newspaper 1d By Epoch Times Staff
<img alt="It's Time for Stefan Halper's Lies to Be Fully Exposed" src="https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/08/20/Gina-Shakespeare-on-Declassified-episode-191-205x123.jpg"> It's Time for Stefan Halper's Lies to Be Fully Exposed 3d By Gina Shakespeare
<img alt="Retrial Requested in Case of Michael Flynn Business Associate" src="https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/08/19/Gina-Shakespeare-on-Declassified-episode-190-205x123.jpg"> Retrial Requested in Case of Michael Flynn Business Associate 3d By Gina Shakespeare
By Petr Svab Cambridge academic Stefan Halper, who was de facto outed as an FBI informant, is being sued for allegedly spreading lies to media about a supposed relationship between ... Politics June 12, 2019 Michael Flynn Hires DOJ Critic Sidney Powell as New Counsel
By Bowen Xiao Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn hired attorney Sidney Powell, a prominent critic of the Justice Department, to be his new counsel. Powell confirmed her new role to The Epoch ... CHINA HUMAN RIGHTS May 31, 2019 Sexual Torture in Chinese Prisons: 'No Limits to the Perversion
By JOAN DELANEY After acclaimed human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng began investigating the Chinese Communist Party's campaign of persecution against adherents of the Falun Dafa spiritual practice, ... Politics June 13, 2019 House Intelligence Democrats Subpoena Michael Flynn, Rick Gates
- Rep. Lee Zeldin Defends Trump Following Backlash Over His 'Disloyalty' Remarks 3hr By Janita Kan
<img alt="Rep. Lee Zeldin Defends Trump Following Backlash Over His 'Disloyalty' Remarks" src="https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/08/23/President-Donald-Trump-speaks--205x123.jpg">
- President Trump Considering All Sides in the Gun Control Issue 3hr By Masooma Haq
<img alt="President Trump Considering All Sides in the Gun Control Issue" src="https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/08/19/president-donald-trump-1162567559-205x123.jpg">
- Mueller Overlooked Italian Ex-Minister Tied to Joseph Mifsud 3hr By Petr Svab
<img alt="Mueller Overlooked Italian Ex-Minister Tied to Joseph Mifsud" src="https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/08/21/vincenzo-scotti-87139270-205x123.jpg">
- Trump Awards Medal of Freedom to NBA Star Bob Cousy 3hr By The Associated Press
<img alt="Trump Awards Medal of Freedom to NBA Star Bob Cousy" src="https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/08/22/bob-cousy-205x123.jpg">
- Epstein's Will Creates Additional Barriers for Accusers, Lawyers Say 4hr By Bowen Xiao
<img alt="Epstein’s Will Creates Additional Barriers for Accusers, Lawyers Say" src="https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/07/10/epstein-205x123.jpg">
- Chinese Hackers Target US Cancer Research: Cybersecurity Report 5hr By Cathy He , Epoch Times
<img alt="Chinese Hackers Target US Cancer Research: Cybersecurity Report" src="https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/08/22/GettyImages-937109238-205x123.jpg">
- DOJ: 64 Percent of All Federal Arrests in 2018 Were Noncitizens 5hr By Ivan Pentchoukov
<img alt="DOJ: 64 Percent of All Federal Arrests in 2018 Were Noncitizens" src="https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/08/22/9A6A2160_e-205x123.jpg">
subscribe newsletter Newsstands
35 COUNTRIES, 21 LANGUAGES
- Subscribe
- Advertise
- About Us
- Contact Us
- Newspaper Subscription
- RSS Feeds
- Terms of Services
- Privacy Policy
- Copyright Policy
- Digital Newspaper
Copyright @ 2000 - 2019
- English
- Chinese
- Spanish
- Hebrew
- Japanese
- Korean
- Indonesian
- French
- German
- Italian
- Portuguese
- Swedish
- Dutch
- Russian
- Ukrainian
- Romanian
- Czech
- Slovak
- Polish
- Turkish
- Persian
We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes personalizing content and advertising. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. More information I accept ×
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
survey shows that most Americans don't want war with Iran. Only 18% of all American adults favor military action against Iran, and even among Republicans that number is just 25%. 78% favor economic and diplomatic efforts. That's fine as far as it goes, and it shows that there is very little support for a new war at this time. The framing of the question is the bigger problem and makes the results from the poll much less useful.The poll asks, "What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program -- take military action against Iran, or rely mainly on economic and diplomatic efforts?" The question assumes that it is within our government's power to "get Iran to shut down its nuclear program," when the experience of the last twenty years tells us that it is not. The nuclear negotiations that produced the JCPOA show beyond any doubt that there are limits to what Iran is willing to concede on this point. It is good that most Americans prefer non-military options to pursue this fantastical goal, but the assumption that Iran will one day "shut down" its nuclear program is completely unrealistic. On the contrary, the more pressure that the U.S. puts on Iran in an attempt to force such a shutdown, the more inclined Iran's government is to build up its program.
If Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful, there is no need for them to shut it down. The long-term goal of the JCPOA has been to demonstrate to the satisfaction of all parties that Iran's nuclear program is and will remain peaceful, and then at that point Iran will be treated like any other member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The U.S. doesn't need to do anything to "get" Iran to do this because the goal of shutting down the program is a foolish and impossible one. Perceiving Iran's possession of a peaceful nuclear program as a problem to be solved is one of the reasons why our debate over Iran policy is so warped and biased in favor of coercive measures. The idea that Iran has to "shut down" a program that it is legally entitled to have under the NPT is bizarre, but it is obviously a common view here in the U.S.
The question is misleading in another way, since it suggests that military action could be effective in forcing Iran to "shut down" the program. In reality, attacking Iran's nuclear facilities would at most set back the program, but it would give the Iranian government a strong incentive to develop and build a deterrent that would discourage the U.S. from launching more attacks in the future. Attacking a country when it doesn't have nuclear weapons is a good way to encourage them to acquire those weapons as quickly as possible.
That makes the results to the follow-up question all the more dispiriting. The poll also asks, "Suppose U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts do not work. If that happens, do you think the United States should -- or should not -- take military action against Iran?" Once again, the question assumes that getting Iran to "shut down" its nuclear program is both a legitimate and realistic goal. If non-military measures "do not work," there is additional support for military action from a depressing 42% of those who initially favored "economic and diplomatic efforts." Put them together with the initial supporters of military action, and you have a narrow majority of all American adults that thinks the U.S. should take military action:
The 42% of those who favor military action if nonmilitary efforts fail translates to 35% of all U.S. adults. Combining that group with the 18% who favor military action outright means a slim majority of Americans, 53%, would support military action against Iran if diplomatic and economic efforts are unsuccessful.
There is a disturbingly high level of support for launching an illegal attack on another country for something it is legally permitted to have. The assumption that "economic and diplomatic efforts" will be "unsuccessful" if they don't force Iran to abandon its nuclear program helps to push respondents to give that answer, but they wouldn't endorse a military option if they hadn't been led to think that Iran's nuclear program is an intolerable danger. That is partly because of the bad framing of the questions, but it is also a product of decades of relentless propagandizing about a supposed threat from Iran's nuclear program that is completely divorced from reality. We need better poll questions on this subject, but we also need better, more informed debate about Iran and we have to stamp out the threat inflation that poisons and distorts the public's perceptions of threats from other states.
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2019 | www.unz.com
Biff , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:58 am GMT
@lysiasRoman elites started to attack each other in 133 B.C., and the civil wars lasted a century. The Roman Empire survived several centuries after that.
" What have the Romans ever done for us?!"
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2019 | www.unz.com
The illogical and contradictory nature of denial enabled "the position that there is no Jewish nation when the admission of it may inconvenience the Jew, but very much of a Jewish nation when it can advantage him (19)." Of course, Jews were more than keen to support and encourage the non-ethnocentric view of nationality held by Europeans, because it granted them entry to European societies on very weak terms. These weak terms, which ask next to nothing of Jews, were based on the equally weak principles that all men are equal and that the nation is merely a construct. To Jews, citizenship was a path to the security and special treatment which, Belloc argues, 'the Jew' feels "to be his due."
Without it he feels handicapped. He is, in his own view, only saved from the disadvantage of a latent hostility when he is thus protected, and he is therefore convinced that the world owes him this singular privilege of full citizenship in any community where he happens for the moment to be, while at the same time retaining full citizenship of his own nation. What the Jew wanted was not the proud privilege of being called an Englishman, a Frenchman, an Italian, or a Dutchman. To this he was completely indifferent. What the Jew wanted was not the feeling that he was just like the others -- that would have been odious to him -- what he wanted was security .(26).
Belloc raises an interesting point: the incessant search of Jews for security remains a stark but often overlooked reality in the present. The rise of the National Socialists, and the wave of pent-up exasperation which swept through Europe during World War Two, revealed to Jews the weakness of citizenship, in and of itself, to maintain the fiction of equality and to offer the deep level of security they crave. Confronted with a mass expression of European ethnocentrism, the Jew could find no appropriate mask. Not one of religion, for the guise of 'Christian' no longer offered protection and the opportunity of crypsis. The state now comprised a citizenry of racial brothers rather than 'fellow citizens' of the Jews. For the first time in the long game of musical chairs they had played since arriving in Europe, the music had stopped playing -- and the Jews were left without a chair.
From the rubble of World War II, a new world was to be fashioned. No longer was citizenship for the Jews enough -- now Jewish security was to be sought by regulating non-Jews and imposing limits on the exercise of their citizenship. Since World War II this has taken the form of everything from engineering the demographic profile of Western nations, to 'hate speech' laws and lobbying for gun control. One of the crucial functions of The Occidental Observer has been to catalog instances where, under the guise of equal citizenship and other Western liberal fads, Jewish organizations have been moving towards achieving immunity from criticism, and water-tight levels of Jewish security, in the United States , Canada , Australia , Britain , Germany , France and many other nations. Thus a process which began following the Enlightenment with Jewish admission to citizenship, has slowly evolved to the gradual diminution of the citizenship of non-Jews and the ascendance of Jews to privileged protected status throughout the West.
The parallel with the position of Jews under feudalism is astonishing. Rather than ensuring the equality of everyone under the law, Western Liberalism's non-ethnocentric citizenship has simply acted as the conduit for the transfer of power within society.
Further, I would argue that no amount of repressive legislation would satisfy these Jewish organizations or make them feel truly safe. The craving they feel is so deep-rooted it seems more like an unquenchable thirst. The slow chipping away of our freedoms suggest that the continued indulgence of this thirst by our own elites will only be to our detriment in the long run.
But, of course, the problem is not simply one of our own making, and Belloc has much to say on the Jews themselves.
Part Two
After discussing denial among non-Jews on the issue of the "Jewish problem," Belloc moves in the third chapter to his thoughts on how that problem had manifested in his lifetime. He describes Jewry as a "political organism" which, like any independent organism, seeks after its own interests. The author writes (44):
It is objected of the Jew in finance, in industry, in commerce -- where he is ubiquitous and powerful out of all proportion to his numbers -- that he seeks, and has already reached, dominion. It is objected that he acts everywhere against the interests of his hosts; that these are being interfered with, guided, run against their will; that a power is present which acts either with indifference to what we love or in active opposition to what we love. Notably it is said to be indifferent to, or in active opposition against our national feelings, our religious traditions, and the general cultural and morals of Christendom which we have inherited and desire to preserve: that power is Israel.
Although these objections had, for the most part, merely simmered under the surface of Western liberal convention, Belloc argues that the Bolshevik revolution shocked Europeans. The leading role of Jews in the Russian catastrophe "struck both at the benevolent who would near no harm of the Jews, and those who had hitherto shielded or obeyed them as identified only with the interest of large Capital (45)." Although liberal convention on the Jews officially held the field, the Bolshevik menace "compelled attention. Bolshevism stated the Jewish problem with a violence and an insistence such that it could no longer be denied either by the blindest fanatic or the most resolute liar (46)."
However, the Bolshevik shock was only part of a gradual change in the Jewish interaction with Europe. Belloc describes early modern Jewish settlement in the West as involving very small numbers of Jews in a given location. These Jews belonged to classes which kept them out of direct competition with the poor of the large towns. They were absent from the countryside. They refrained from interference in politics or in the press. It was relatively easy to admit such a collection of non-descript characters to equal citizenship. But changes were afoot. Religion declined and with it some of the last barriers to certain professions and avenues to power. This small number of Jews now entered the liberal professions, but still in numbers too small to dominate or influence. Conflicts were minimal. But with time, even this small group acquired influence vastly out of proportion to its numbers. Between 1830 and 1870,
the weight and position of the Jew in Western Civilization increased out of all knowledge and yet without shock, and almost without attracting attention. They entered the Parliaments everywhere, the English Peerage as well, and the Universities in very large numbers. A Jew became Prime Minister of Great Britain, another a principal leader of the Italian insurrection; another led the opposition to Napoleon III. They were present in increasing numbers in the chief institutions of every country. (47)
Within the same period, the Papal States were broken up, and the Pope confined to the Vatican. "Within a few years Rome was to see a Jewish Mayor who supported with all his might the unchristianizing of the city and especially of its educational system (48)." Jews like Paul Reuter began to take the lead in international news transmission and became owners, editors, and journalists of many European newspapers.
The perennial friction between Jews and non-Jews had increased to intolerable levels. The first writings on the increasing friction -- what would today be called "hate speech" -- emerged in Germany and France in the 1870s. In 1879 the famous and respected German historian Heinrich von Treitschke complained publicly about "the unjust influence of the Jews in the press," but was shouted down as an anti-Semite. Belloc states that men like von Treitschke had their writings denounced as "the extravagancies of fanatics (49)." But, argues Belloc, "fanatics" like von Treitschke frustrated their opponents "by the quotation of an immense quantity of facts which could not but remain in the mind (49)." The object of many of these early writers was to expose "crypto-Judaism," and the conscious secrecy which lay behind Jewish networking in Europe's corridors of power.
Such work was necessary given the increasing number of international Jewish financial scandals. These included a war between the British and the Boers in South Africa in 1899 -- a conflict Belloc argues was "openly and undeniably provoked and promoted by Jewish interests (50)." Jewish politicians in France and Britain were also exposed by brave writers as participating in large-scale fraud in conjunction with their cousins in finance:
The Panama scandals in the French Parliament had already fed the movement in France. The later Parliamentary scandals in England, Marconi and the rest, afforded so astonishing a parallel to Panama that the similarity was of universal comment [see also " Free to Cheat: 'Jewish Emancipation' and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood "] They might have passed as isolated things a generation before. They were now connected, often unjustly, with the uneasy sense of a general financial conspiracy. They were, at any rate, connected with an atmosphere essentially Jewish in character. (51)
Then, on top of the rise to power of those Jews already settled in the West, the great Eastern reservoir of the Jewish race was opened up in the 1880s, and the borders of the Western states were pried open with fabricated tales of pogroms and persecution. By the time Westerners became attuned to the fact that those "ignorant Slavs" might have had good reason to resent the "poor innocent victims" now calling for revolution on the streets of New York and London, their mouths had been muzzled. Belloc writes that "The Jews were in every place of advantage: they taught in the Universities of all Europe; they were everywhere in the Press; everywhere in finance. They were continually to be found in the highest places of Government and in the chanceries of Christendom they had acquired a dominant power which none could question (53)." Following this was the Russian catastrophe, which was motivated by the Jewish communists' "sincere hatred of national feeling, save, of course, where the Jewish nation was concerned (59)." Such was the "Present Phase of the Problem" when Belloc penned his work, and with this he concludes his third chapter.
Having discussed the immediate context of his own times, Belloc moves in his fourth chapter to an examination of the more timeless qualities of conflict: "The General Causes of Friction." I found this to be one of the better chapters in the book. Here Belloc is careful to point out that the "Jewish Problem" is more than the contemporary context he described in the previous chapter: "The friction between the Jews and the nations among which they are dispersed is far older, far more profound, far more universal (69)." It is a force which has been "permanently at work everywhere and at all times (71)." The causes of this friction, argues Belloc, are both "general" and "special." The general cause is summed up "in the truth that the whole texture of the Jewish nation, their corporate tradition, their social mind, is at issue with the people among whom they live (71)." The special causes are "the use of secrecy by the Jews as a method of action and the open expression of superiority over his neighbors which the Jew cannot help but feeling but is wrong to emphasize (71)."
Belloc argues that the different 'texture' of the Jewish nation from our own is self-evident. He takes three common charges levelled against the Jews -- cowardice, avarice and treason -- and argues that these have the opposite qualities but with a "special national timbre ." Thus among the Jews you will find "innumerable instances of the highest courage, the greatest generosity and the most devoted loyalty: but courage, generosity and loyalty of a Jewish kind, directed to Jewish ends, and stamped with a highly distinctive Jewish mark (73)."
It is upon the non-Jew to realize that the Jew will be courageous on behalf of his own people, that he will be generous toward his own people, and that he will be loyal to his own people. His defects to us, are his virtues to his own. Belloc writes that "there is no race which has produced so few traitors. It is not treason in the Jew to be international. It is not treason in the Jew to work now for one interest among those who are not of his people, now for another. He can only be charged with treason when he acts against the interests of Israel, and there is no nation nor ever has been one in which the national solidarity was greater or national weakness in the shape of traitors less (78)."
Thus, to use an example from the present, Jonathan Pollard is a loyal Jewish hero who has attracted unceasing support from global Jewry since his arrest by the US government for "treason." Belloc urges us to see that such cases are to be expected. Pollard, as a Jew, did not commit treason. He was in fact very loyal -- to his own people. Our crime is in adopting a dog and expecting it not to bark. In permitting loyal Jews, such as Pollard, to positions of power and influence in our society, it is we who harbor the greater amount of traitors, and it is we who commit treason daily by ceding power, influence, and money to a foreign nation.
Belloc moves on to a survey of Jewish traits which again are similar to our own but differ in quality or direction. Thus "his tenacity, which all know and all in a sense admire and which is far superior to our own, is also a narrower tenacity, or at any rate a tenacity of a different kind. He will follow one end where we will follow many. His wonderful loyalty to all family relations we know: but we do not appreciate it because it is outside our own circle. Even his intellectual gifts, which are less affected by this matter of timbre , have something alien to us in them. They are undeniable but we feel them to be used for other ends than ours (80)."
I found this last sentence quite haunting. Bear in mind that Belloc was writing prior to the rise of Jewish intellectual movements, and that 'Jewish timbre ' was not so clearly evident in academia during his lifetime.
In a further example of the unchanging nature of the friction between Jews and non-Jews, and the observations of difference at the core of that friction, Belloc precedes scholars like Kevin MacDonald in identifying psychological intensity as a background trait of Jewish ethnocentrism and activism. In addition to a marked single-mindedness, Belloc describes "a certain intensity of action which is very noticeable and which again is a cause of friction between himself and those about him. Hear a Jew speaking upon the revolutionary platform, and note the high voltage at which the current is working. He is not eloquent in our fashion; but he is at any rate astonishingly effective in his own (82)."
This intensity, argues Belloc, is most often employed in "a corporate capacity for hiding or for advertising at will: a power of 'pushing' whatever the whole race desires advanced, or of suppressing what the whole race desires to suppress (82)." Such corporate action "will always remain a permanent irritant in its effect upon those to whom it is applied."
Belloc uses the example of the nausea which is eventually felt following the incessant Jewish propaganda about "the talents of some particular Jew [see, e.g., my series on the promotion of Spinoza, " Pariah to Messiah: The Engineered Apotheosis of Baruch Spinoza "], or the scientific discovery of another, or the misfortunes of another (83)." And conversely, when men discover "that some important matter has been suppressed, some bad scandal in the State or some trick in commerce, because Jewry desired it to be suppressed," they will not suffer the operation as quietly the second time as they did they first.
A final significant cause of friction is also related to the intensity of the Jewish corporate capacity -- the strong tendency toward monopoly (94). Belloc contends that "the Jew is international, tenacious and determined upon reaching the very end of his task. He is not satisfied in any trade until that trade is, as far as possible, under his complete control, and he has for the extension of that control the support of his brethren throughout the world (94)."
The increase of Jewish monopolies in various public, political and financial spheres is dangerous for everyone, including Jews. Belloc closes his fourth chapter by prophetically anticipating the rise of a dictatorial mode of government and the backlash against the Jews:
To put an end to this state of affairs is impossible so long as parliamentary government, with its profound corruption, endures. The only force capable of dealing with the plutocratic evil of an alien monopoly upon this scale is a king; but a king we have not among the modern nations. But the parliamentary system will not last forever. It is already in active dissolution among ourselves, and badly hit elsewhere. The king may not be so far off as people think him to be. At any rate, in one way or another the thing will cease, and will probably cease in violence. (96)
The fifth chapter concerns the "special" causes of friction. These are the Jewish reliance upon secrecy, and the Jewish expression of superiority. Belloc states that the centuries-old Jewish habit of secrecy has now almost become an instinct. This is expressed in "secret societies, a language kept as far as possible secret, the use of false names in order to hide secret movements, and secret relations between various parts of the Jewish body (99)." Such behavior should be deplored because it "feeds and intensifies the antagonism already excited by racial contrast (100)." In particular, the author singles out the Jewish habit of denying the influence of his nationality upon his thoughts, beliefs, and actions. Belloc writes:
If a man tells me that he hates the English, and in reply I say, 'That's because you are an Irishman,' he does not fly at my throat. He takes it as a matter of course that the history of the English government in Ireland excuses his expression. So far from being insulted at being called an Irishman he would be insulted if you said he was not an Irishman. And so it is with many another nationality which has suffered oppression and persecution. I can find no rational basis for a contrary policy in the case of the Jews (106).
But the Jews do, of course, pursue a different line of thought altogether. Accuse of Jew of bearing a grudge against Europeans for past conflict, and you will quickly find yourself accused of being a "rabid anti-Semite" or some such nonsense. Your crime has been to pierce the veil of secrecy thrown over Jewish nationality. His membership of the Jewish nation is a matter of private pride, and only the mask of outward patriotism to the goy State is permitted to be up for discussion. Thus, during World War II, New York Jews were protesting as democracy-loving Americans against the Jewish policies of National Socialist Germany. People like Charles Lindbergh, who dared to rip off the mask and describe the situation plainly, were monitored and attacked by the distinctly Hebraic Anti-Defamation League. [1] B. Ginsberg, How The Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), p.46.
Although he concedes that a great deal more could be written on the subject of Jewish secrecy, Belloc moves on to a discussion of expressions of Jewish superiority. He writes that "the Jew individually feels himself superior to his non-Jewish contemporary and neighbour of whatever race; the Jew feels his nation immeasurably superior to any other human community (108)." This fixed idea of superiority, linked to the concept of Jews as "a light unto the nations," often creates friction.
The Jew will write of our religion, taking for granted that it is folly, and will marvel that we are offended. He will appear in our national affairs, not only giving advice, but attempting to direct policy, and will be puzzled to discover that his indifference to national feeling is annoying. He will postulate the Jewish temperament as something which, if different from ours, must, whether we like it or not, be thrust upon us. He acts in all these things as everyone acts instinctively in the presence of those whom they take for granted to be inferiors. (113)
This superiority also connects with Jewish contempt for the masses of non-Jews, particularly the rural folk. [2] A good example of the hostility toward rural folk by Jewish intellectuals can be seen in the New York Intellectuals. The New York Intellectuals associated rural America with nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism; the urban was associated antithetically with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideas. . . . The New York Intellectuals simply began with the assumption that the rural -- with which they associated much of American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York -- had little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture. . . . By interpreting cultural and political issues through the urban-rural lens, writers could even mask assertions of superiority and expressions of anti-democratic sentiments as the judgments of an objective expertise. (Terry Cooney, The Rise of the New York Intellectuals 1986, 267–268; italics in text) Belloc writes that it is an overwhelming and incontrovertible truth that the bulk of Jewry makes no effort to get in touch with the race in the midst of which he may be living. He is content to remain separate from it, and deludes himself into the belief that he cannot help but remain separate from it. "He associates with the elite , with those who direct, with those who have some sort of special function (114)." But to him it seems, at best, a waste of time to attempt communion with the rest.
Jewish resentment is increased when his sense of superiority is forced to contend with the European's own sense of superiority. He loathes this as insolence. (One is reminded of the hatred of Franz Boas toward the idea that Europeans were the pinnacle of humanity, a major motivation for his theory of cultural relativism; here , p. 24.) He feels his position and his security threatened. He attempts to gain a more solid position by extending his power, but succeeds only in provoking stronger assertions of superiority by the European, indignant at having to fight for mastery on his own soil. Friction escalates, and sometimes violence ensues.
Belloc concludes the chapter by urging the restraint of the sense of superiority by both parties, and the adoption of more natural and truthful societal positions -- that of host and guest -- with impermeable boundaries. Only by doing so can we avoid "falling back into the old circle of submission, consequent anger accompanied by shame and violence, and these followed by remorse (119)."
Part Three
As Belloc moves into the second half of his book, I personally feel that the work becomes weaker. His characteristic style remains powerful, but it is in the second half of the book that Belloc's attempt to come across as balanced goes too far. The sixth chapter examines "The Causes of Friction upon Our Side." Here Belloc neglects to concede that the great mass of Europeans has never urged the Jews to settle among them, that they have never held them captive, and certainly never sought out conflict with them. As Martin Luther once so insightfully pointed out:
Now behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when they complain about being captives among us. [W]e do not know to this day which Devil brought them into our country. We did not fetch them from Jerusalem! On top of that, no-one is holding them now. Land and highways are open to them; they may move to their country whenever they wish to do so.
This is a fundamental issue in the history of Jewish-European relations that Belloc fails to recognize. Purposeful or not, the presence of a powerful but separate foreign, political entity exerting influence to its own ends in the elite strata of a given society amounts to one thing and one thing only: colonialism. In such a scenario, one would be hard-pressed to find fault with the colonized. Jews have remained in European society out of choice and with purpose and goals; not out of captivity. There are no passive partners. We are not locked into a fateful and unceasing struggle with all exits blocked. But instead Belloc strains to keep a balance which loses touch with the reality of the situation. He argues that "it is certain that we play a part ourselves in this quarrel between us and the Jews (124)." While certain actions on our part may escalate tensions, I would argue you that no fully accurate assessment of the situation can be made without having as a foundation an acknowledgement of the scenario I have just outlined.
This aside, Belloc has some insightful comments on how the European peoples deal with Jews. He argues that only two types of people show perfect honesty in their dealings with Jews: "the completely ignorant dupe who can hardly tell a Jew when he sees one and who accepts as a reality the old fiction of there being no difference except a different of religion," and "the person called an 'anti-Semite' (126)." Both these types are rare, says Belloc. The majority of men "are grossly disingenuous in all their dealings with the Jews (127)." In this camp Belloc would place the likes of John Derbyshire , who on the one hand concedes and shows awareness that Jews as a group hold incredible levels of influence and power within his own profession, but who levels heavy criticism against those who dare to speak explicitly on the subject. Belloc describes such activity as "the great fault of our side which corresponds to the fault of secrecy upon theirs (127)."
Both types inhibit the ultimate goal of achieving openness and honesty. Jews, of course, are aware of the disingenuous nature of much of the contact they have with non-Jews. Afraid that at any second that hidden awareness may be made explicit, his infamous sense of insecurity grows and he becomes ever more paranoid. His paranoia breeds further friction. Only with the dupe and the so-called "anti-Semite" do Jews think "At least I know where I am." For this reason, Belloc argues, "in their heart of hearts the Jews are grateful to both (126)."
This may well be the case, but I'm not holding my breath for a thank you card from Abe Foxman. Belloc also astutely recognizes that the great vice of disingenuous dealings with the Jews is "particularly rife among the wealthy and middle classes," being far less common among the working class and the poor (131).
Falsehood also extends to the historical record of the Jews among us. Belloc writes that "we throw the story of these relations, which are among the half-dozen leading factors in history, right into the background even when we do mention it (131)." The vast and omnipresent nature of this subject "is deliberately suppressed (132)."
There took place in Cyprus and in the Libyan cities under Hadrian a Jewish movement against the surrounding non-Jewish society far exceeding in violence the late wreckage of Russia, which to-day fills all our thoughts. The massacres were wholesale and so were the reprisals. The Jews killed a quarter of a million of the people of Cyprus alone, and the Roman authorities answered with a repression which was a pitiless war. One might pile up instances indefinitely. The point is, that the average educated man has never been allowed to hear of them (132).
These epoch-defining events, unless they can be adapted in some fashion to clearly show the Jew as victim, are relegated to mere footnotes or insignificant details in the vast catalogues of our history. The same falsehood then extends into our contemporary record in the media reports, produced by knowing non-Jews, which insist on describing Jonathan Pollard as an American, or which portray the activities of the ADL or SPLC as in any way consistent with "American" values.
Belloc pours scorn on this falsehood not only because it "corrodes the souls of those who indulge in it (134)," but also because it "produces in the Jew a false sense of security and a completely distorted phantasm of the way in which he is really received in our society (134)." The more this falsehood is pursued, "the more the surprise which follows upon its discovery and the more legitimate the bitterness and hatred which that surprise occasions in those of whom we are the hosts (134)."
This is a good point. Studying Jewish reactions to the rising tide of inter-ethnic friction in Central Europe at the start of the twentieth century, one is indeed struck by the "profound shock, the utter disbelief, among the Jews." [3] Y. M. Bodemann, Jews, Germans, Memory: Reconstructions of Jewish Life in Germany (University of Michigan Press, 1996), p.266.
Aside from falsehood on our part, Belloc also condemns the "unintelligence of our dealing with the Jews (134)." We stand at a particular disadvantage because " their dealings with us are always intelligent. They know what they are driving at in those relations, though they often misunderstand the material with which they deal (135)."
This unintelligence manifested in a number of ways in Belloc's lifetime in the form of inept defenses of the Jews. He particular loathed the masking of Jewish immigration under the title of "the alien question," or "Russian immigration." He also castigated authors who, having been scolded for including less than positive Jewish characters in their novels, rushed to put "imaginary Jew heroes in their books." Using the example of Dickens and the Fagin of Oliver Twist , and later his Riah of Our Mutual Friend , Belloc writes:
He disliked Jews instinctively; when he wrote of a Jew according to his inclination he made him out a criminal. Hearing that he must make amends for this action, he introduced a Jew who is like nothing on earth -- a sort of compound of an Arab Sheik and a Family Bible picture from the Old Testament, and the whole embroidered on an utterly non-Jewish -- a purely English character (136).
This unintelligence can generally be summed up in the idea that we too readily read ourselves into others, becoming shocked and acting stupidly when we discover otherwise. Rather "we ought to take it for granted that the Jew is nomadic, international, and spread all over the world (137)." We need to become attuned to the reality that "the Jew feels among us, only with far greater intensity, what we feel when we are in a foreign country -- a sense of exile, a sense of irritation against alien things, merely because they are alien; a great desire for companionship and for understanding, yet a great indifference to the fate of those among whom he finds himself; an added attachment, no, indeed, to his territorial home, for he has none, but to his nation (138)." The modern reader can accept such a thesis, though obviously with the acknowledgment that a steady loyalty to the Israeli state has now been woven into the mentality of the Diaspora Jew.
With the close of this chapter, the book moves toward progressively shorter sections on 'The anti-Semite,' 'Bolshevism,' 'The Position in the World as a Whole,' 'Zionism,' and some concluding remarks. Belloc's chapter on 'The anti-Semite' is particularly weak, based as it is on the assumption that there is in fact a sizeable portion of men who "hate Jews in themselves (147)." Belloc subscribes to the Jewish notion that the motives of those they label 'anti-Semites' are not related to a "hatred of concealment, falsehood, hypocrisy, corruption and all the other incidental evils of the false position. These things, indeed, irritate him, but they are not his leading motive. His leading motive is a hatred of the Jewish people (148)."
The bankruptcy of Belloc's adoption of such weak analysis is nowhere more evident than in the reception of his book, and the manner in which history has recorded him and his works. For, despite what he may have thought, his focus on attempting to achieve an extreme level of balance and a focus on those "evils of the false position," did not prevent him from being labelled an "anti-Semite" in his own lifetime and in mainstream history since his death. [4] See for example R.S. Levy, Antisemitism: An Historical Encyclopaedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Vol. 1 (ABC-CLIO, 2005), p.65. This is perhaps the greatest condemnation of his theories on the "anti-Semite," and I will offer no further comment on the subject other than to remark that an "anti-Semite" has been, and always will be, any individual deemed by Jewry to be in opposition to Jewish interests.
Belloc's chapter on Bolshevism has been superseded in more recent decades by more insightful works on the Russian catastrophe. It remains, however, a coherent and concise contribution to honest discussion of Jewish involvement in those events. Belloc describes the rise of Bolshevism as "a field in which we can study the evil effect of secrecy, and one in which we can analyse all the various forces which tend to bring Israel into such ceaseless conflict with the society around it (167)." His general theory of the Bolshevik explosion can be summed up in his description of the destruction of old Russian society as "an act of racial revenge (169)."
In his thoughts on "The Position in the World as a Whole," Belloc points out that "the Jew has collectively a power today, in the white world, altogether excessive. It is not only an excessive power, it is inevitably a corporate power and, therefore, a semi-organized power (191)." This power has been acquired
out of all proportion to his numbers, out of all proportion to his ability; certainly out of proportion to any right of his to interfere in our affairs. It was a Jew who produced the divorce laws in France, the Jew who nourished anti-clericalism in that country and also in Italy; the Jew who called in the forces of Occidental nations to protect his compatriots in the East, and the Jew whose spirit has so largely permeated the Universities and the Press(199).
Belloc observed that the "regular and organized Jewish emigration" to the United States was having an effect. He noted "the growth of the financial monopoly and of monopolies in particular trades (202)." He noted a corresponding "clamour for toleration in the form of 'neutralizing' religious teaching in schools; there was the appearance of the Jewish revolutionary and of the Jewish critic in every tradition of Christian life (202)." The United States was ultimately left more prone because here "this Liberal tradition or convention, this conception that the Jew must be treated as a full citizen, was far stronger even than it was in the West of Europe. It was in the very soul of the Constitution, and, what is more important, in the very soul of the people (206)."
In terms of viable opponents to the growth of Jewish power and influence, Belloc posited only the Catholic Church. He argued that "the Catholic Church is the conservator of an age-long European tradition, and that tradition will never compromise with the fiction that a Jew can be other than a Jew. Wherever the Catholic Church has power, and in proportion to its power, the Jewish problem will be recognized to the full. The Catholic Church will always maintain reality, including the reality of that sharp distinction between the Jew and his hosts (210)."
Here we encounter another of Belloc's great and unfortunate errors. The Catholic Church was not invulnerable to Jewish influence. Nor, contrary to the opinion of those who wish to make a fetish of the link between the Church and our way of life, has it ever explicitly or implicitly been a protector of European traditions or peoples. The Catholic Church and Christianity in general are concerned solely with the fate of the "faith." When Christianity came to Scandinavia, did it respect the existing culture? Did it accommodate those perfectly upstanding European folk who declined to kneel before the Nazarene? As I have written previously, it was Europe and Europeans that gave life and success to Christianity and not the other way around. It was we who took it to the four corners of the earth, on routes long since established by the pagan and the heathen. As the heart of Catholicism moves slowly south of the equator, we need only look at the shift of power and demography within Catholicism to see that it has, and always has had, a life distinct from our racial vitality.
Belloc returns to form in his chapter on Zionism, which is prophetic to say the least. With the creation of a Jewish state not yet a reality, he was left to ponder solely theoretical scenarios. He begins by asking "whether the Zionist experiment will tend to increase or to relax the strain created by the presence of the Jew in the midst of the non-Jewish world (231)." Pondering the creation of a Jewish state, Belloc was particularly interested in "the status of the Jew outside this territorial unit, which he had chosen to be much more than a symbol of his national unity -- its actual seat and establishment (232)." He correctly predicted that the majority of Jews would continue to live outside such a state because they live "and desire to live the semi-nomadic life, the international life, which has becomes theirs by every tradition, and which one might now almost call instinctive to them (233)."
The new Zion, then, is to be "no more than a fixed rallying point, an established but small territorial nationhood (234)." Faced with the questioning of their political character, diaspora Jews would cling to insisting that he is "to be regarded as the full national in the nation in which he happens to be for a time (234)." In an astonishingly clear prediction of modern Jewry's relationship with Israel, Belloc argues that "He shall in every respect be regarded, by a legal fiction, as identical with the community in which he happens to be settled for the moment, but at the same time he is to have some special relation with the Jewish State (234)." [Italics in original]. Belloc also heavily doubted that a Jewish state would rely upon its own military strength to ensure its security (241).
The conclusion of the book commences with an account of "Our Duty." Here Belloc urges non-Jews to rid ourselves of the Liberal conventions and the falsehoods by which the Jewish problem is obscured. The author acknowledges that this is not easy. The greatest obstacle in this respect, he argues, is fear. There is first the European's fear of breaking convention. He is secondly faced with fear of social and economic consequences. Belloc writes that "Men dread lest hostility to the Jewish Domination should bring them into the grip of some unknown but suspected world-wide power which can destroy the individual who shall be so rash as to challenge it (262)." There are "innumerable men who would express publicly on Jews what they continually express in private, but who conceal their feelings for fear that their salaries may be lost or their modest enterprises wrecked, their investments lowered, and their position ruined (263)." Jews, of course, are aware of this fear, and are adept at manipulating it. I've noted precisely this behavior in my recent article on Jewish Hollywood's show of strength over Gaza.
However, Belloc correctly points out that the "fear strategy" will only work for so long, and that in the longer-term Jews are pursuing a very dangerous course of conduct. Based on a false sense of power and relative security, the use of fear only "dams up and enormously increases the latent force of anger against Jewish power. It is like the piling up of a head of water when a river valley is obstructed, or like introducing of resistance into an electric current (263)." It is a "fierce irritant and accounts for the high pressure at which attack escapes when once it is loosened (263)."
Essentially, Belloc is questioning the rationality and wisdom of Jews who would seek the oppression of a grumbling peasantry, only to be later expelled en masse by a king; or who would shout down and intimidate a von Treitschke, only to be confronted later by a Hitler. In all cases, this elaborate game of "chicken" is taken too far.
The author argues that Jews too have a duty to perform in ceasing the ethnic conflict. They must end their "foolish and dangerous habit of secrecy and the irritating expression of superiority (271)." They may remain among us, but must form Jewish institutions that openly speak for Jewish interests, with no claims or pretensions to any other interests or values (273). They should permit open scrutiny of their interests if they wish to participate in the national, political and economic life of their host nation. Special courts of mixed character should be established to deal with conflicts and disputes between Jews and non-Jews, and these courts should be founded on acknowledgment of the mutual causes of friction between the two peoples. To ensure the endurance of this state of affairs, these developments should arise from a social movement before they are made law. It should not be imposed from above, but arise from the will of the people.
Are Belloc's proposals practical? That remains to be seen. But The Jews , his general assessment of the longest ethnic conflict engaged in by the European peoples, is, almost a century after it was written, a prophetic, informative, concise and powerful summary of issues which retain a painful relevance. It deserves more recognition and deeper study. For my part, I have been inspired by Belloc's work to produce a kind of companion book, which will offer greater detail, and some correctives to the original, in light of the century which has since passed.
The Jews Hilaire Belloc • 76,000 WordsNotes
[1] B. Ginsberg, How The Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), p.46.
[2] A good example of the hostility toward rural folk by Jewish intellectuals can be seen in the New York Intellectuals. The New York Intellectuals associated rural America with nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism; the urban was associated antithetically with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideas. . . . The New York Intellectuals simply began with the assumption that the rural -- with which they associated much of American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York -- had little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture. . . . By interpreting cultural and political issues through the urban-rural lens, writers could even mask assertions of superiority and expressions of anti-democratic sentiments as the judgments of an objective expertise. (Terry Cooney, The Rise of the New York Intellectuals 1986, 267–268; italics in text)
[3] Y. M. Bodemann, Jews, Germans, Memory: Reconstructions of Jewish Life in Germany (University of Michigan Press, 1996), p.266.
[4] See for example R.S. Levy, Antisemitism: An Historical Encyclopaedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Vol. 1 (ABC-CLIO, 2005), p.65.
Tom Stedham , says: August 22, 2019 at 4:11 am GMT
That was both educational and very eye-opening. Thank you for this article. I am now going to read that book!Dan Hayes , says: August 22, 2019 at 4:39 am GMTAn example of the current state of Catholic – Jewish relations. The Roman Catholic Church has effectively ceased considering the canonization of G K Chesterton because of anti-Semitic allegations waged against him. In England at one time Chesterton and Belloc were fierce, able, and prominent defenders of the RCC.Paul , says: August 22, 2019 at 6:06 am GMTWhen trying to understand Jewish behavior, which can appear contradictory at times, merely look at the criterion that they themselves use: Is it good for the Jews? Hence, the same Jews who support civil rights for "people of color" can oppose the rights of the indigenous Palestinian people. The reason is because the issue for Jews (a highly ethnocentric group) is: Is it good for the Jews? After you have been around Jews long enough, you begin to understand what is going on.Wally , says: Website August 22, 2019 at 6:41 am GMTJews were found to be dangerous & loathsome by everyone, everywhere, every time, long before Christianity.Ilya G Poimandres , says: August 22, 2019 at 7:25 am GMTComplete list with graphics of the Expulsions of Jews / Jews expelled from over 1,000 places in history : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12596
I don't agree the issue is just a national one, because the blessed nation is at its core a nation of faith, subject to its own theology, and from this flow the actions of the nation and its people.Counterinsurgency , says: August 22, 2019 at 7:56 am GMTThe best summary of the problem the blessed nation faces is found in the first lines of the Talmud on Avodah Zarah, idolatry, imo.
https://www.sefaria.org/Avodah_Zarah.2a
The first ruling is not on the general notion of applying conventional and impermanent words, conceptions, unto an Absolute that is separate from this imperfect experience, but on money lending to Gentiles before their pagan festivals.
The rulings betrays what concerns the faith, as well as its errors. It is reminiscent of Christ with the money changers. It is either subject to a misattribution of volitional action and its result – from the pagan to the Jew – or a hidden chosenness motive of helping the Gentile to not commit idolatry, in secret (at best authoritarian, at worst deluded). It is certainly not universal.
There is no moral solution to the Jewish problem from the Gentile side, because Jewish theology categorically denies the Copernican principle that 'Man (or more specifically Jew) does not have a preferential frame of reference to observe the Universe'. It is the chosenness issue that plagued Christianity before Copernicus too – the Great Commission, and the reason they acted out so violently towards others.
The Jewish people will assimilate and coexist peacefully when God given chosenness – a denial of religion (the need for self improvement) and an acceptance of ideology (the need for other improvement, 'light unto the nations') – is expunged from their faith.
But this would paradoxically require religion from an ideological and ritualistic faith, and it has shown millennia of the latter two aspects, and little of the former aspect.
The fall of the cities, now glaringly apparent, means the fall of the Jewish establishment along with several other establishments.Counterinsurgency , says: August 22, 2019 at 8:19 am GMTThe Jewish establishment has always been good at tactics, but very poor at strategy. It seldom wants the consequences of what it wants. All of its major strategies during the 20th Century failed badly, causing major Jewish casualties and forcing increasingly repressive, hence dangerous, measures during the 21st Century (up to 2006, year of this post).
Cultural reorganization changes the way people do everything; above all it changes the thought of the culture. [1] This makes the end state of a reorganization difficult or impossible to predict: the thought of the predictor has certain prohibitions and freedoms that are different from the thought after the reorganization. Something literally unthinkable before the reorganization (such as men as a group risking loss of the promises of religious life in favor of secular achievement) become the conventional wisdom after the reorganization.
The sandpile analogy has become a popular analogy to such things as reorganization [2], and I think it's worth considering. In this analogy, every bit of tactical success of the Jewish establishment (and similar establishments, there are several in the US) is analogous another "grain of sand" in the center of a sandpile, the sandpile being an analog of Western society. The strategic defeats are then analogs of avalanches in the sandpile.
Counterinsurgency
1] Hegel's historicism is based on this realization. The subsequent developments of historicism makes me a bit reluctant to make the "singularity" claim, but the observation is so clearly true that I make it anyway. Hegel's disciples became quite the believer in "political reality", eventually becoming nearly psychotic in the USSR prior to their rejection by the Russians. I take reorganizations as a change of beliefs in what is fundamentally important, no more, no less.
2] "Fragility, Mental Models And The Sandpile Analogy"
https://www.valuewalk.com/2017/11/fragility-mental-models-sandpile-analogy/
and
Jordan Ellenberg.
"The Amazing, Autotuning Sandpile: A simple mathematical model of a sandpile shows remarkably complex behavior".
2015/04/02.
http://nautil.us/issue/23/dominoes/the-amazing-autotuning-sandpileYet another sand grain on the sandpile. The US Army and the West in general have been considering urban combat for quite some time. It's said that concrete eats troops -- cities are highly defensible terrain. It appears that there are still only two answers to the problem of a hostile city in wartime: either it surrenders or it is destroyed. Only two tactics have produced victory in the past: cordon and ignore (reduces force available elsewhere, and the city will likely be destroyed by civil unrest as food and water grow scarce), or evacuate city and fight through it (destroys the city).lucifer6th , says: August 22, 2019 at 8:33 am GMTSo four years ago the US Army says that neither of the old Army tactics will stand a chance of working by 2030 (I suspect 2020 would be closer to the mark), and that it doesn't know what to do.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/iDxeKd_iR28?feature=oembed
(from posting at ZeroHedge.com).Copley, _Uncivilization_, has a few ideas on what might actually happen. Copley was a student of Luttwak, he's a legitimate strategist. He points out that urban areas dominate contempoarary polities, but under some circumstances cannot exist without support from their hinterland, and that their hinterland has become hostile.
This puts the Jewish establishment, and every other establishment that is urban based, in an unfavorable situation.
Counterinsurgency
1. If deaths and lives are truly no respecters of persons and apply to everyone without discrimination then there will be the natural difference between right and wrong;Laurent Guyénot , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:14 am GMT2. Because the Jews are themselves the Jews (coincidentia oppositorum), the internal question for each one of the "Gentile" will be "who are you sticking up for, Jewish or Gentile?". "Who are you, Jewish or Gentile?". The difference is as fundamental as right and wrong.
3. If one says it does not matter to me "who you are sticking up for, Jewish or Gentile?" I will stand by the right or truth it means you are going to be extremely taken up with yourself, and this has therefore nothing to do with the "question" and thereby with the "truth" per se. It is just a lack of personal knowledge, judgement or capability to understand things themselves. It is wrong.
4. All the others should have got to think this out.
5. It makes no difference "how many Jews were murdered in line with spirit of the
Holocaust". The Jews themselves are the conceptualized "Holocaust" ("Sacrifice", "Korban", or "Burnt Offering"), whenever and wherever they are, whatever the cost.6. The "Holocaust", it is not a kind of seeing yourself as others see you. Nor extramural idea or an outsourcing partnership. The "Holocaust" is inner self of the "Jew".
7. Come to think of it, the individual Jew is itself none other than reversed Jesus Christ, maybe Jesus Christ on its own terms.
8. In this context, the "Jewishness" forms an "another" physical or natural condition that a substance can be in. Properly speaking, the "Jewishness" or the "Jew" is itself anti-matter to all manner of Gentile.
What the "Jewishness of the Jew" is made of?
You should accept the following in the absolute sense of vision but in a particular way of thinking.
[MORE]
You must try to see all these " personality traits" in proportion to one another.
1) Jewish Intellectuality Movement.
As an example I refer to the art lovers who say that the World is driven by the talent and passion of great painters. Therefore, there were many great painters who created the genuine or real "beauty" and there were many copyist-painters thereabout who created widespread copies of this real "beauty". Here is the first supreme quality of the Jew is that they (Jews) are great "copyistpainters" or just "imitators" not the "painters" themselves. Jews themselves are nothing more than "copyists" or "imitators". Jews were never meant for the reality (something original). They mimic it. They make a complimentarycopy of the nature and distort (express) it in their own terms. Depending on the level of their great mimic skills they can imitate the nature (original) in such way that no one but "expert" is able to tell real thing from its imitation.
Because of this inborn ability to imitate (mimic or copy) the nature (original) they can
also imitate the Intellectuality itself. For some people, but not all it is hard to distinguish
factual Intellectuality (of Gentile people) from pseudo-Intellectuality (of the Jews).
The best known example of high quality imitators is Albert Einstein who was a
pedestrian mind and did nothing but plagiarize his theories from actual theoretical
physicists and mathematicians when he secured his job in the patent office and accessed the date.
As a result of their work, the famous E=mc2 was discovered and formulated by
numerous theoretical physicists and mathematicians long before Albert Einstein secured his job in the patent office including but not limited to Fritz Hasenohrl, John Henry Poynting (with Nikolay Umov), Oliver Heaviside, Whilhelm Wien, James Clerk
Maxwell etc. Theoretical treatment of this formula was completely done by Jules Henri
Poincare and Hendrik Lorentz. Albert Einstein just stole it.
Same thing happened to his Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to Theoretical
Physics, and esp for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The law of the photoelectric effect was discovered and formulated by two famous scientist long
before the Great Plagiarizer (Einstein) secured his job in the patent office, by Hertz
(1887) and Stoletov (1888). Albert Einstein ripped off almost everything they had. There
is conventional wisdom amongst theoretical physicists saying that "if a jew discovers some this or other formula (theorem) it is either a plagiarized and/or wrong".
You should accept that the "Jews" are ready, willing, and able to imitate the nature, not
create one! They are NOT intellectuals but "great" second-raters. However they can well
enough imitate the Intellectuality in itself the way that none but real intellectual can
distinguish it. Without restricting the generality, it happened to Martin Buber, Max Nordau, Simon Wiesenthal, Otto Frank, Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt to mention only a few (concerning this topic).
Only one thing can be inferred from their this "copying" quality. The "Jews" STEAL the
reality as it is.
It is for this reason that they are good (to some "distinctive" degree) in plagiary, writings, stand-up comedy, politics (lying), language expertizing, legal profession, instigating a conflict, negotiating a conflict and so on and so forth.
Jewish people look like a real but they are imitation as well.
The Jews are not antique heroes but great squabblers (or stormbirds);
The Jews are not great painters but great copyist-painters (caricaturists or
distortionists);
The Jews are not scientists but great plagiarizers (or just patent officers);
They are not Germans but have German names;This is not about their human nature. it is all about the imitation of the humane
qualities.
Engrave this in your mind, they are able to exactly imitate the Intellectuality itself the
way that none but real intellectual can distinguish it.
As such, don't take seriously their
behavior, however, stay on alert.2) "Conflicting unity of opposites", "mixed bipolar mindset", "controversial aspect of the behavior" (behavior abnormalities), moral perversions etc
Because the "Jews" make a "copy" ("imitation" or "mimicry") of reality there is always
some "gap" or (to be precise) "break" between this reality and its imitation. This "gap"
("breakdown" of human nature) is always found in their mind. the "Jews" are told from
their childhood they are "smart", in other words, they have this "gap" (the natural "natural defect") in their head. With this they feel "obliged " to close it whenever and wherever they are, whatever the cost . This "smartness" or "Jewishness" precisely reflects the leveling effect of this gap, a funny way to behave. This "gap" makes vital
difference for you on which side you are sticking up for, whether Jewish or Gentile. The
difference is as fundamental as nature and its copy, right or wrong.
As a consequence, there are two major conflicting pattern of jewish behavior (behavior
repertoire) we can observe there.1. First behavior pattern is when the "Jew" looks much the same as insane person
(like "off his own nut").
If the "Jew" looks like this behavior pattern then it is, strange as it may appear,
going to be normal (mental) condition for that "Jew". However this may come as a strange (or even dangerous to or) for Gentile.
If this is the case, the Jew is in the middle of doing "something" (imitating,
caricaturing, distorting, falsifying, stealing etc). it is an activation state of the Jewish idiosyncrasy.2. Second behavior pattern is when the "Jew" looks much the same as a normal human being (quite normal).
If this is the case, Jew's mind is all by itself a sort of salmagundi. However, in this regard, it looks good for Gentile (outside), after a sort.It is a "standby" pattern of Jewish behavior repertoire ("lag phase" or "resting stage").
These both behavior patterns are half-finished product.
Under some circumstances, both conditions may be present at the same time in this jewish mind and create a world-design model of jewish behavior or jewish life style.
When this occurs the conflicting unity of opposites or a mixed bipolar mindset is fully
set forth: pathological mendacity, joining in a conspiracy, swindling, "aiding and
abetting", toadyism, servility, high "intellectual" activity (pathological hyperphrenia),
polygraphy, glossolalia, logorrhea, pretentious speech (hoity-toity language),
pathological monologue, hysteric mutism, rededfatig (pressured speech), psychomotor
hallucination, malice, deceitfulness, hypocrisy, doublethinking and along with all types of perversions and genetic diseases.
Generally, almost all Jews reach their particular (or specific for each one of them) age
when this bipolar mindset of/in their mind is found and underlined.
"If you are persistently hated by social surroundings you must be prepared to answer
that you are chosen, and therefore, victim" (being victim and chosen is the same). "If
one finds or is repeated over and over again that he is a soundly stupid then he must
be prepared to answer again that he is a smart".
"Victim/ a failure", "chosen/social outcast " and "smart/stupid" is all of these represent single image of the "Jew" that can easily be understood. "Victim/ a failure" means aggressor (invader or annexationist, dominion, politics); "chosen/social outcast"
means social interspecific parasitism (crime, cheating, swindling, monkey business
etc); "smart/stupid" means plagiarism (thievery, graphomania, falsification etc), and vice versa, and so and so forth.
Torah is like the scrapbook full to the brim of these "behavioral models" and Talmud,
as an orgy of speechmaking, is their prolific justification and confabulation (embolalia).
3) There is a comprehensive list of many other aspective traits there explaining the
idiosyncrasy of the "Jew" however I'd like to qualify all of them now.
If you favour me with an answer that all these behavioral patterns are widely distributed and reserved for everyone, and ask me why I think that is only on jewish side I will tell you the following thing, "genetics". That is not about psycho-behavioral patterns but "genetic fate choices".
There are certain classes of genes that modern humans inherited from the archaic
humans with whom they interbred. The interactions between modern humans andarchaic (and/or ancient) humans are complex with multiple events resulting in possession of the certain percentage of archaic ancestry (Neanderthal, Denisovan, Red Deer Cave people, and some others). So, what about the "Jews"? Except that the "Jewish Tribe" possess the 3-5% of Neanderthal archaic genes, the Jews had been interbred with some "Animals" and got these "animal genes" into their blood. One locus of them is the DNST3 gene. Because the "animal nature" is lack of human one, those genes being placed in such humans (the Jews) are to be in opposition to such humans. It constitutes this "natural gap" and therefore all their Jewish behavioral repertoire and diseases (schizophrenia, autism, kakergasia, and other malfunctions of the brain and body) I was talking about earlier.Thank you for this great article. I first came to know of Hillaire Belloc after hearing about the social doctrine called distributism (in Houellebecq's novel Soumission ), then looking it up in Wikipedia, where I read : "Particularly influential in the development of distributist theory were Catholic authors G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc." I recommand studying about distributism, one of those social reform movements swept by marxism, like so many others.Cagey Beast , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:30 am GMTI would strongly recommend the introduction Hilaire Belloc wrote for the 1937 edition. In it, he discusses at length the policies of National Socialist Germany towards the Jews:cranc , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:50 am GMTIntroductory Chapter to the 3rd edition of The Jews by Hilaire Belloc
by Hilaire Belloc
https://archive.org/details/IntroductoryChapterToThe3rdEdtionOfTheJewsByHilaireBellocIn brief, Belloc says they will fail because they don't past the test of the reasonable man.
Fascinating.anon [339] Disclaimer , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:55 am GMTI might have misunderstood, but struggle with this part where Belloc identifies one of three falsehoods among non-Jews:
Defining the problem in false terms -- e.g., proclaiming it as a religious matter rather than as a national/racial one.
Surely the key issue is that Judaism is a religion specifically of race/ethnicity/tribe/nation which at the same time tries to lay claim to a universal God ? Surely that is the ideological root/' success' / motivating power of their supremacist culture?
I would have thought this made much of by a thinker so committed to the faith of Catholicism. To try and separate out the national/racial problem from the theological one seems to me to be a more obvious falsehood.The majority of men "are grossly disingenuous in all their dealings with the Jews (127)." In this camp Belloc would place the likes of John Derbyshire, who on the one hand concedes and shows awareness that Jews as a group hold incredible levels of influence and power within his own profession, but who levels heavy criticism against those who dare to speak explicitly on the subject.
As the reality of Jewish power becomes unavoidably obvious to more and more people, such disengenuousness becomes more stark. Even self professed 'free speech' zones like OffGuardian have started deleting comments accusing people of 'rampant racism' because some dare to raise a debate about Jewish identity and Judaic ideology in the context of Epstein-Maxwell-Mossad etc.
Trump seems to have got everyone talking about dual loyalty and Henry Ford on the same day
The strangeness of times match the perennial nature of this issue.> The Catholic Church was not invulnerable to Jewish influence.Big Daddy , says: August 22, 2019 at 11:57 am GMTTrue, true. Catholics are officially Jew-worshipers, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states, " To the Jews 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship .'" And the Catechism of the Catholic Church accurately reflects the Jew-worship outlined in the Holy Hook , namely, " We worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews ." (((John 4:22)))
Belloc has it spot on. Only a radically decentralized, basically libertarian society is long term feasible or you soon have Big Government. Didn't both Washington and Adams have to fight war parties immediately after our founding? And we blew ourselves up after only 74 years of nationhood.DanFromCT , says: August 22, 2019 at 12:33 pm GMTThe Jews are merely perhaps the most successful conspirators in America.. But they could not have achieved their level of success in a decentralized liberty environment.
How many here have worked in a Jewish dominated field, on Wall Street? The thing is, in every office (and no doubt in every public institution and gov agency as well) it goes without saying that of course they're a conspiracy, by their own definition of what it means to be a Jew, which as they like to boast means putting Jewish interests first. It is what is is. As Belloc observed, only a fool would think otherwise. The fact is they own the public stage and all entertainment in America. Only goys on their payroll, such as the talking heads on CNN/Fox News and members of Congress, are granted public existence by appearing on camera. Could there be more disgusting, toadeating flunkies than the members of Congress, whose main use for our flag beyond jingoism for the cameras is wiping off their chin? What we see them doing every day is putting Israel's and International Jewry's interests ahead of millions of Americans in our cities rotting from neglect.Johnny Walker Read , says: August 22, 2019 at 1:04 pm GMTJudaism, the earliest form of racism. It is also the only form of racism that is allowed to flourish in this politically correct world we live in.Sic Semper , says: August 22, 2019 at 1:17 pm GMT"Racism is the most fundamental building block of Zionism/Israel and is an intrinsic characteristic of the Zionist colony so much so that Zionist Jews do not just discriminate against all goyims; non-Jews, but they also discriminate against different factions of Jews among themselves, and segregate each faction from the others; Ashkenazim, Haredim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, and black African Jews, Oriental Jews, Russian Jews European and American Jews. This intra-racism is so strong that white Jewish Israelis regularly commit hate crimes against black Ethiopian Jewish Israelis and refuse to have them live in the same neighborhood or shop in the same grocery stores, or work in the same office, or even buried in the same grave yards. This racism is implanted early in the minds of their children in public schools, where black Jewish Israeli children are segregated from white Jewish Israeli children."
Zionism/Israel are the terms used to describe the victory claimed by Judaism in it's quest for its "very own" homeland.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-the-ultimate-racist-colony-the-jewish-nation-state-law/5648424
The church has fallen to the kosher influences for nearing at least a century now. It serves as an apologist for the faithful and offers them up as cheap sacrifices for a small fee.Johnny Walker Read , says: August 22, 2019 at 1:23 pm GMTThe "church" has throughout its history enabled the enslavement and extermination of its faithful, prohibiting the self defense of its adherents. Today, it works to facilitate the invasion of European homelands and societies as Native Europeans are brutally attacked, disenfranchised and subjugated.
The church itself is now the greatest retrograde force and enabler of the destruction of European peoples.
To funny to not post. Family Guy "The Jewish Lawyer".Johnny Walker Read , says: August 22, 2019 at 1:31 pm GMT
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wqpJPQ9kh_4?feature=oembed
Jew Christopher Jon Bjerknes – Secrets of the Satanic Sabbatean FrankistsAnonymous [297] Disclaimer , says: August 22, 2019 at 1:46 pm GMT
https://www.youtube.com/embed/TovLf3vYxiA?feature=oembed
Belloc's solution to the problem is disappointingly nonsensical. After describing the homicidal sociopath in some detail, he's suggesting that we should – for some inexplicable reason – make a deal with him about coexisting in our own house.Durruti , says: August 22, 2019 at 1:54 pm GMTWhat the actual fuck? A sane person would be buying a shovel and a blanket so that everyone's house could be safe. No deals whatsoever.
Joyce writes:DESERT FOX , says: August 22, 2019 at 1:54 pm GMTThe idea is so deep-rooted among organized Jewry that, even today, we are forced to listen to endless bleating about the emergence of a "new anti-Semitism"? This redundant cry resounds almost weekly even though, to the informed observer, it is clear that there isn't, and has never been, any real change in the essence of the friction between Jews and Europeans.
Read and learn:
I am not an anti-Semite. I like Arabs.
Semites are peoples from the Middle East. You are writing about people, (Jews), from Europe. The overwhelming majority of Jews are not Semites; they hail from Europe. Koestler' s research is one of numerous sources of information on the ethnicity of Jews.The Zionist Oligarch land thieves & holocaust genociders, committed the 1st Holocaust -Jericho, murdering every man, woman, child, and living thing -animals). They killed an entire nation. The account is in the old testament. Whether the Old Testament is accurate documented History is less important than the fact that Jews & Christians Celebrate the extermination and land Seizure by Movie, Play, and song.
I have sung this song at home, in Synagogues, and a Church. I asked a Reverend if he knew what the song was celebrating.? He walked away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPZuWzZvoYQ
2 examples, one by Mahalia, and one by Elvis.
The Zionists, controllers of the New World Order, are attempting to exterminate another nation-Palestine, (as we speak). They are also doing a fine job of eradicating all other Nations, as they convert their citizens to Slaves.
The Point Is:
As Orwell in his Novel, 1984 , explained, oppressors use/misuse Language to misdirect/brainwash people, to rob them of any cognitive ability to understand their oppression.
The Zionists misuse/steal the label of "Semites." in order to claim a portion (or all) of the Middle East. If they are Semites, they argue, then it is fine (or at least excusable-before-history) if they exterminate another Nation in the Middle East, in order to occupy their territory. It is significant – how few 'experts' on the Middle East, or Historians, or Politicians, understand, or will acknowledge, this point.
Palestinians are Semites. Whereas, Zionists, Jewish Zionists, are, overwhelmingly, anti-Semites.
The problem is with the zionists who are the satanic talmudic cult of the Jews and are hell bent on world domination and have subverted America and every country where they have gained power and once the zionist bankers fastened their FED and IRS on the American people we were doomed and now we have a zionist POTUS who thinks he is Israels god!Durruti , says: August 22, 2019 at 2:23 pm GMT@DESERT FOX Desert FoxDigital Samizdat , says: August 22, 2019 at 2:53 pm GMTAmerican people we were doomed and now we have a zionist POTUS who thinks he is Israels god!
Isn't current events amazing? Casino Trump, latest of a long line of Unconstitutional 'Presidents', who was an early friend of pedafile/rapist/scum/MOSSAD agent- Epstein , and connected to much other filth, -Apparently believes he is GOD!!!
Worse, Casino Trump – fits in well with the other democrap/republicant Minions of the Devil, Shumer, Pelosi, etc.. They dance & fornicate together, rape our children, and slaughter.
We might try to Restore Our Republic!
@CounterinsurgencyMiggle , says: August 22, 2019 at 2:57 pm GMTThe Jewish establishment has always been good at tactics, but very poor at strategy. It seldom wants the consequences of what it wants. All of its major strategies during the 20th Century failed badly, causing major Jewish casualties and forcing increasingly repressive, hence dangerous, measures during the 21st Century (up to 2006, year of this post).
Exactly. I have long been of the opinion that the Jews are more clever than they are wise . Watching the MSM these days, it strikes me that the Jews are alarmed that–once again–the goyim are waking up and beginning to notice that they control everything of any significance in the West and they are filled with terror!
@Wally Wally, thanks for that link. I'm working my way through it. I notice a couple of things, (1) they are mostly punishment for evil and murderous conduct of the Jews; (2) many seem to relate to expulsions from individual small towns, so the "1000 places" may not be so significant; (3) in a proportion of cases, a high or low proportion I don't yet know, there was a choice of converting to Christianity or leaving; (4) a high proportion are pre-Christian or relate to non-Christian countries.Miggle , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:19 pm GMTThere is a big problem, though, relating to the expulsions from several cities in 1066.
1066 A.D. – Mentz, Germany – Jews Expelled/Killed/Forced to Convert (E. Gibbon,
'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire', Vol. II, p.1008) X1066 A.D. – Worms, Germany – Jews Expelled/Killed/Forced to Convert (E. Gibbon,
'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire', Vol. II, p.1008)1066 A.D. – Spires, Germany – Jews Expelled/Killed/Forced to Convert (E. Gibbon, 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire', Vol. II, p.1008)
1066 A.D. – Treves, Germany – Jews Expelled/Killed/Forced to Convert (E. Gibbon, 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire', Vol. II, p.1008)
1066 A.D. – Verdon, Germany – Jews Expelled/Killed/Forced to Convert (E. Gibbon, 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire', Vol. II, p.1008)
I haven't been able to find those Gibbon references. My Vol. II begins at Chapter XI, covers dates A.D. 268 to A.D. 359, has no p.1008: the pages go from 1 to 425, and chapters from XI to XIX. Vol. VIII has chapters LXIV to LXXI. The tables of contents have dates, those in Ch. LV have a TOC including "800-1100. Christianity in the North", those events might be there, probably not.
Anyway, those Gibbon references need the chapter numbers. Useless as is.
@Miggle Haven't found those 1066 passages, but in Ch. LV, "Christianity of the North", I've come across words by Gibbon that are highly relevant today. At least the first part.Anon [388] Disclaimer , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:21 pm GMTThe rage of war, inherent to the human species, could not be healed by the evangelic precepts of charity and peace; and the ambition of Catholic princes has renewed in every age the calamities of hostile contention.
@Durrutianonymous [338] Disclaimer , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:32 pm GMTAs Orwell in his Novel, 1984, explained, oppressors use/misuse Language to misdirect/brainwash people, to rob them of any cognitive ability to understand their oppression.
Orwell was a philo-Semite. From his AntiSemitism In Britian :
There was also literary Jew-baiting, which in the hands of Belloc, Chesterton and their followers reached an almost continental level of scurrility. Non-Catholic writers were sometimes guilty of the same thing in a milder form. There has been a perceptible antisemitic strain in English literature from Chaucer onwards, and without even getting up from this table to consult a book I can think of passages which if written now would be stigmatised as antisemitism, in the works of Shakespeare, Smollett, Thackeray, Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, T. S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley and various others. Offhand, the only English writers I can think of who, before the days of Hitler, made a definite effort to stick up for Jews are Dickens and Charles Reade. And however little the average intellectual may have agreed with the opinions of Belloc and Chesterton, he did not acutely disapprove of them. Chesterton's endless tirades against Jews, which he thrust into stories and essays upon the flimsiest pretexts, never got him into trouble–indeed Chesterton was one of the most generally respected figures in English literary life. Anyone who wrote in that strain now would bring down a storm of abuse upon himself, or more probably would find it impossible to get his writings published.
It so happens that for some decades past Britain has had no nationalist intelligentsia worth bothering about. But British
nationalism, i.e. nationalism of an intellectual kind, may revive, and probably will revive if Britain comes out of the present war greatly weakened. The young intellectuals of 1950 may be as naively patriotic as those of 1914. In that case the kind of antisemitism which flourished among the anti-Dreyfusards in France, and which Chesterton and Belloc tried to import into this country, might get a foothold.@Dan Hayes The worst part about it is Chesterton liked Jews and was a zionist but he refused to see them as anything other than alien to Europe.DESERT FOX , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:36 pm GMT@Durruti Trump is Americas Caligula, a Roman emperor who was insane, Trump is a promoter of zionism and if he gets reelected he will go to war with Iran for his zionist masters and this will bring in Russia on the side of Iran and the whole thing will go nuclear.Counterinsurgency , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:37 pm GMTThe zionist elites who control every facet of the zio/US have DUMBs ie. deep underground military bases, that they have throughout the US and Europe and Israel and the bases , connected by tunnels and via magnetic levitation trains, and they believe that they can survive a nuclear war with Russia and they care not how many 10's of millions die, as these satanists want to depopulate the world and so are looking forward to the nuclear war with Russia and Russia is well aware of this!
Trump if he is reelected will deliver for his zionist masters as he is the chosen one, as he said yesterday, and is the second coming of God, and Trump believes this, and that makes him the new Caligula!
@Counterinsurgency Sorry, another typo. The "2006" should, of course, have been "2019".Crone , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:40 pm GMT
CounterinsurgencyWill I ever see an article entitled "Anti-Goyism, the Longest Hatred?"Wally , says: Website August 22, 2019 at 3:41 pm GMT@Miggle You're welcome.anonymous gazer , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:41 pm GMTToo bad you missed:
(Note: jewishhistory.org.il has a list of all of the events archived here :
https://archive.is/aRd7D -- ctrl+f "expel" or "expul" for hundreds of examples)@Paul Preach.The Nine Tailed Fox , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:41 pm GMTIt is a function of their ethnocentrism as a parasitic people requiring a host society to survive.
Two Jews three opinions-about what is best for the Jews.
Tow Jews, three opinions-one scheme.
Security is not what Jews are ever really seeking – that's merely a deceptive rationalization.Counterinsurgency , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:41 pm GMTWhat they want is domination, and the license in seeking that is unlimited when it's justified as 'self-protection' after all.
This quest for power is more and more manifested in humiliation – where the victim with a foot crushing his head must beg forgiveness for his 'persecutions'.
@Miggle Page references are pretty much useless without the physical book. That's why useful references have the publisher and pulication date, and if possible should have the ISBN, Library of Congress ID, or similar.Wally , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:45 pm GMT
If you can get a .pdf or .txt version of the book, you can try searching it for key terms, or using somewhat more effective text mining techniques. That sometimes works.Counterinsurgency
@Durruti Yawn.John Regan , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:45 pm GMTImperfect Trump over the alternatives any day.
[MORE]BCB232 , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:47 pm GMTAre Belloc's proposals practical? That remains to be seen.
Belloc strikes me as one of those people we come across occasionally who are naturally both insightful and courageous, and so suited to expose some of the lies of their times, yet at the same time limited by their own prejudices in how far they are willing to follow the trail toward truth. C. S. Lewis is the other eminent example of this that I come to think of in roughly the same milieu: a radically perceptive, eloquent and even effective critic of the degeneracy of the West, but still completely unable to offer constructive solutions due to his prior religious commitment. The same could by and large be said for Chesterton.
While I am not so anti-Christian as some people around here, it's painful to see these brilliant intellects hamstringing themselves out of misguided loyalty to principles which are not based on the realities of this world. All the more so when I see the greatness they did contribute to our culture, and imagine what they could have done if freed of those fetters.
Ah, well. In any case, a fine article which brings much-deserved attention to a sadly neglected, flawed but still very valuable author. We need not agree with everything he writes to learn from him.
As an aside, apropos the brief allusion to Martin Luther (who was a very different sort of Christian, with flaws of his own, but not those that would cripple a Belloc or a Chesterton), it would be very satisfying to see an article by Mr. Joyce on this Titan of newer Western history. He is among the relatively few writers in the dissident right that I think could do the great reformer justice, and his thoughts are (in part, at least) also still very relevant to us today.
I assume this is why Spielberg's non-German villain in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was named "Belloq(c)." Spielberg melted his face and made his head explode.Miggle , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:53 pm GMT@Miggle More generally, though a minor proportion of those evens relate to Christians demanding conversion, in general they related to, responded to the treacherous and murderous evils of the Jews. If a Roman city was under attack by the Persians the Jews of the city betrayed the Romans. If a Persian city was under attack by the Romans the Jews of the city betrayed the Persians.Dutch Boy , says: August 22, 2019 at 3:56 pm GMTThe list gives the number of Christians murdered by the Jews when the Persians took Jerusalem in 614.
614 A.D. – Palestine – Jews Expelled by Persians/massacred by Romans as Persians invade and capture Galilee; Jews joined army of invading Persians against Rome; Jews purchase 90,000 Christian prisoners from the Persians for the pleasure of cruelly putting them to death; Jews were expelled, however, afterwards, because they insisted on setting up their own independent state under the protection of Persia and the Persians weren't going to allow that (James Parkes, 'The Conflict of The Church and The Synagogue', p. 260; originally via Michael the Syrian)
But okay, if the Romans had just massacred Jews (not mentioned in other accounts such as by Runciman or Israel Shamir) the murder of 90,000 purchased Christian prisoners might be understandable.
"his subjective stance to the world was essentially pessimistic and strikes one as more pagan than Christian." Christians are pessimistic in the short term (this world being a battleground with powerful enemies arrayed against us) but optimistic in the long (Christ will put all his enemies under his feet). BTW – there is no European race. The unity of Europeans was their unity in the Church, outside of which they remained a squabbling, feuding collection of hostile ethnicities. I am undismayed that the pagan Norsemen (aka "upstanding European folk") had to give up their human sacrifices and murderous attacks on their fellow Europeans at the behest of the Church.anonymous lazer , says: August 22, 2019 at 4:03 pm GMT@Anon 'Orwell was a philo-Semite'anarchyst , says: August 22, 2019 at 4:11 pm GMTYes but he did not like them as people so perhaps he was a hypocrite.
He redeemed himself a little bit by giving a list of Jews who were communist agents to MI5.
@Sic Semper Tying Judaism to Christianity was a clever trick used by the jews to "cement" their claim to the "land of Israel" and of the covenant, to which I reply, "God is not a real estate agent".anarchyst , says: August 22, 2019 at 4:15 pm GMT
Jews rejected the covenant when they murdered Jesus Christ. Their covenant with God was then "null and void".
It is the flawed Schofield translation of the Bible that elevated jews to the status of Christianity's "elder brothers", which was then reinforced by the Catholic (flawed) "Vatican II Ecumenical Council" in the 1960s.
I cringe when I hear well-meaning people talk about out judeo-Christian heritage.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The only common thread between Christianity and judaism is the Ten Commandments, nothing more.
The god of judaism is a vengeful god, totally unlike the merciful and welcoming God of Christianity.
Christianity welcomes ALL, regardless of nationality or social status, not true of judaism.
Judaism is an insular belief system that shuns outsiders, prohibits proselytization, and promotes a form of supremacy, relegating all gentiles (non-jews) to the status of livestock-subhumans with souls, only to be used for the advancement and benefit of jews.
Jews DID murder Jesus Christ. Sad to say, even the present-day (post-Vatican II ecumenical council) Catholic church has bought into absolving the jews for Jesus Christ's murder. As always is the case, the jews got others, the Romans to do their dirty work for them, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. How can Christians have the same values as the Jews; the very people who denounced and betrayed the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, and call for his execution (by others, of course, that is the Jewish way). It makes absolutely no sense at all. Jews have no respect for Christianity, for Jesus Christ or Mary, his mother, who are both honored as Prophets in Islam, but instead, Jews spit on hearing their names and do the same while passing a Christian of any kind or a Christian Church in Israel. They have no respect for Christians or any other religion.
It is time the Jewish lobbies and the American Government leaders as well as the evangelical Christian leaders who mislead the poor American young into joining the military and believing that they are doing something for God and Christianity by fighting Israel's wars were named, shamed and arrested and tried for treason.@Sic Semper The beginning of the end of traditional Catholicism was sealed with the infiltration of the Catholic Church Vatican II Ecumenical Council of the 1960s by Jews and Protestants who were involved in the "modernization" of the Catholic Church.Justvisiting , says: August 22, 2019 at 4:21 pm GMT
Much Catholic ritual and doctrine was discarded or changed, in order to reflect the "age" that we live in, as well as the promotion of the absolution of the Jews for Jesus Christ's crucifixion and death, despite vitriolic Jewish hatred of Jesus Christ and Christianity which exists to this day. The fact is, the Jews DID get the Romans to crucify Jesus Christ and DID accept full responsibility for the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. As is the case today, they got others (Pontius Pilate) to do their "dirty work" for them
Abandoning the use of Latin in the Mass destroyed its universality. Previous to Vatican II, one could attend Mass anywhere in the Roman Catholic world and understand the meaning of the Mass.
Prohibition of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass (except by special ecclesiastical permission) pushed many Catholics away from the new Modern Mass and the New Church, in general. It took a brave Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X to push back" against Vatican II and re-legitimize the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass and other Catholic rites.
In pre-Vatican II times, the priest (celebrant of the Mass) was considered to be a part of the congregation, and a representative of the people.
By turning the priest around to face the congregation, the priest was no longer a representative, but an actor, diminishing his status and importance.
One area where the Catholic Church could improve itself involves celibacy, which is NOT Church dogma or doctrine. Celibacy was put in place during the middle ages in order to keep Church property from being inherited by family and relatives of priests and bishops. Celibacy was based on purely financial considerations, nothing more. It is interesting to note that Episcopal (Anglican) priests who convert to Catholicism can bring their families with them to the Church while Roman Catholic priests are denied marriage.
It was a grave mistake by the Church to de-legitimize pre-Vatican II principles.
Fortunately, there are Catholic organizations that subscribe to pre-Vatican II principles, one being the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).@DESERT FOX Those DUMBS fall into the category of good tactics/bad strategy.Durruti , says: August 22, 2019 at 4:21 pm GMTA radioactive wasteland would ruin anyone's day. Their children would not find it amusing.
@Anon Anonanon [396] Disclaimer , says: August 22, 2019 at 4:27 pm GMTYou completely ignore the point of my comment, & misdirect to a discussion of George Orwell.
@Dutch Boy > The unity of Europeans was their unity in the ChurchPriss Factor , says: Website August 22, 2019 at 4:30 pm GMTApparently you're not familiar with the Northern Crusades. Or the Thirty Years' War. Or the Troubles. Or most of history.
> aka "upstanding European folk"
Your snark about whites is surpassed only by the sullen sheboon at the Waffle House.
> their human sacrifices
You Jew-worshipers always project. "Christ, our Passover Lamb, is SACRIFICED." Right in the Buybull.
Jews favored Anglo-ness over German-ness because the weaker & more generic personality of the Anglos were easier to push around for the powerful-personalitied Jews. Anglos were more about manners whereas Germans were more about manhood. Anglos thought and behaved with their heads whereas Germans used their entire bodies. Anglos were verbal, Germans were musical. Jews preferred Anglo culture not because they aspired to be like Anglos but because it was relatively easier to penetrate, conquer, and control. Head and shoulders were easier to topple than blood and soil.Robert Dolan , says: August 22, 2019 at 4:35 pm GMTAnd yet, the Jewish personality is closer to the Germanic, and the most influential Jews were of Germanic influence: Kafka, Freud, Marx, Frankfurt School, etc. Jews have strong personalities and feel more at home with the Gestaltism of Germanic thought. Also, like the Germans, Jews have a deeper sense of roots than the Anglos who are a Germanic people whose culture has largely been replaced by Romance terminology and attitudes.
Great work from Joyce, as always.Durruti , says: August 22, 2019 at 4:40 pm GMTThe fascinating aspect of this topic is the awful fact that so few people have any understanding
of the jews and their jewing, when it's in our faces 24/7.I agree with the comments above that the nose tribe is not motivated by a need for security;
the nose is motivated by the desire to RULE over the rest of us, to have their boot on our face.Lately, I can actually feel it in the air ..the censorship ..constant demonization of whites ..
cries of "anti-semitism" ..demands for gun confiscation and snitch laws
you can feel the noose tightening@DESERT FOX Desert FoxDESERT FOX , says: August 22, 2019 at 4:40 pm GMTI know you know this: Casino Trump is part of the Show, along with the Democraps. A perusal of American History will show that Democraps have led America into every major war, since 1917, World War I (Wilson). WW II (FDR), Korea (Truman), & Vietnam (LBJ). The 'police actions' (smaller imperialist aggressions-Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan,), have been initiated by both gangs.
Trump certainly behaves like the Hollywood version of Caligula. He might even suffer Caligula's fate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula_(film)
Ironically, sexual depravity, rape, brutality, assassination, were component parts of the Movie. It is not impossible that Jeffrey Epstein was the American Caligula, and was the Controller /Dictator of the United States – these last few decades.
We may have just witnessed a Change of the Guard.
God Bless!
@Justvisiting The zionists do not care, and for an example of the undergrounds bases, google the underground at the Denver airport and the base at Dulce New Mexico and China Lake in California, just a few of many examples.Rev. Spooner , says: August 22, 2019 at 5:00 pm GMTIn this camp Belloc would place the likes of John Derbyshire, who on the one hand concedes and shows awareness that Jews as a group hold incredible levels of influence and power within his own profession, but who levels heavy criticism against those who dare to speak explicitly on the subject.Anonymous [373] Disclaimer , says: August 22, 2019 at 5:01 pm GMT
I call you out mr. derbyshire. Why the reticence to call a kikeroach a Kikerocach?@The Nine Tailed Foxchris , says: August 22, 2019 at 5:03 pm GMTSecurity is not what Jews are ever really seeking – that's merely a deceptive rationalization.
Good point. Reminds me of one of their favourite excuses for promoting anti-white migrations. The excuse is that they're feeling unsafe among the whites so they need more non-whites to blend in.
Needless to say, this narrative is transparently false. They were extremely safe among the whites until they fucked it up and – due to their small numbers in host countries – they could have blended in everywhere decades or even centuries ago.
Now, after decades of anti-white migrations, they're obviously less safe, less "blended in", but they want even more of the same. How curious. It almost looks like they won't feel "safe" as long as the whites exist.
That's pretty tragic because now a white goy like me honestly won't feel safe as long as they exist. They're causing their own destruction.
@John Regan Great response John!DESERT FOX , says: August 22, 2019 at 5:05 pm GMTI totally agree especially the value of these great Catholic thinkers. Still, separating these men from their religion would have separated them from their identity. As in Chesterton: "for who would speak of separating a man from his skeleton ?" (If memory serves). Without their religion they would never have gotten into these battles but would have cynically observed things from the sidelines.
It seems like Beloc and to some extent Chesterton, when they win their arguments, they thrust not a sword but a Christian hand in friendship and get slaughtered.
@Durruti The zionist banking kabal fastened the unconstitutional FED and IRS on America and then came the zionist wars as you stated, and with these wars came debt and taxes and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of young Americans and 10's of millions of innocent civilians, all in the name of zionism!Rev. Spooner , says: August 22, 2019 at 5:08 pm GMTTo add insult to injury the zio/US and Israel and zio/Britain created and funded and supplied AL CIADA aka ISIS and all offshoots of the same to destroy Iraq and Syria and Yemen for zionist Israel, and to top it all off, the Israelis and zio/US deep state did the attack on 911 to get excuse to destroy the middle east!
God help us, for it is going to take divine intervention to save America, check trunews.com.
@Counterinsurgency Never give up your guns.Rev. Spooner , says: August 22, 2019 at 5:11 pm GMT@Durruti Your comment was about George Orwell.Sic Semper , says: August 22, 2019 at 5:43 pm GMT@anarchyst I am really at the end of my Christian upbringing in this world of anti-christs. With each proselytization by the church and the enemies of man telling the faithful to bear more outrages, endure more persecutions and reward invasions with our bare necks, I have abandoned any connection to the church.Sic Semper , says: August 22, 2019 at 5:54 pm GMTIn the end Christianity can only exist in a stable end state civilization, where the population is homogenous and resources are stable. All of the "doing unto others" in a noble brotherhood goes out the window when you are marked for extermination and your children marked for rape and murder.
I cannot imagine any benevolent god asking his people to submit to the merciless in eternal outrage.
At this point Native Europeans are likely better off returning to Zeus and Odin as their gods in the face of the murderous hebraic god and his Mohammedan cousin – the "church's" version of Jesus as god simply ensures the Native European population of being sodomized to death by the twin devils of the Hebraic and Mohammedan gods.
If anything, Jesus must serve as an eternal reminder of what the Hebraics so unto the godly outside of their influence, they torture them to death.
Each time I see a crucifix, I think that is what jews do to all good. It is what they did to 100 Million of my European brothers and sisters barely a century ago and what they are to do to me and all who are like me as soon at the time is ripe – which if one is astute, can easily observe its proximity.
@Miggle One must know that the Genocide of Christians at Mamilla now sees an Israeli parking lot built upon the mass grave of at least 90,000 European Christians whom were slaughtered by jews. the entire cemetery at Mamilla was destroyed by this itineration of hebraic mass murderers to build " the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance" on top of the ancient graves of tens of thousands and the victims of hebraic mass murder.Wally , says: August 22, 2019 at 6:13 pm GMT
Contrary to the words of the crucified Christ – THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO.@Anon Really?geokat62 , says: August 22, 2019 at 6:19 pm GMT
Yet Orwell rejected the absurd & impossible 'Nazi gas chambers'.from Zionist dominated Wikipedia:
Orwell Doubted the Gas Chambers
Orwell was an antisemite who even doubted the holocaust gas chambers. At the conclusion of the war in Europe, Orwell expressed doubt about the Allied account of events and posed the following question in his book Notes on Nationalism, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear Is it true about the gas ovens in Poland?".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AGeorge_Orwell/Archive_1#Orwell_Doubted_the_Gas_Chambersdiscussion on Orwell:
Orwell's 1984 and modern censorship
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12678Wally , says: Website August 22, 2019 at 6:22 pm GMTIn this camp Belloc would place the likes of John Derbyshire, who on the one hand concedes and shows awareness that Jews as a group hold incredible levels of influence and power within his own profession, but who levels heavy criticism against those who dare to speak explicitly on the subject. Belloc describes such activity as "the great fault of our side which corresponds to the fault of secrecy upon theirs (127)."
Can I get an Oouch!
Finally, someone calls out the Derb for the coward he is!
Well done, Andrew Joyce.
@Priss Factor You have identified major factors as to why the fake "holocaust" narrative was contrived.Republic , says: August 22, 2019 at 6:52 pm GMT
ex.:
Communist Jew, Bruno Baum, himself a member of the illegal 'partisans / terrorists', boasted after the war:"The entire propaganda which started abroad, was made by us with the help of our Polish mates."
– Bruno Baum, "Wir funken aus der Hölle" in Deutsche Volkszeitung – Zentralorgan der KPD, Berlin 31.7.1945.; cf. B. BaumAn excellent article.anon [396] Disclaimer , says: August 22, 2019 at 7:09 pm GMTDoes anyone know if there has even been a poll regarding the Jewish Question among Americans?
I understand that in 2006 a poll was conducted which showed only 20% of Americans said that the Jews controlled the Hollywood studios.
In the past many more people said that the Jews controlled Hollywood.
I suspect that the downward trend was due to increased Jewish control over the media.
@anarchyst > The only common threadchris , says: August 22, 2019 at 7:10 pm GMTYou Jew-worshipers always lie. "Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed." (1 Cor. 5:7 ) Who else celebrates Passover, but Jews and you wannabee-Jews?
@chris "as who should speak of a man stripped of his armour of bones"anon [396] Disclaimer , says: August 22, 2019 at 7:16 pm GMT@Sic Semper > better off returning to OdinJohn Regan , says: August 22, 2019 at 7:27 pm GMTGad-Gawd-God-Gott-Gotin-Godin-Odin-Woden-Wotan are all variations of the same Teutonic name. Europeans can continue worshiping God, then need only stop conflating God with Jewhovah, since Jewhovah hates God anyway. "But you who forsake Yahweh, who forget my holy mountain, who prepare a table for God " (Isaiah 65:11) Prepare a table for God. Tell Jewhovah and his followers to fuck off.
@chrisTrevor Hardy , says: August 22, 2019 at 7:32 pm GMTGreat response John!
Thank you!
I totally agree especially the value of these great Catholic thinkers. Still, separating these men from their religion would have separated them from their identity. As in Chesterton: "for who would speak of separating a man from his skeleton ?" (If memory serves). Without their religion they would never have gotten into these battles but would have cynically observed things from the sidelines.
I don't know, I tend to think it lies more in a man's temperament than his specific ideology how he chooses to respond to his surroundings. The sort of thoughtful, idealistic soul which animates this sort of man would surely seek some sort of expression, even in the absence of the particular vessel of Roman Catholic religiosity. It would obviously not be precisely the same, but most probably not wholly cynical or apathetic either. For example, what would a hypothetical Belloc or Lewis have been like if grown up in a world where neo-Platonic, monistic or Islamic religion were dominant in England instead of Christianity? I think he would still be spiritually inclined and concerned for society, although of course it's impossible to "know" either way.
That said, I agree with you on the general point. All of these thinkers were deeply and sincerely committed to their creeds, and if one tried somehow to "remove" that from them as we know them historically , the result would be intellectual and spiritual mutilation. As they stand, their beliefs are inseparably part of their (flawed, but still inspiring) greatness. We latter-day students who would learn from their examples, however, will also do well to pay attention to their blind spots, as Mr. Joyce also emphasizes.
It seems like Beloc and to some extent Chesterton, when they win their arguments, they thrust not a sword but a Christian hand in friendship and get slaughtered.
All too true. To be fair, this is by no means a uniquely Christian failing, but one fairly common in European-derived, high-trust cultures (although Christian teachings often tend to exacerbate it). Even highly intelligent and otherwise perceptive men often fail to correctly assess the true meanness of opponents hailing from radically different backgrounds.
@cranc Trump in his own way is imperiling the Jews. He is calling them out as Israel Firsters and is saying that the bad ones aren't sufficiently loyal to their own narrow-minded tribe, not exactly a noble character traits.Bill Jones , says: August 22, 2019 at 7:34 pm GMTBack to the central question:nickels , says: August 22, 2019 at 7:45 pm GMT
Why do white men allow these people in their lands?As I recall, Belloc's prime thesis was for the Jews to quit trying to move in the shadows and hide the differences between gentile and jew, and to act through deceit-a source of great ire to the gentile.anonymous lazer , says: August 22, 2019 at 7:56 pm GMT
By that token the ADL and other militant 'antisemites everywhere' jews are going directly against his suggestions.
In general, Belloc held back to many punches, as he was trying to appeal to both sides of the aisle.
Belloc as a historian is beyond brilliant-I highly suggest his biographies to understand England and Europe through the stories of its pivotal characters.@Republic In 1944 Americans were asked what was the Biggest threat to america. About 75 percent of them said the Jews.Just a thought , says: August 22, 2019 at 8:00 pm GMTBreitbart the Zionist mouthpiece had a front page article today screaming bloody murder about the "anti-Semite" NYTimes editor Tom Wright-Piersanti and demanding his head on a silver platter:Moi , says: August 22, 2019 at 8:42 pm GMT
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/08/22/new-york-times-antisemitic-racist-tweets-politics-editor-violate-standards-considering-next-steps/As Henry Ford said in his book The International Jew , published nearly a century ago in 1920, the Jews excel in ingratiating themselves to rulers and aristocrats of every society they live in. They then persuade these leaders to go to war against one another, in the process borrowing heavily from them. With each war, Jews on both sides profited handsomely, while more gentiles died. A win-win.
Two thousand years later, nothing has changed. Except now they have superpower status thanks to their total control of every institution of import in the US: from Wall Street to Hollywood, DC to SV and everywhere in between, the media, academia, judiciary. The only way for this to end is for America to end, most likely through a total collapse from within as we are picked clean and hollowed out, swamped over by the third world hordes by these fifth columnists.
Gandalf doesn't exist in real life. The only way to kill off Wormtongue is to kill off King Theoden of Rohan.
@Paul I'd think a good place to start at understanding Jews would be the Torah and Talmud.chris , says: August 22, 2019 at 8:48 pm GMT@John Regan Very good points again, about the nature of these great men and their unfortunate failings in stemming the tide that they saw coming upon their societies. And yes I see your point that in the absence of their deep faith, they would certainly not have been cowards, as the presence of a Phil Giraldi, Mr. Joyce and others might attest to.anarchyst , says: August 22, 2019 at 8:50 pm GMTWe're also in agreement that irrespective of their value as human beings, their approach was bound to come up short as we've been 'privileged' to see. It pains me to say this but our only hope is in bankruptcy and other disasters, as well as in the dim hope that this Jewish monolith itself will begin to crack, though as so often in the past, this will serve the strategic goal of leading the opposition and returning to power via the other route.
@anon Not a jew or "jew worshiper" at all. It might interest you to know that Jesus Christ was NOT a "Pharasaic jew" but was of the obscure Essene sect which espoused many Christian-like (and jew averse) principles.Montefrío , says: August 22, 2019 at 8:50 pm GMT
It is YOU who need to "get a life" and refrain from name-calling. Your name-calling exposes your juvenile behavior. Grow up, already!@DanFromCT I worked on Wall St in a number of capacities. My sponsor for the Series 7 was what was called a "Jewish house", but I am not Jewish. My first mentor was a Jewish principal of the firm, a frustrated classical violinist from South America and a highly intelligent and fine individual who made sure I received continuing education as an analyst. He confided in me that the head of the firm "detested" Christians and that I couldn't advance because of that. He then hooked me up with what was then known as a "white" house, aka a "white shoe" firm at which there was no barrier to advancement. My grandfather, a banker, was mentored and later partnered with a Jewish man. I have a long history with Jewish folks, most all of it highly positive in terms of personal experience.Digital Samizdat , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:02 pm GMTThat said, I was fortunate to be able to leave the game at age 52 and was overjoyed to have done so. Finance is on balance a vile profession and as a long-time subsidiarity fan Sadly, however, few "average" Americans and Europeans have much interest in learning the workings of finance and little opportunity to do so in any case. As anyone with experience in the field knows, it's a secretive and closed shop. Its sole intention is to acquire wealth and perhaps power. It has no redeeming qualities, no altruism, little fraternal loyalty and thimble-rig ethics.
A worthwhile read is a book (novel) unfortunately not available in English to my knowledge. I tried to acquire translation rights, but was unable to do so: El Kahal y Oro by Hugo Wast. It paints an ugly portrait of Jewish conspiracy at a treasonous level, assuming the author's basic premise is true. I have nearly all of Belloc's work, including The Jews and have written published essays about him and his work. I consider him one of the 20th Century's "must read" authors for anyone who values his/her European heritage.
@Sic Semper I already used up my button for the hour, so lemme just say: I could not agree more with your comment. That's exactly how I feel these days.Digital Samizdat , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:09 pm GMTCan you imagine if Frank had been pope more than a thousand years ago when the Saracen hordes were invading Europe? He'd be to busy washing their damn feet to call a crusade!
Jake , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:10 pm GMTThere are "innumerable men who would express publicly on Jews what they continually express in private, but who conceal their feelings for fear that their salaries may be lost or their modest enterprises wrecked, their investments lowered, and their position ruined (263)."
That's me right there!
Thank god for Unz–this website is a real lifeline, a place where I can relax and just be myself.
The Jewish Problem is religious and theological. Its rise in Europe began with the Reformation (all Reformers Judaized at least by focusing on Jews as experts on the Old Testament), and it took off like a wildfire in northwestern Europe when Jews expelled from Spain congregated primarily in the Netherlands, and there made very close friends with the first wave of Protestants. Jews were the primary publishers of Protestant tracts in most countries, and Jews became bankers to a significant degree for all Protestant princes and republics. Protestantism developing naturally into secularism meant doors were wide open across Europe with the 19th century.Kolya Krassotkin , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:13 pm GMTThat pattern is one of rebellion against Christ and Christendom that sees Jews being piggybacked into positions of great wealth and power. The rebellion against Christ and Christendom is what led to this world we now have in which Jews are free to wage permanent culture war. Continued rebellion against Christ and Christendom will continue that pattern. Jews love white Gentiles being atheist or agnostic or Nordic pagan wannabee, like so many who congregate at the Occidental Observer or VDARE. Just like Jews delight in whites becoming Mohammedan, which means embracing cultural and religious Semitism.
@Bill Jones They had historically been tax collectors for the king and other nobility.Jake , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:22 pm GMTA major milestone in the development of Parliament and self-governance was when Edward I expelled them from England and was forced to call together the English nobility and representatives of the people to collect taxes. (Let Mel Gibson say what he wants, Edward I was one of England's greatest kings.)
@Moi The Talmud is the written form of the 'oral law' of the Pharisees that Jesus said meant that Satan, not Abraham, was the spiritual father of the Pharisees. The Talmud is absolutely necessary to understanding Jews as a people who in every era and locale will produce large numbers of radicals who intend to ruin anything even redolent of historic Christianity and any white people seen as even a possibility to play a role in an attempt to revive Christendom.Fuerchtegott , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:28 pm GMT@Paul Still it is advantageous to not be around Jews at all.Jake , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:30 pm GMT@geokat62 The Derb is not a coward in any sense. He is a natural product of WASP culture, which was formed fully by the Judaizing heresy Anglo-Saxon Puritanism.Sic Semper , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:39 pm GMTWASP culture spread that affinity for all things Jewish around the globe.
WASP Empire is Anglo-Zionist Empire.
@Digital Samizdat Kosherists have always seized peoples by their leaders first. I am hard pressed to recall anytime in Catholicism where the church protected the faithful. I spent a dozen years in catholic schools, underwent the sacraments and all along was told how unworthy I was, while child rapists preyed upon my classmates. That has always been the control the church has by convincing its faithful that they are cheap unworthy sacrifices to an invisible god who demands their subservience and sacrifice.annamaria , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:44 pm GMTAs the Christian people face existential threats from entities who proclaim their adherents to be supermen whose excretory waste is even considered "holy" – the juxtaposition of faiths and the extreme disadvantages we are left at are glaring.
It is now impossible to be a Christian. We are preyed upon at every turn like sardines among a feeding frenzy of sharks. Some of those sharks wear Catholic vestments and wag their fingers proclaiming us in violation of our faith as they cut deals with the other sharks.
A noble brotherhood doing unto others will not survive long preyed upon by sharks and offering no defense of their own.
@Priss Factor " Jewish personality is closer to the Germanic, and the most influential Jews were of Germanic influence"Anonymous [373] Disclaimer , says: August 22, 2019 at 9:59 pm GMT
-- Not necessarily when you learn about Jews living in different civilizations.@Sic SemperTheodore , says: August 22, 2019 at 10:04 pm GMTAt this point Native Europeans are likely better off returning to Zeus and Odin as their gods in the face of the murderous hebraic god and his Mohammedan cousin
Probably true for many. We need to recommit ourselves to naked, earthly survival in the coming years because that's where the battle started decades ago.
@Miggle The book is available on Library Genesis. Here seems to be the relevant portion:Sic Semper , says: August 22, 2019 at 10:05 pm GMTThe fifteenth of August had been fixed in the council of Clermont for the departure of the pilgrims; but the day was anticipated by the thoughtless and needy crowd of plebeians, and I shall briefly despatch the calamities which they inflicted and suffered, before I enter on the more serious and successful enterprise of the chiefs. Early in the spring, from the confines of France and Lorraine, above sixty thousand of the populace of both sexes flocked round the first missionary of the crusade, and pressed him with clamorous importunity to lead them to the holy sepulchre. The hermit, assuming the character, without the talents or authority, of a general, impelled or obeyed the forward impulse of his votaries along the banks of the Rhine and Danube. Their wants and numbers soon compelled them to separate, and his lieutenant, Walter the Penniless, a valiant though needy soldier, conducted a van guard of pilgrims, whose condition may be determined from the proportion of eight horsemen to fifteen thousand foot. The example and footsteps of Peter were closely pursued by another fanatic, the monk Godescal, whose sermons had swept away fifteen or twenty thousand peasants from the villages of Germany. Their rear was again pressed by a herd of two hundred thousand, the most stupid and savage refuse of the people, who mingled with their devotion a brutal license of rapine, prostitution, and drunkenness. Some counts and gentlemen, at the head of three thousand horse, attended the motions of the multitude to partake in the spoil; but their genuine leaders (may we credit such folly?) were a goose and a goat, who were carried in the front, and to whom these worthy Christians ascribed an infusion of the divine spirit. Of these, and of other bands of enthusiasts, the first and most easy warfare was against the Jews, the murderers of the Son of God. In the trading cities of the Moselle and the Rhine, their colonies were numerous and rich; and they enjoyed, under the protection of the emperor and the bishops, the free exercise of their religion. At Verdun, Treves, Mentz, Spires, Worms, many thousands of that unhappy people were pillaged and massacred: nor had they felt a more bloody stroke since the persecution of Hadrian. A remnant was saved by the firmness of their bishops, who accepted a feigned and transient conversion; but the more obstinate Jews opposed their fanaticism to the fanaticism of the Christians, barricadoed their houses, and precipitating themselves, their families, and their wealth, into the rivers or the flames, disappointed the malice, or at least the avarice, of their implacable foes.
Perhaps the date is incorrect and it was 1096 rather than 1066. Please check the date "1096 AD" and come back to me
@Fuerchtegott "Still it is advantageous to not be around Jews at all." Truer words have never been said. However, in an age where every information resource is owned and tightly controlled by this menace and sees their ever tightening grasp of the "truth" they want told, it is impossible to avoid them. The argument then becomes that only one who has dealt with the malevolence firsthand in their unguarded and uncontrolled moments can fully understand the abject malice they hold us in. Only when they let their facade slip in person can one understand how ugly they are.Gg Mo , says: August 22, 2019 at 10:07 pm GMTAnti-semitism is a communicable disease spread by any contact with jews themselves.
Live long enough amongst any in an arena where they intend to dominate, it is impossible to not understand the persecution that the valiant Palestinian peoples – the modern Christs being tortured to death face daily.
They wage terror against the gentile. Preying upon them, committing outrage after outrage and inviting reprisals to prove how they are the victims always. Gentiles soon surrender their principles, their children and later their homes to this malignancy. It is systematic and total, from the local schools, to the local bureaucrats – jews field armies against the gentile.
I have lived it for 40+years now. The outrages mount every day. Even my puppy was poisoned by a yarmulke wearer when I was a little boy – the kosherist enjoyed pleasuring himself while looking in our windows to underage children and an attractive "shiksa" wife of a gentile, a young watch dog alerting the gentile was an inconvenience that a little Draino mixed in the dog's food when it was placed outside would solve. Fortunately he was witnessed and the plate of food taken away before the puppy tasted it. Police were called, court appearances held the gentile mustn't leave their puppy in their backyard where he wil alert of the noble jew pleasuring himself while looking in our windows.
The entire neighborhood was united in their abject hatred of a gentile family signing petitions and sending "hate mail" while vandalizing at every turn our property and going so far as to smash Christmas lights and ghastly slit a child's jack o'lantern with butcher knives.
As alway, never expect a court or police in such hebraic occupied lands to side with the gentile victims.
The time will come. As Samuel Roth wrote "The next time you read about a particularly bloody pogrom and pause to wonder how Christians, dedicated to a religion of mercy, can exercise so much brutality against the Jews, remember that the Jew wheedles all the mercy out of his neighbors in the ordinary course of business. He lies and cheats until he is caught. When caught, instead of accepting punishment, he moans and tears his hair, invokes the sores of ancestors in their graves and living relations at the point of death in hospitals, until the wronged gentile, nauseated, lets him go. Then, thumbing his nose at the gentile behind his back, the Jew goes about his business the same way, lying and cheating now doubly to make up for lost time. A pogrom is usually the climax of years of such relentless goading. Do you wonder that when the final reckoning comes the gentile is absolutely merciless?"
-- Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live, Ch. 13, p. 206, f/n 31 [expurgated chapter]
We again shall be merciless.
@Dan Hayes It is a shame that GKC sided with the Bankers in WWI. Producing propoganda for *their* revenge against the Austrian/GermansWally , says: August 22, 2019 at 10:13 pm GMT@anonymous lazer Source please.Sic Semper , says: August 22, 2019 at 10:22 pm GMT@Anonymous All higher religions and philosophical understandings state to do good, live in peace and prosperity. Christianity handicaps its adherents by convincing them to live at the mercy of others. In a world where the global native European population is openly demonized in service of a mounting genocide, such a handicap eases such an extermination.anon [396] Disclaimer , says: August 22, 2019 at 10:31 pm GMTChrist spoke of the metaphysical to a rural population in a time before science. His language was spoken to the illiterate of "fathers" and "heaven" – a reading by a modern man free of the vestiges of canon and open to understanding of spiritual realms and dimensions reads so much more into what was written and interpreted to subjugate in the name of religious orders and for the profits of high priests.
The church we have been saddled with is not of any spiritual realm, but of a physical who demanded tithes of flesh. It is an ancient order who continues now to collect its pound of flesh but no longer for any priestly masters, but for the enemies of this god and man itself.
@Jake You Catholics are Jew-worshipers too, as it states in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "To the Jews 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship.'" Even the Catholics' Pope says, and I directly quote him, "Inside every Christian is a Jew." It's time you man-up and take responsibility, instead of trying to shift blame.Bardon Kaldian , says: August 22, 2019 at 10:31 pm GMT@BCB232 Actually- food for thought re Spielberg .Republic , says: August 22, 2019 at 10:35 pm GMT@geokat62 Any American who openly names the Jews is taken out. A few days ago, the you tube account of Dr E Michael Jones was banned from that platform.Brewer , says: August 22, 2019 at 10:37 pm GMTHe has written some very informative books, like The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: and its impact on world history. His video, The Goy Guide to world history is a very good introduction for those people not familiar with the Jewish Question
Jones's videos are still available on his website, culturewars.com and on bitChute
@Ilya G Poimandres "The Jewish people will assimilate and coexist peacefully when God given chosenness – a denial of religion (the need for self improvement) and an acceptance of ideology (the need for other improvement, 'light unto the nations') – is expunged from their faith. "Gg Mo , says: August 22, 2019 at 10:38 pm GMT
Excellent comment.
Exceptionalism lies at the heart of every troublesome issue involving Israel and Jewish activism.
Colonial oppression and dispossession – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
Race/religion based State – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
Assassination – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
Territory taken through War – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
Racial segregation – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
Imprisonment without trial – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
Shooting unarmed protestors – proscribed but OK if Israel/Jews do it.
The list is long@DESERT FOX Global Chabad Lubavitch is compromised of Several compromised world leaders. See Putin and His Rabbi Lazar etc etc etcanon [396] Disclaimer , says: August 22, 2019 at 10:38 pm GMT@anarchyst Who cares what kind of Jew Jewsus was? He was still a Jewish Rabbi, who taught in the Synagogues, and was quite popular among the Jews. Says so right in the Jew Testament in Luke 4:15. Your attempt to make Jesus into some obscure Jew is a dishonest scam. He was praised by "EVERY" Jew, if the Jew Testament is correct. Go read it yourself.geokat62 , says: August 22, 2019 at 11:03 pm GMT@JakeEric Blair , says: August 22, 2019 at 11:54 pm GMTThe Derb is not a coward in any sense.
If these are not the words of a coward, I don't know what are:
Yes, indeed I was, and am, "afraid of offending Jews." Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.
How people continue to follow this coward's writings is beyond me.
I went with some friends to see a poetry presentation by a jewish writer I found it terrible and mediocre rants, But my jewish fiedn said that I was Uneducated and unable to understand it He cited a (jewish) literary critic that praise the work. I told him I find many jewish comedians NOT funny, at all I a christian gentile MUST laugh while a jewish comedian blasphemes my religion with rabid (Unfanny hatred), otherwise I am not smart enought later teh same comdeian is promoting his Christmas special TV show?? Sometimes I just feel that WE the NONjews MUST exist in a Jewish Matrix of Power almost like robots accepting ALL jewish directives without ever questioning its accuracy, authority, etc. Its a MATRIX of power enforce since birth, early schooling, politics, media, academics, institutional, etc. BUT what happens when REALITY, FACTS, concrete tangible objective rationality clash with jewish narrative? then we enter the world of ANTIsemitism which MUST be enforce RE/enforce its validity however absurd it is. The fact that Jews must use violence, censorship, etc. that means They KNOW they are wrong they are lying..they lost the DEBATE the intellectual debate It si not that jews are super intelligent its is that they have the power to kill ideas, destroy much brighter opponents, by cheating, rigging the system. IF I run a red light while driving I will probably pay a hefty fine, higher insurance rates, lose my license etc JEWS break the RULES all the time steal, robe, kill, defraud, deceive, etc. without punishment??? it seems that the LEGAL codes of their respective nations (of residency) NEVER apply to jews..why not?? can the USA govt audit the ADL,? SPLC? ACLU? WJCongress???Robert Dolan , says: August 22, 2019 at 11:59 pm GMT@geokat62 Okay .to be fair ..I could rattle off a VERY long list of writers who are afraid of the nose.The list of big balls is a short list with Duke and KMAC at the top with maybe a half dozen more brave souls.
MOST people are afraid. Ramzpaul did a recent clip where he warned people to be careful and not run head first into machine gun fire. He wasn't cucking, he was simply alerting people to the very real dangers.
On the other hand, cucking didn't help Alex Jones, or Gavin ..and Trump is the biggest cuck of all and it doesn't help him either.
I keep hoping for the day when ALL of us stand up and yell, "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!"
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2019 | www.unz.com
If the neoliberal ruling classes expect to keep the American masses worked up into a white-eyed hysteria over "fascism" until November 2020, they're going to need to get some better Nazis. The current Nazis are just not going to cut it. They are neither scary nor Nazi enough. OK, the militia ones look kind of scary, and that "Based Spartan" guy looks kind of uh, weird, but most of them just look like regular old rednecks. How hard would it be to get them some brown shirts, or those khaki pants like they wore in Charlottesville, or some other type of Nazi-like uniform?
And some jackboots. People love those jackboots.
Seriously, the Resistance need to get their official narrative optics in order, and they need to do it without delay. Millions of liberals are standing by to be brainwashed into a year-long frenzy of manufactured mass "fascism" hysteria, but they are going to need some halfway convincing Nazis to spastically freak out over. A few hundred bozos in MAGA hats parading around with American flags does not exactly a Sturmabteilung make.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
As the Russiagate circus attempts to quietly disappear over the horizon, with Democrats preferring to shift the anti-Trump narrative back to "racist", "white supremacist", "xenophobe", and the mainstream media ready to squawk "recession"; the Trump administration may have a few more cards up its sleeve before anyone claims the higher ground in this farce we call an election campaign.
As The Hill's John Solomon details, in September 2018 that President Trump told my Hill.TV colleague Buck Sexton and me that he would order the release of all classified documents showing what the FBI, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other U.S. intelligence agencies may have done wrong in the Russia probe.
And while it's been almost a year since then, of feet-dragging and cajoling and deep-state-fighting, we wonder, given Solomon's revelations below, if the president is getting ready to play his 'Trump' card.
Here are the documents that Solomon believes have the greatest chance of rocking Washington, if declassified:
1.) Christopher Steele 's confidential human source reports at the FBI. These documents, known in bureau parlance as 1023 reports, show exactly what transpired each time Steele and his FBI handlers met in the summer and fall of 2016 to discuss his anti-Trump dossier. The big reveal, my sources say, could be the first evidence that the FBI shared sensitive information with Steele, such as the existence of the classified Crossfire Hurricane operation targeting the Trump campaign. It would be a huge discovery if the FBI fed Trump-Russia intel to Steele in the midst of an election, especially when his ultimate opposition-research client was Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The FBI has released only one or two of these reports under FOIA lawsuits and they were 100 percent redacted. The American public deserves better.
2.) The 53 House Intel interviews. House Intelligence interviewed many key players in the Russia probe and asked the DNI to declassify those interviews nearly a year ago, after sending the transcripts for review last November. There are several big reveals, I'm told, including the first evidence that a lawyer tied to the Democratic National Committee had Russia-related contacts at the CIA.
3.) The Stefan Halper documents. It has been widely reported that European-based American academic Stefan Halper and a young assistant, Azra Turk, worked as FBI sources . We know for sure that one or both had contact with targeted Trump aides like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos at the end of the election. My sources tell me there may be other documents showing Halper continued working his way to the top of Trump's transition and administration, eventually reaching senior advisers like Peter Navarro inside the White House in summer 2017. These documents would show what intelligence agencies worked with Halper, who directed his activity, how much he was paid and how long his contacts with Trump officials were directed by the U.S. government's Russia probe.
4.) The October 2016 FBI email chain. This is a key document identified by Rep. Nunes and his investigators. My sources say it will show exactly what concerns the FBI knew about and discussed with DOJ about using Steele's dossier and other evidence to support a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign in October 2016. If those concerns weren't shared with FISA judges who approved the warrant, there could be major repercussions.
5.) Page/Papadopoulos exculpatory statements. Another of Nunes' five buckets, these documents purport to show what the two Trump aides were recorded telling undercover assets or captured in intercepts insisting on their innocence. Papadopoulos told me he told an FBI undercover source in September 2016 that the Trump campaign was not trying to obtain hacked Clinton documents from Russia and considered doing so to be treason. If he made that statement with the FBI monitoring, and it was not disclosed to the FISA court, it could be another case of FBI or DOJ misconduct.
6.) The 'Gang of Eight' briefing materials. These were a series of classified briefings and briefing books the FBI and DOJ provided key leaders in Congress in the summer of 2018 that identify shortcomings in the Russia collusion narrative. Of all the documents congressional leaders were shown, this is most frequently cited to me in private as having changed the minds of lawmakers who weren't initially convinced of FISA abuses or FBI irregularities.
7.) The Steele spreadsheet. I wrote recently that the FBI kept a spreadsheet on the accuracy and reliability of every claim in the Steele dossier. According to my sources, it showed as much as 90 percent of the claims could not be corroborated, were debunked or turned out to be open-source internet rumors. Given Steele's own effort to leak intel in his dossier to the media before Election Day, the public deserves to see the FBI's final analysis of his credibility. A document I reviewed recently showed the FBI described Steele's information as only "minimally corroborated" and the bureau's confidence in him as "medium."
8.) The Steele interview. It has been reported, and confirmed, that the DOJ's inspector general (IG) interviewed the former British intelligence operative for as long as 16 hours about his contacts with the FBI while working with Clinton's opposition research firm, Fusion GPS. It is clear from documents already forced into the public view by lawsuits that Steele admitted in the fall of 2016 that he was desperate to defeat Trump , had a political deadline to make his dirt public, was working for the DNC/Clinton campaign and was leaking to the news media. If he told that to the FBI and it wasn't disclosed to the FISA court, there could be serious repercussions.
9.) The redacted sections of the third FISA renewal application. This was the last of four FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign; it was renewed in June 2017 after special counsel Robert Mueller 's probe had started, and signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein . It is the one FISA application that House Republicans have repeatedly asked to be released, and I'm told the big reveal in the currently redacted sections of the application is that it contained both misleading information and evidence of intrusive tactics used by the U.S. government to infiltrate Trump's orbit.
10.) Records of allies' assistance. Multiple sources have said a handful of U.S. allies overseas – possibly Great Britain, Australia and Italy – were asked to assist FBI efforts to check on Trump connections to Russia. Members of Congress have searched recently for some key contact documents with British intelligence . My sources say these documents might help explain Attorney General Bill Barr's recent comments that "the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign, to me, is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed."
These documents, when declassified, would show more completely how a routine counterintelligence probe was hijacked to turn the most awesome spy powers in America against a presidential nominee in what was essentially a political dirty trick orchestrated by Democrats.
rahrog , 2 minutes ago link
LibertyVibe , 3 minutes ago linkAmerica's Ruling Class is laughing at all you fools still falling for the Rs v Ds scam.
Stupid people lose.
Lord Raglan , 5 minutes ago linkI disagree with Solomon. Nothing will "doom" the swamp unless the righteous few are willing to indict, prosecute and carry out sentencing for the guilty. Exposing the guilty accomplishes nothing, because anyone paying attention already knows of their crimes. Those who want to believe lies will still believe them after the truth comes out.
It's ALL A WASTE OF TIME unless we follow through.TheFQ , 16 minutes ago linkWhere's all the other, earlier docs Trump was going to declassify? Just wondering..............
benb , 12 minutes ago linkDoes anyone see a pattern here after the 2009 Tea Party movement began?
2009 - Republicans: "If we win back the House, we can accomplish our agenda."
2011 - Republicans: "If we win back the Senate, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: After winning back the House)
2012 - Republicans: "If we win back the Senate, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: 2 YEARS After winning back the House)
2013 - Republicans: "If we win back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: 1 YEAR after winning back the House and the Senate)
2014 - Republicans: "If we win back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: 2 YEARS after winning back the House and the Senate)
2015 - Republicans: "If we win back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: 3 YEARS after winning back the House and the Senate)
2016 - Republicans: "If we win back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: 4 YEARS after winning back the House and the Senate)
2017 - Republicans: "Now that we've won back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: After winning back the House 6 YEARS AGO and the Senate 4 YEARS AGO)
2018 - Republicans: "Now that we've won back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: After winning back the House 7 YEARS AGO and the Senate 5 YEARS AGO)
2019 - John Solomon - "If Trump Declassifies These 10 Documents, Democrats Are Doomed"
I hate to say it, but I DON'T BELIEVE YOU, JOHN.
ALL WE HAVE HEARD OVER THE COURSE OF THIS DECADE IS "IF THIS HAPPENS...THEN THEY ARE DOOMED / WE CAN ACCOMPLISH OUR AGENDA / YADDA YADDA YADDA.
WHEN THE FOLLOWING ARE FOUND GUILTY OF TREASON, THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL I BELIEVE YOU:
- CLINTONS
- OBAMA
- BIDEN
- KERRY
- BRENNAN
- CLAPPER
- COMEY
- MCCABE
- MUELLER
- WEISSMAN
- STRZOK
- RICE
- POWERS
- LYNCH
- YATES
- ET AL
WHY ARE THESE TREASONOUS, VILE, CORRUPT CRIMINALS NOT INDICTED FOR TREASON?
WTF?
FFS...
enfield0916 , 36 minutes ago linkWHY ARE THESE TREASONOUS, VILE, CORRUPT CRIMINALS NOT INDICTED FOR TREASON?
Because the people doing the indicting are in on it.
As if there's any major philosophical difference between the Librtads and Zionist Cocksuckvatives.
Both sides use the .gov agencies to subvert and ignore the Constitution whenever possible. Best example is WikiLeaks and how each party wished Assange would just go away when he revealed damaging information about both sides on multiple occasions.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2019 | news.yahoo.com
China slammed Taiwan Monday for offering asylum to Hong Kong people facing prosecution for involvement in anti-government protests, telling the island's leaders to "stop meddling" in the territory's affairs.
Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen voiced support last month for granting asylum to some Hong Kong protesters, with the semi-autonomous financial hub in the midst of an unprecedented political crisis.
Ma Xiaoguang, a spokesperson for the Chinese cabinet's Taiwan Affairs Office, warned Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party to "stop undermining the rule of law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, stop meddling in Hong Kong affairs, and stop indulging criminals in any way".
Taiwanese authorities "ignore the facts and reverse black and white, not only masking the crimes of a small number of Hong Kong militants, but also fuelling their arrogance for destroying Hong Kong", said Ma.
Last month after dozens of Hong Kong activists reportedly involved in an unprecedented storming of the city's parliament fled to Taiwan, the Taipei said it would provide assistance to those seeking sanctuary.
"They openly claim to provide (protesters) asylum, making Taiwan into a 'haven sheltering criminals', where does this put the safety and welfare of the Taiwan people?" asked Ma.
Beijing regards Taiwan as a part of China awaiting reunification, but the island is a self-ruled democracy.
The protest movement in Hong Kong was sparked by widespread opposition to a plan for allowing extraditions to the Chinese mainland, but has since morphed into a broader call for democratic rights.
Taiwan's history of providing sanctuary to Chinese dissidents has been mixed.
The island still does not recognise the legal concept of asylum but has, on occasions, allowed dissidents to stay on long-term visas.
Ties with Beijing have soured since Tsai came to power in 2016 because her party refuses to recognise the idea that Taiwan is part of "one China". lawrence
2 days ago
Taiwan is an independent country. Of cause it has the right and authority to grant any asylum to the eligible asylum seeker. Respect Taiwan as an respected country ,equal to china, and the world will put china in a better place. Loving freedom and democracy is a human basic right realty and could not be altered by force...wake up china..
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Biden (D)(2): "Biden's Complicity in Obama's Toxic Legacy" [ Counterpunch (Re Silc)]. "Central to [Biden's] narrative is the presentation of the difference between Trump and Obama as akin to the difference between Hitler and Gandhi. A better analogy – especially when it comes to foreign policy – would be the difference between John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer who was known for dressing up as a clown at public events, and Ted Bundy, the tall, handsome serial killer who enticed his victims into his car with his charm and good looks." • I picked out the sickest burn, if we still say that, but the article as whole is quite a bill of particulars.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
... ... ...
Obama reportedly asked his senior staff to "fix this problem with Biden" - something they never quite got a handle on. Thus, Biden went on embarrassing the top of his ticket during both private fundraisers with big-time donors, and with the general public.The bitterness only escalated from there, especially as Biden began making more frequent gaffes on the campaign trail. In the final week of September alone, Biden "equated paying higher taxes with patriotism," told voters both he and Obama were opposed to coal -- contrary to their platform – and second guessed the campaign's messaging strategy.
In the wake of such gaffes, Obama purportedly told his staff to "fix this problem with Biden," but refrained from getting involved himself. All of that changed two weeks before Election Day, when Biden claimed at a fundraiser that Obama, if elected, would stare down an international crisis in his first six-months.
The prophesy would not have stirred much concern, except Biden gave the impression to those in attendance and the media that he was "showing off" for wealthy donors, and the crisis in question would be "generated."
"Mark my words," Biden told the crowd. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
Biden's inability to stop making cracks about Obama's 'lack of experience' infuriated the candidate in a way that even the sharpest jabs from Hillary never quite managed to do. Halperin and Heilemann described how, during one call not long after the above-mentioned remark, a furious Obama fumed about "how many times is Biden gonna say something stupid?"
On Obama's nightly call, the candidate hit the ceiling. ([Chief strategist David] Axelrod was already up there, needing to be peeled off, having let fly a string of F-bombs when he first found out what Biden had said.) 'Golly, man!' Obama said, with more anger in his voice than 'gollys' normally carry. He was, in fact, as pissed off as most people on the call had ever heard him, more so than he'd been at even the wickedest jabs from Hillary Clinton. 'How many times is Biden gonna say something stupid?'"
Not long after, Obama set up a private call with Biden where he laid into his running mate, accusing him of failing to 'have his back.'
A couple of days later, Obama phoned Biden and laid into him. You were supposed to have my back, he said, not be out there creating problems...More than that, though, what rankled Obama was that Biden hadn't bothered to pick up the phone and apologize. Worse, Biden didn't say that he was sorry when Obama called; he showed no remorse for his...comments or understanding that they posed a real political problem.
All of this is why Obama reportedly told Biden during a private call before the 76-year-old launched his campaign that he 'didn't need to do this.'
"You don't have to do this, Joe, you really don't," Obama told Biden before the 76-year-old formally launched his campaign in April.
For Democratic primary voters, this is definitely something worth keeping in mind.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Arioch , Aug 20 2019 14:22 utc | 83
> Further US sanctions on Russia. Russian gdp growth is very low now, forecasts are about mere 1,2 % per anum, and thus Russia's share of world GDP is declining.
Posted by: Passer by | Aug 20 2019 13:15 utc
You think "harming Russia" is a good answer to question "how does it boost USA the hegemon?". Well, let's suppose it...
Problem then is, Russia does not care that much about nominal GDP and even about PPP GDP. It is "average temperature in hospital", where some patients are in 41C fever and others in 4C morgue, but on average they all have that healthy 36,6C.
However, even for those sanctions that did hit Russia and EU hard (and those were enacted mostly in 2015), under the "China-Russia double helix" model, economic soft power is Chinese responsibility, so targetting EU and Russia economically was perhaps a mis-aiming, like would be targetting China militarily.
Also, take a single line - "congress obliges Trump to enlist Russian officials for sanctions" and do the search in both pro-Clinton Google and in DDG. first page of Google has zero relebvant results. DDG however starts with
Trump Administration Sends Congress List of Possible Russia ...
www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.htmlCongress has tied Trump's hands on Russian sanctions - Vox
www.vox.com/2017/7/29/16061878/trump-russian-sanctions-signCongress Forces Trump to Sanction Russia - Fash the Nation
fashthenation.com/2018/03/congress-forces-trump-to-sanction-russia/Trump Finally Imposes Russia Sanctions That Congress Ordered ...
www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/trump-finally-imposes-russia-sanctions-that-congress-ordered-months-ago/Is 2017 so far ago that we already forgot it? Trump has no freedom of choice to sanction Russia or not. It is not his authority to make this choice. Trump is ordered to sanction and he would do. If he has any leeway, it is to how specifically sanction, but even that choice is framed into UIS domestic politic fuel, as a vehicle to fry Trump over being "Putin's shil" and looking "not enough" into evil Russians.
> China postponed for overtaking the US in gdp MER to 2032 from 2024.
Estimations are just that, estimations. Guesses into the future mixed with propaganda. If you don't buy Trump's tweets about "China begging for deal" and Obama's about "Russian economy in tatters" - why to buy these estimations?
> Indian growth downgraded - which taken together with China means slowing down Asia's rise.
Pro-American Modi in power of India was a definite win for USA. But I do not think Trump did it in 2016. Such events are grown for years and years of undercover works.
Same for the Brazil fiasco, which i perceive was much heavier blow upon BRICS than Modi. But Brazilian coup was in preparation yet before Trump's oath. May 2016 was the FINAL act, prepared months before: nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/americas/brazil-dilma-rousseff-impeachment.html
> Iran in recession - long term growth is low - it means that Iran's share of the world economy is now declining. This will lower Iranian influence in the long term.
Long term? like Trump is planning for long term? Would he, like Putin, still be American president in 2016+18=2034 ?
Well, maybe. However does it boost much US the hegemon position today?Also notice how this pushes Iran back to Russian bucket. Before JCPOA Iran was flirting with "Lesser Satan" a lot, promising to buy russian airliners, promising to barter Iranian goods (oil and others) for Russian goods, thus de facto letting Russia be quasi-monopolistic seller of Iranian goods on world market for any margin Russia would manage to extract. All those hints and kinda-plans were squashed instantly after JCPOA. Iran rushed to trade with EU directly, to buy Boeing and Airbis jets.... But was shot into the leg before it started. I think China would also find their way to be "big helping brother" to Iranian economy, on some conditions of course.
> Venezueala in deep recession
True, and this is again fitting the isolationist bill, to a degree. If Team Trump ready to exclude USA from global trade - it would have to secure oil supply. Enslaving a nearby oil-containing nation would do.
Additionally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Venezuela_relations lists 2014 as start of economic sanctions against Venezuela. So, Trump has inherited "office of Venezuelan affairs" from Cinton/Obama. And... he brought it to light and headlines by making that idiotic wannabe-coup. The sh*t that previously USA did silently pretending whitegloved "shining beacon", Trump exposed.
Did it really made USA position better in 2018 than it was in 2014? I doubt. To me it seemes more like T.T. accelerated things and "threw it all on the table" making Venezuela "hit the rock bottom". Now Venezuela can adjust to the new brave world, while USA would probably not be in position to tighten its grip - it already burned all the reserves and in so clumsy way, that Bolton and Co became a laughing stock. If anything, it exposed that while most gov't there would be paying lip service to USA, none would go with something material. France invaded with USA Libya, Germany invaded with USA Serbia, but none enlisted to invade Venezuela with USA.
> In Latin America most governments are now US puppet governments.
Brazil was indeed a huge blow into the BRICS dream. But i see it more of that indirect, covert "soft power" that USA secret services prepared and rushed to implement before Trump.
> Weakened the EU, via support for Brexit and other ways - it means that the euro will not be a viable alternative for replacing the dollar
Basically turning EU elites against USA and splitting "Western Hegemony" into rivaling factions.
From multipolar view circa 2010, would it be much difference for, say, Russia or China or Iran, whether USD or EUR would be "reserve currency"?
After Alexander of Macedonia died his empire split to pieces, and some of those pieces soon started warring. Did this enhance Greek hegemony or reduced it?
When COMECOM and Warsaw Pact disbanded did it enhanced Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe or reduced it? But it slashed exports of those lands, Bulgaria is not more agriculture super-power it used to be, "Ikarus" bus is still often meet in Moscow street but in the "remnants of old times still able to run" kind, Poland is no more producing ocean-grade ships. So, was it enhancing USSR share of world economy then?
Also, didn't he kind of forced EU elites into Chinese OBOR camp? That said, similarly Russia was forced towards China in 2013-2014 by Western lunacy, so i would not say it was Trump's novelty to push EU eastwards.
EU was in with US in looting Libya, EU was in with US in looting Serbia, now US calls for EU to join in "patrolling" Persian Gulf and response is... like the one about invading Venezuela. Hegemon became stronger?
> Trade wars seem to be hitting EU's export dependent economy pretty hard.
And i wish to see more of those wars not less. Won't you? EU is the power, that took part in creating narco-haven in Kosovo, murdering children of Iraq, building sex slaves markets in Libya, destroying what was left of democracy in Ukraine. EU power is diminishing? Let it crash and burn if you ask me.
> Turkey has serious economic problems - partly due to the US again - which again means slowing down multipolarity
Wasn't in 2012 Turkey part of Hegemon entourage neck-deep in bloody ISIS affair?
Wasn't Turkey for decades be knockign into closed EU membership doors?
Wasn't Turkey send their people into Germany to intertwine and cross-influence?Turkey as part of multipolarity? Maybe. But exactly because it was prohibited from what they see their place in global western world. However i am not very sure that would West offer "larger piece" to Turkey in their crippling hegemony, turkey would not turn back yet again. Goog thing, it would be hard to do as few believe western promises today, but again, didn't Trump (but other western politicians too, and including many pre-Trump) invested into making West glaringly "not agreement-capable" in but everyone's view?
Trump could smash Turkey and instate Kudistan.
Trump could smash Kurds and make amends with Erdo.
Instead Trump is breaking pots with both. Neither Kurds not Turks no trust "the shining beacon".> Overall situation - the US share in the world economy is declining at slower rates than before
Won't this mean Trump's economic policy is if limited success?
> the retarding of growth of everyone else, which means defacto slowing down multipolarity and the replacement of the US dollar
That may be what some faction of Team Trump counting upon. But i have reservations.
Uni-polarity is not about economic growth. It is about trading on One True Market, hegemon's one.
And when everything goes down, another factors start to weigh in. Like elasticity of demand and replacement with cheaper substitutes. Like, if i need a tooling for my house, i would perhaps want to purchase Japanese Makita or German Bosh. Those are famous brands with decades of well earned reputation. But if i only can salivate on them, then perhaps i can go with some cheaper Chinese knock-off? Or perhaps to blow the dust from my grandpa's old tool and purchase nothing at all? If i can buy genuine American Levi's it is a fad, but if i can, then perhaps i will make it in Turkey-made or China-made or Philipinnes-made or even Syria-made jeans? You know, their cut is not that fitting as European or American, but perhaps we can deal with it for the price? If in Russia i can no more buy Czech or German beer as before 2014, then perhaps i can sooth myself with apple cidre from semi-eastern Altai region of Russia? And then, will my gov't still had the same need for USD for those adjusted trade transactions, as it used to?
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org
In a 2011 review for The American Conservative, I scoffed, "After NATO planes killed hundreds if not thousands of Serb and ethnic Albanian civilians, Bill Clinton could pirouette as a savior. Once the bombing ended, many of the Serbs remaining in Kosovo were slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground. NATO's 'peace' produced a quarter million Serbian, Jewish, and Gypsy refugees."
In 2014, a European Union task force confirmed that the ruthless cabal that Clinton empowered by bombing Serbia committed atrocities that included murdering persons to extract and sell their kidneys, livers, and other body parts .
Clint Williamson, the chief prosecutor of a special European Union task force, declared in 2014 that senior members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) had engaged in "unlawful killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, illegal detentions in camps in Kosovo and Albania, sexual violence, forced displacements of individuals from their homes and communities, and desecration and destruction of churches and other religious sites."
The New York Times reported that the trials of Kosovo body snatchers may be stymied by cover-ups and stonewalling: "Past investigations of reports of organ trafficking in Kosovo have been undermined by witnesses' fears of testifying in a small country where clan ties run deep and former members of the KLA are still feted as heroes. Former leaders of the KLA occupy high posts in the government." American politicians almost entirely ignored the scandal. Vice President Joe Biden hailed former KLA leader and Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in 2010 as "the George Washington of Kosovo." A few months later, a Council of Europe investigative report tagged Thaci as an accomplice to the body-trafficking operation.
Clinton's war on Serbia opened a Pandora's box from which the world still suffers. Because politicians and pundits portrayed that war as a moral triumph, it was easier for subsequent presidents to portray U.S. bombing as the self-evident triumph of good over evil. Honest assessments of wrongful killings remain few and far between in media coverage.
James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy , The Bush Betrayal , Terrorism and Tyranny , and other books. Bovard is on the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is on Twitter at @jimbovard. His website is at www.jimbovard.com This essay was originally published by Future of Freedom Foundation .
|
|
|
Sep 05, 2016 | www.unz.com
A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar , and although the plot wasn't any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts of its own. This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were universally ridiculed as "crazy conspiracy theorists." This seems a realistic portrayal of human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers -- from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty urban corruption -- could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.
Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous "conspiracy theories" in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas academic press. The author of Conspiracy Theory in America was Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of the Florida Political Science Association.
Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion.
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been solely responsible for President Kennedy's assassination, and growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been involved. So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories." Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines. The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable evidence in support of this particular "conspiracy theory" explaining the widespread appearance of attacks on "conspiracy theories" in the public media.
But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to transform the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple of decades earlier. Around the time of the Second World War, an important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in the respectability of any "conspiratorial" explanation of historical events.
For decades prior to that conflict, one of our most prominent scholars and public intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard , whose influential writings had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in shaping American policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging from the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry into WWI. Obviously, researchers never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely accepted that some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities was deemed a perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.
However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was marginalized in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public intellectuals of a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media. At the same time, the totally contrary perspectives of two European political philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss , gradually gained ascendancy in American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in public life.
Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the very possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be implausibly difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims. Even more importantly, he regarded "conspiratorial beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly totalitarian ideologies. His own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical matters.
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case. But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern liberal thought, with an individual as politically influential as left-liberal financier George Soros claiming to be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the neo-conservative thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.
So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually stigmatized as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its exclusion from respectable discourse.
By 1964, this intellectual revolution had largely been completed, as indicated by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the famous article by political scientist Richard Hofstadter critiquing the so-called "paranoid style" in American politics , which he denounced as the underlying cause of widespread popular belief in implausible conspiracy theories. To a considerable extent, he seemed to be attacking straw men, recounting and ridiculing the most outlandish conspiratorial beliefs, while seeming to ignore the ones that had been proven correct. For example, he described how some of the more hysterical anti-Communists claimed that tens of thousands of Red Chinese troops were hidden in Mexico, preparing an attack on San Diego, while he failed to even acknowledge that for years Communist spies had indeed served near the very top of the U.S. government. Not even the most conspiratorially minded individual suggests that all alleged conspiracies are true, merely that some of them might be.
Most of these shifts in public sentiment occurred before I was born or when I was a very young child, and my own views were shaped by the rather conventional media narratives that I absorbed. Hence, for nearly my entire life, I always automatically dismissed all of the so-called "conspiracy theories" as ridiculous, never once even considering that any of them might possibly be true.
To the extent that I ever thought about the matter, my reasoning was simple and based on what seemed like good, solid common sense. Any conspiracy responsible for some important public event must surely have many separate "moving parts" to it, whether actors or actions taken, let us say numbering at least 100 or more. Now given the imperfect nature of all attempts at concealment, it would surely be impossible for all of these to be kept entirely hidden. So even if a conspiracy were initially 95% successful in remaining undetected, five major clues would still be left in plain sight for investigators to find. And once the buzzing cloud of journalists noticed these, such blatant evidence of conspiracy would certainly attract an additional swarm of energetic investigators, tracing those items back to their origins, with more pieces gradually being uncovered until the entire cover-up likely collapsed. Even if not all the crucial facts were ever determined, at least the simple conclusion that there had indeed been some sort of conspiracy would quickly become established.
However, there was a tacit assumption in my reasoning, one that I have since decided was entirely false. Obviously, many potential conspiracies either involve powerful governmental officials or situations in which their disclosure would represent a source of considerable embarrassment to such individuals. But I had always assumed that even if government failed in its investigatory role, the dedicated bloodhounds of the Fourth Estate would invariably come through, tirelessly seeking truth, ratings, and Pulitzers. However, once I gradually began realizing that the media was merely "Our American Pravda" and perhaps had been so for decades, I suddenly recognized the flaw in my logic. If those five -- or ten or twenty or fifty -- initial clues were simply ignored by the media, whether through laziness, incompetence, or much less venial sins, then there would be absolutely nothing to prevent successful conspiracies from taking place and remaining undetected, perhaps even the most blatant and careless ones.
In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media is almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree of control the better. So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to investigate is who controls the local media and to what extent.
Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. Hence I would argue that the likelihood of any large-scale Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of those media organs is virtually nil. Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious mainstream media notice or investigation.
This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings. However, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical significance.
To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets, including my own small webzine , have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories" by our mainstream media organs.
Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished. Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.
Until just a few years ago I'd scarcely even heard of Charles Beard, once ranked among the towering figures of 20th century American intellectual life . But the more I've discovered the number of serious crimes and disasters that have completely escaped substantial media scrutiny, the more I wonder what other matters may still remain hidden. So perhaps Beard was correct all along in recognizing the respectability of "conspiracy theories," and we should return to his traditional Am
