Category Archives: Zionism

America Is Israel Once Again

I’ve always said this country is USreal. Israel and America are one country. That’s the reason for the overwhelming US support for that shitty little country festering over there in the Middle Eastern desert. It’s not due to any Jewish conspiracy. That would mean that the US media and political class secretly hate Israel and only support them because the Jew-Nazis are forcing them to. But that’s not what’s going on. America and Israel are joined at the hip. This nation has a profound, deep, wild love for Israel.

Israel was created by Jewish fascists. It’s fascism for Jews. It always has been. Ethnic nationalism is fascism. Ultranationalism is fascism. There no other way to slice the cake. For a while there, they were electing some weird “Labor Party” leftwingers who were sort of Strasserites or leftwing Jew-Nazis. That’s all done and over with now. For decades now, the Jews have been electing very much openly fascist candidates for President. The Likud Party is a fascist political party. Its philosophy is Revisionist Zionism. Revisionist Zionism is open fascism. The founder of this  movement was named Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky was regarded by everyone as a fascist. His seminal tract was called “The Iron Wall.” Jabotinsky was an open admirer of fascist movements in Europe at the time.

Since all US Jews love Israel, this means that all US Jews are either fascists or support fascism. But they’re hypocrites like Jews always are. Jews love Jewish fascism. Jewish fascism is just fine and dandy for Jews. They wouldn’t have it any other way. According to US Jews, Jewish fascism is the best political system for the Jews. Now we can argue why we feel that way, but that’s the truth.

However, being Jewish hypocrites, they hate everyone else’s fascism. Except the US Jews are supporting ISIS, Al Qaeda and all rest of the arguably Islamic fascists. The US Jews are also supporting the openly Nazi government in Ukraine. I guess you can argue they are doing this because this fascist movements are fighting the enemies of the Jews. So the Jews love fascism for Jews, and they will openly support any fascists who attack their enemies.

On the other hand, they have a wild paranoia of all other types of fascism and even the fascism they support above is very dangerous to Jews to say the least. The Jews correctly believe that most if not all other types of fascism will eventually turn on the Jews sometime or another.

Once again, as I have said endlessly, America is a Jewish country. Trump is just Sharon and Netanyahu rolled into one. The Jews have been electing open fascists for 20 years now in Israel, and now Jewish America is following the lead and doing the exact same thing.

But did we just elect an antisemitic fascist? It’s hard to say. Americans still overwhelmingly support Israel, even as they elected Mr. Trump. Go to websites of Trump supporters and the support for Israel is over the top. Mr. Trump himself is an extremely strong supporter of Israel.

9 Comments

Filed under Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, Fascism, History, Israel, Jews, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Nationalism, Nazism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, The Jewish Question, Ukraine, USA, Zionism

Max Nordau, “Degeneration”

Max Nordau was an early Zionist proponent in Europe. What is disturbing though is that like many other early Zionists, he was also a proto-fascist. Of course nationalism in general and in particular ethnic nationalism is typically associated with fascism more than most nationalists would like to admit. In fact, one definition of fascism is that it is simply ultranationalism.

Nordau wrote in the early 1900’s, and at this time, he wrote a book called Degeneration. A lot of people dislike this book because they think it is fascist, and possibly it is.

However, it is still probably a good book with interesting parallels to our modern predicament. In fact, Nordau and especially his book are eerily prescient of the Alternative Right and also of our society itself today. What Nordau was complaining about was exactly the sort of society that the Cultural Left has created, which is of course the very thing that the Alt Left is the backlash against.

I am also thinking of Oswald Spengler’s seminal book, The Decline of the West, which ought to be put on your must read list. Spengler’s modern day avatar, the pseudonymous “Spengler” who wrote for Asia Times, also comes to mind. I also think of James Kuntsler, who you folks really need to read if you are interested in this sort of thing. It appears that Max Nordau was born too soon. This book looks like an interesting read.

I found this short review of the book on the Net. I do not necessarily agree with this review. In particular, there is a type of anti-Semitism here which I find disturbing and unpalatable. But it is interesting how much Nordau’s book resembles the Alt Right of today. That is what I am getting at here; I am not promoting either Nordau’s or this reviewer’s views.

Early Zionist Max Nordau’s Degeneration is an important and insightful book yet not for reasons most would assume. Nordau describes “degenerate” artists as antisocial individuals that lack the normal social traits of his race. The degenerate will dress absurdly just to get a rise out of his kinfolk and lacks the self-control to conduct his behavior in a normal healthy way.

Funny thing is all of this was stated by one of the co-founders (with Modern day Zionist founder Theodor Herzl) of the World Zionist Organization, a movement set out to return the Jews to the mythical heroism of King David’s Kingdom. Back during Nordau’s day, only a small minority of Jews were Zionists. As the brilliant Otto Weininger once stated of Zionism, it “is the negation of Judaism, because it seeks to ennoble what cannot be ennobled. Whereas Judaism stands for the world dispersion of Jews, Zionism strives for their ingathering.” It seems Nordau was doing nothing more but projecting his own newfound cultural degeneracy onto brilliant Europeans minds such as Tolstoy, Wagner, and Nietzsche.

If one were to utilize Nordau’s theories for the modern day, it is apparent that all modern-day institutions now advocate and legally enforce degeneration on their victimized citizenry. This cultural degeneracy  virtually engulfs every aspect of American society: Gender, Race, Sex, Literacy, The Arts, Film, Education, Philosophy, etc. etc.

First World countries now flood their nations with uneducated, unassimilable, and hostile (especially towards the indigenous populations) third world aliens, which academia and the internationalist “Western” media describes as “progress” (despite all evidence towards the contrary). By Nordau’s standards, multiculturalism would be at the pinnacle of cultural degeneracy, a sign of a very sick, confused, and distorted racial collective.

Funny, how the same people that promote Zionism (NeoCONS for example), also endorse the bulldozing of all National borders (except for Israel of course, those borders are expanding) and organic cultures. We live in a world where “Whites” now feebly imitate other races, and it’s considered the height of American culture. Whether it is some white trash wigger like Eminem (Western music is known for it’s complex melodies – RAP has no melody at all) or a world class whore like Lady Gaga (who is weird for weird’s sake), the traits of cultural degeneration are more than obvious.

The claims that Nordau makes against Nietzsche and Wagner are minor compared to what passes off as “art” nowadays. Degeneration is a book that truly puts things in perspective, showing how a certain secular Zionist movement is consciously subverting every aspect of Western culture to its own advantage.

If a degenerate is a racially deracinated individual, that would make Karl Marx (if one were to consider him a German) the biggest degenerate of all. Of course, Marx as no doubt conscious of the fact that he was promoting the destruction of all aristocracies, nations, cultures, and Western civilization with his fundamentally anti-Western theories (a legacy in which Freud, Boas, and Einstein would continue).

After all, Karl Marx (like Lenin) was a failed bourgeois who mostly lived off the generosity of others which included Engels, so if you can’t join them, you might as well destroy them. Of course, Max Nordau makes no mention of Marx in all of Degeneration. Innovating atheist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer is routinely criticized as a top degenerate.

We now live in a world of complete intellectual abstraction and anti-kultur/anti-organic internationalism. Degeneration was written at a time when the world had yet to be “globalized,” and most Europeans/Americans actually felt proud of their nationality (and back then, they could). Their nations were still producing great art movements, philosophers, writers, and other cultural producers. Now we live in a world of intentionally stupid (and soulless) media/Hollywood, junk/fast food, hyper-consumerism, pseudo-individualism, and other related societal ills that are propagated by an international plutocracy willing to do anything for an extra buck.

When read and put in context with the changing times (both past and present), Degeneration makes for an enlightening read.

4 Comments

Filed under American, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, Fascism, Immigration, Internationalism, Israel, Journalism, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Music, Nationalism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Ultranationalism, USA, Whites, Zionism

The Last Thing on Earth Israel Wants Is a Peace Agreement

The Israelis will do anything they can to avoid a peace agreement. That’s the last thing in the world that they want, and they will fight forever against having to compromise one inch.

“Israelis” were thinking this way before there was even an Israel. Read The Iron Wall.

Sure it was written 100 years ago, but the majority of Israelis are now Jabotinskyists, and Jabotinsky is the intellectual author of the modern Israeli Right and even the fake left Labor Party which looks increasingly Revisionist Zionist itself.

Problem is you cannot really defeat these Muslims. Remember Shamil? Sure, Russia beat him. It only took them 40 years to do so! But the ghost of Shamil kept rising again and again to attack the Bear. You can only defeat these people temporarily. Sure, they will surrender, but decades later, they will rise again.

3 Comments

Filed under Eurasia, History, Islam, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Politics, Regional, Religion, Russia, War, Zionism

Foreign Policy of the Alternative Left: Israel-Palestine Conflict and US Imperialism

We are not necessarily anti-Zionist, but I would say that the Alt Left is pretty disgusted by the behavior of the Israeli state, their ongoing settler-colonial project and the deplorable way they treat the Palestinians. It’s simply outrageous.

Earth to Israel! Hello! Settler-colonialism went out of fashion in the year 1890! Are you Jews living in a time machine?

I do not think we should say that Israel should not exist, but there is no way that we on the Left should support an insanely racist, apartheid, ethnic nationalist, basically national socialist or fascist, ongoing settler-colonial project in 2015. I do not see why we on the Alt Left should support any rightwing ethnic nationalists, fascists or National Socialists. We are nothing if we are not anti-Nazi, and I do not think that what are frankly Jew Nazis or Jewish national socialists should get a break from us.

I think we should allow moderate Zionists into the movement, especially those aligned with whatever remains there are of the Israeli Left, but I would say that hardline Zionists are very much going against the basic values of the Alternative Left.

I think we ought to point out that the Arabs seem to be promoting a racist ethnic nationalist project of their own in the region and the anti-Semitism and terrorism of the Arabs in general regarding this crisis is not acceptable. As I said, Nazis are not ok. And that means Arab Nazis. You want to kill all the Jews in Israel?

That makes you an Arab Nazi. Arab Nazis and Jew Nazis, what’s the difference? The Hell with both of them, really. I think the Alt Left ought to be pretty cynical and dubious about the extreme racism, genocidal talk and radical ethnic nationalism on both sides. I don’t see how replacing Jewish ethnic nationalists with Arab ethnic nationalists and killing lots of people in the process is something the Alt Left should support.

I really think we ought to be anti-imperialist at the minimum. How can be “left” at all and support US imperialism. We can allow liberal or leftwing supporters of US imperialism (yes, they do exist) into the movement, but support for US imperialism should definitely be contrary to the values of the Alternative Left.

6 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Arab Racism, Arabs, Colonialism, Ethnic Nationalism, Fascism, Imperialism, Israel, Jewish Racism, Jews, Left, Middle East, National Socialism, Nationalism, Palestine, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Settler-Colonialism, USA, Zionism

Dealbreakers: What the Alternative Left Is Not

The Alternative Left should be for people who are mostly liberal, Left or progressive in their characters, souls, politics and voting. However, we are disenchanted with some aspects of Left, especially the Cultural Left in the US. On those issues, we feel that the Left has gone too far. So while we are more conservative than the Cultural Left, we are not all the way to the social conservatism of the US Right, which mostly appalls us. So Alt Left types would be more centrist on cultural issues, not as leftwing as the Cultural Left but at the same time repulsed by the cultural reaction of the Right.

However, on economics, most Alt Left types would feel that the Western liberal/Left has not gone far enough. The Democratic Party in the US, Labor in the UK, the “Socialist” Party in France, and the “Social Democratic” PASOK in Greece have all sold the workers out badly for the rich, the corporations and capital in general. They claim to represent the working people, but instead they are traitors to the working class.

So the Alt Left would be for people who feel that the Western Liberal-Left in governments of the West is too rightwing on economic issues but too leftwing on social issues.

We would be quite leftwing in economic issues (although we would let in anyone disenchanted with rightwing economics) but more to the center on cultural matters.

Some mandatory qualifications for joining the Alt Left should be support for some type of Left economics (at a minimum Cultural Liberalism and Keynesianism) and opposition to at least part of the Cultural Left. Dealbreakers would be support for any sort of rightwing economics (including triangulating DNC, Clintonites and Blairites), along with a Cultural Left mindset.

Mindsets that might not be welcome on the Alternative Left. That is, we could probably tolerate people with up to a few of these vices as long as they were quiet about it, but the bottom line is that the things below are not really Alt Left values:

  • The belief that White people are evil. Black Lives Matter is that-a-way.
  • Belief that anyone who is non-White is automatically a saint. An update on Rousseauan noble savage theory with about as much as evidence as its predecessor.
  • Carrying on about “White privilege.” The university is over there.
  • Obsession with “structural racism.” The Sociology Department is that-a-way.
  • Race denial or hostility to race realism. One of the pillars of the Alt Left is race realism.
  • Support for anything goes pansexuality and promotion of such to the masses as a hip fad. Come now. Can’t we have some limits on degeneracy and depravity? Just some?
  • Excessive support for Gay Politics or Political Homosexuality, yet another Identity Politics (IdPol) dead end. *1*
  • Feminazism, Gender Feminism, Radical Feminism or Male-hating or Male-hostile Feminism. *2*
  • Transgender Idpol or Transgender Politics. *3*
  • Support for gender insanity, 147 different genders (or even three), or getting rid of gender. *4*
  • Promotion of diversity and multiculturalism as ends unto themselves *5*
  • Favoring multiculturalism over assimilation. You must have gotten lost.
  • Belief that the West is evil, and the non-West is wonderful. The Cultural Left is that-a-way.
  • Support for radical Islam, ultra-Orthodox Judaism, Trad Catholicism, Fundamentalist Protestantism, or hardline Hinduism. A Left is anti-obscurantist or it is nothing.
  • Support for fascism as a general principle. *6*
  • Support for any sort of Nazism (racist fascism) in its various permutations in any way, shape or form. *7*
  • Obsessive anti-Semitism, anti-Semitic cranks. This sort of dangerous nonsense is not just not a Left value.
  • Support for segregation, apartheid, discrimination or expulsion of any group on the basis of race or religion. I fail to see anything leftwing about any of these things.
  • Contempt for poor, low income, or working class people. The Republican Convention is being held over there.
  • Blame the victim mindset. The Libertarian Party is that-a-way.
  • “I made it, why can’t you?” “Anyone can make it if you try.” “Anyone can get rich.” “Everyone can get rich.” Ayn Randists not welcome.
  • The idea that the person who has more money is superior to the human being who has less money. What are you doing on the Left? Bye.
  • Opposition to social spending or social programs. Major dealbreaker.
  • Advocating excessive materialism or conspicuous consumption. Champagne socialists and limousine liberals welcome but please keep a low profile. Ostentatious display of wealth has never been a true Left value.
  • Extreme patriotardism. The Republican Party is that-a-way.
  • Support for US/UK/EU imperialism in any way, shape or form. Can someone please tell me what is so leftwing about US/Western imperialism, Cold War liberals like Bernie Sanders notwithstanding?
  • Strong support for US foreign policy period. The Democratic Party is that-a-way.
  • Support for Revisionist Zionism *8*
  • Hard-line, Obsessive or One-Note Zionism of any variety. See no fascism above, and add no colonialism and certainly no settler colonialism to that.
  • Antisemitism or antiracism witch hunting. So go join the Cultural Left.
  • No antisemitism detectives searching hither and thither for every last crumb of a threat to the Jews. This sort of Jewish paranoia is almost as bad though not as dangerous as anti-Semitism itself.
  • Obsession with name-calling epithets like racist, sexist, homophobe, antisemite, bigot, Nazi, White supremacist, transphobe, Islamophobe, etc. The Cultural Left is calling your name.
  • Use of the term “scientific racism.” And out the door with you.
  1. Gay rights, yes! Gay politics, no! Support and tolerance for biological homosexuals to live their lives as they choose in freedom and happiness. No discrimination against gays. On the other hand, homosexuality should not be cheered or championed, and certainly experimental or opportunistic homosexuality should not be promoted as some sort of cool thing or hipster fad.
  2. Women’s rights, yes! Women’s politics, no! An Alt Left should support Equity Feminism but not Gender, Radical, Man-hating or Anti-male Feminism.
  3. Bare minimal rights for transsexuals. Nondiscrimination against transsexuals in many but not all jobs. Transsexual rights yes, Transsexual politics no. Transsexualism should not be promoted as a cool thing or a fad as it is nowadays. Many though not all transsexuals are probably mentally ill. A transwoman is not a woman; it is a man who thinks he is a woman. A transman is not a man; it is a woman who thinks she is a man.
  4. There are indeed only two genders, male and female. Nevertheless an Alt Left should be compassionate towards certain rare persons who are biological oddities from a very early age through no fault of their own, and we should have sympathy for their profound struggles with gender identity.
  5. In areas that are already diverse, nondiscrimination and non-racism as general principles are good things. People ought to get along, and an Alt Left should not be a racist movement. Immigrants should be allowed to keep their own cultures (multiculturalism) in the first generation, but after that, assimilation should be encouraged. Certainly the notion that lack of diversity is in and of itself a problem should be opposed by an Alternative Left. Peoples’ desires to be culturally conservative, monocultural, traditional, or to have a national, ethnic or religious identity should be seen as rights that an Alt Left would not interfere with. No wars on tradition, nationalism, religion or ethnic identity.
  6. An Alt Left can hardly support fascism, but some leeway ought to be allowed for Third Positionism or especially National Bolshevism, Dugin’s Fourth Positionism, etc.
  7. See that “Left” in Alt Left? We can’t very well be for Nazis, now can we?
  8. The Alt Left will be mostly skeptical about Zionism and the state of Israel at the very least. Anti-Zionists are of course welcome. Moderate, toned-down Zionists should be allowed but not encouraged.

28 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Capitalism, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Economics, Fascism, Gender Studies, Government, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Immigration, Imperialism, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Radical Feminists, Religion, Sane Pro-Woman, Scum, Sex, Useless Western Left, Zionism

“Ayatollah Khamenei: ‘Westerners Mourning French Tragedy Should Pause for a Moment,” by Eric Walberg

Great piece by Eric Walberg on Ayatollah Khamenei’s latest speech. Khamenei is a very wise man, and he doesn’t support terrorism against the West. He’s not a Salafi Jihadi. He’s Shia, and the radical Sunnis think that the Shia are infidel heretics who need to be killed. I enjoy his speeches, and I also enjoy those of the leader of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah.

Shia Muslims are generally a lot easier to get along with than Sunni Muslims. For one thing. they have been persecuted themselves by Sunnis for centuries, so they have an idea of what it means to be a persecuted on the basis of one’s religion.

In Hezbollah controlled areas of Southern Lebanon, the Shia leave the Christians completely alone. There are many Christian villages there, and Hezbollah lets them do whatever they want. They are not subject to Sharia or Muslim dress codes, and Hezbollah doesn’t enforce Sharia anymore even on the Muslims it controls. Shia Muslim women in Hezbollah controlled areas are not even obliged to wear a headscarf.

There are also Sunni, Christian and Druze members of Hezbollah, and the non-Shia Hezbollah members experience no discrimination.

You can go into Hezbollah-controlled areas of Southern Lebanon and walk into a bar and order a beer. It’s not a problem at all.

The Shia have always been the more progressive Muslim sect as, like Catholics, they believe that Islam is a living religion that must be continuously interpreted to keep up with the times. Hence, Islam is continuously being interpreted by Ayatollahs as Catholicism is constantly being interpreted by Popes to be relevant with the times in which Shia Muslims are living.

This leads to a lot interesting thinking and rulings. Iran’s Ayatollahs have decided that transsexualism is compatible with Islam, and one of the highest ranking Iranian clerics is a transwoman or a man who has now turned into a woman.

Prostitution is also quite common in Iran, and the Ayatollahs see prostitutes are more of a persecuted group of women who need protection than carriers of vice. Recently there has been a lot of talk among the Iranian leadership about making prostitution legal and housing prostitutes in houses with madams overseeing them.

This would be done under the rubric of temporary marriage, a Shia custom that allows Shia to have sex even outside of marriage.

In fact, in the extremely religious city of Qom, the headquarters of the religious clergy, there is a thriving prostitution scene, and the male religious students studying there regularly buy prostitutes. There are many prostitutes plying their trade in Qom.

This also is done under the rubric of temporary marriage. The male religious student simply selects a prostitute, and the two of them go to one of the many religious clergy in town and say they want to have a temporary marriage. The clergyman then grants them a temporary marriage lasting usually about three days.

The student and the prostitute then go somewhere to have sex. Somewhere often means one of the large local cemeteries where believe it or not, prostitutes ply their trade in the underground tombs! The three day marriage often lasts more like a couple of hours, as the two do the deed and then part.

A high ranking woman in the Iranian government has made use of temporary marriage to have sex with ~50 male clerics over the years. She has been quite outspoken about her religiously sanctioned promiscuity, and apparently the Ayatollahs are just fine with it too.

When it comes to Islam, the Shia are clearly a different bird altogether.

Ayatollah Khamenei: “Westerners Mourning French Tragedy Should Pause for a Moment”

by Eric Walberg

The leader of the Islamic Revolution has once again addressed Western youth who either for the most part are misinformed about Islam because of the bias in media and society in favor of Israel and Zionism, or are Muslim but living in a climate of Islamophobia and in desperation have drifted to the militant jihadist movement which began in Afghanistan in 1979 with US blessing and is now a permanent feature of world politics. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls on them to “reconsider the threat of terrorism in the world, its roots and to find a deep insight into Islam.”

The tone of the Ayatollah’s reflections is calm and friendly, the content intelligent and at the same time heartfelt. You can feel his spirit of universal love and his anguish at the suffering that terrorism brings. It is sad to note that Western media and politicians have an obsession against Iran despite Iran’s constant reaching out and attempts to help the West fight terrorism. The reasons, of course, are Iran’s staunch support for Palestine and its refusal to submit to the dictates of imperialism. Both unforgivable ‘sins’.

These are not rational reasons. Following 9/11, Iranian intelligence shared information with US intelligence – until President Bush found out and put a stop to it. Iran made intelligent proposals to resolve the nuclear energy stand-off for the past decade, all rejected by the US. The world is blessed by Iran’s support for Palestine, as the Arab states are just not up to the task.

Like his earlier appeal, once again the Ayatollah calls for dialogue on the most painful matters to “create the grounds for finding solutions and mutual consultation”, or the situations will continue to spin out of control.

For the Ayatollah, each life is important and each unnatural death is a tragedy. “The sight of a child losing his life in the presence of his loved ones, a mother whose joy for her family turns into mourning, a husband who is rushing the lifeless body of his spouse to some place, and the spectator who does not know whether he will be seeing the final scene of life – these are scenes that rouse the emotions and feelings of any human being…whether they occur in France or in Palestine or Iraq or Lebanon or Syria. The Muslim world shares these feelings and are revolted by the perpetrators”.

The supreme leader explained that Muslims have suffered far more than anyone else due to colonial occupation and the trauma that Israel inflicts daily on Palestinians. Westerners mourning the French tragedy should pause for a moment.

“If the people of Europe have now taken refuge in their homes for a few days and refrain from being present in busy places – it is decades that a Palestinian family is not secure even in its own home from the Zionist regime’s death and destruction machinery. What kind of atrocious violence today is comparable to that of the settlement constructions of the Zionist regime?

“This regime…every day demolishes the homes of Palestinians and destroys their orchards and farms. This is done without even giving them time to gather their belongings or agricultural products and usually it is done in front of the terrified and tear-filled eyes of women and children who witness the brutal beatings of their family members.

Shooting down a woman in the middle of the street for the crime of protesting against a soldier who is armed to the teeth – if this is not terrorism, what is? This barbarism, just because it is being done by the armed forces of an occupying government, is it not extremism? Or maybe only because these scenes have been seen repeatedly on television screens for sixty years, they no longer stir our consciences.”

The Ayatollah laments the ongoing invasions and violation of the Muslim World by the West, “another example of the contradictory logic of the West. The assaulted countries, in addition to the human damage caused, have lost their economic and industrial infrastructure. Their movement towards growth and development has been thrown back decades.”

The Ayatollah looks to the youth of today, who he hopes will be educated to understand the beauty of Islam, and its compatibility with both Christianity and Judaism, its long history of peaceful relations, its rejection of imperialism and colonialism. They must “discover new means for building the future and be barriers on the misguided path that has brought the West to its current impasse.”

The Iranian leader optimistically assumes that people in the West mostly understand of the true nature of modern politics. That Westerners understand the role of the US in “creating, nurturing and arming al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their inauspicious successors, [that] these forces behind terrorism are allies of the West, while the most pioneering, brightest and most dynamic democrats in the region are suppressed mercilessly.”

I wish his words reflected the reality that I see around me in Canada. People are willfully ignorant about these matters, not wanting to see their governments as guilty of nurturing terrorism. My goal in writing is to inform people in these matters, but it is hard to get the message out. It is primarily time-servers who are welcomed by the mainstream media to ‘inform’ citizens.

I admire the Iranian leader’s honesty in pointing out that it is Western ‘culture’ that promotes “aggression and moral promiscuity”, and tries to destroy other cultures. “The western world with the use of advanced tools is insisting on the cloning and replication of its culture on a global scale. I consider the imposition of Western culture upon other peoples and the trivialization of independent cultures as a form of silent violence and extreme harmfulness.”

He does “not deny the importance and value of cultural interaction, but warns against “inharmonious interactions”. That conjures up the image of Westernized youth sneaking into a Russian Orthodox cathedral or a Tehran public place and loudly promoting a Western ‘human rights’ agenda with Western photojournalists on hand, waiting to send some distorted image out on the internet. The upshot is either Russophobia or Islamophobia, whereas the real violation is of national dignity.

This shows that Western culture is in fact non-culture, and promotes apathy, decadence, or nihilism which oppresses us all today. But, disillusioned as I am with Western media and its brainwashing, I was heartened after the Paris bombings to hear sensible Canadians reject the jihadists’ plan to promote Islamophobia, forcing Muslims to join them in their will-o’-the-wisp Caliphate.

There are many Muslims in Canada now – eleven of them are members of Parliament in the ruling Liberal Party. A 30-year-old Afghan woman Maryam Monsef is Minister of Democratic Institutions. Muslims are first rate Canadians – hard working, quiet, educated, devout. They are slowly transforming Canada for the better, including acting as examples of what Islam can do to benefit society.

I am also encouraged by the election of Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister, ousting the ultra-Zionist Iranophobe Stephen Harper. Muslim Canadians voted for Trudeau en masse. All eleven Muslim MP’s are Liberals. He has a silver bullet against terrorism: the only way to fight ISIS responsibly is to ‘do the right thing’, and expose their policy of violence as bad for Muslims, bad for everyone. Already thousands of communities across the country have pledged to sponsor Syrian families and are busy hosting fundraisers.

Terry Nelson, Grand Chief of the Southern Chiefs Organization, says Manitoba’s plans to bring refugees in from other countries should not be impacted by events in Europe. “There’s been an invitation for 2,500 Syrian people to be here in Winnipeg,” he said. “They should not be judged by a small minority of people that are terrorists. We live in the greatest country in the world. The most peaceful country in the world. We are blessed.”

The Ayatollah’s message is here.

18 Comments

Filed under Asia, Canada, Christianity, Colonialism, Culture, Druze, Europe, France, Geopolitics, Immigration, Imperialism, Iran, Islam, Lebanon, Middle East, North America, Palestine, Political Science, Radical Islam, Religion, Sex, Shiism, Sunnism, Syria, Terrorism, USA, Women, Zionism

“Time to Rekindle the UN Spark,” by Eric Walberg

New article by my friend Eric Walberg.

Time to Rekindle UN Spark

Eric Walberg

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recently held a commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the squashing of UN resolution 3379, equating Zionism with racism. It was passed in 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions). The festive event this year was attended by US Secretary of State John Kerry and head of the Israeli Labour Party and Zionist Union Isaac Herzog, son of Chaim Herzog, president of Israel from 1983 to 1993, and star of the 1975 UN session.

The 1975 vote took place approximately one year after resolution 3237 granted the PLO “observer status”, following Yasser Arafat’s “olive branch” speech to the General Assembly in November 1974. It succeeded only because the Soviet Union and its allies were there to support the Arab and Islamic majority countries.

It was revoked in December 1991 by UN resolution 46/86. At the commemoration this year, Ban Ki-moon recalled Chaim Herzog’s words in 1975, “I appeal to the community of nations to always act to uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.” Such nice platitudes coming from the Israeli ambassador—community, principles, tolerance, peace…

It is odd that this year’s festivities actually celebrate the passing of the resolution, rather than its demise, commemorating the chutzpah of Israeli UN representative Herzog, who stole the show, recounting how magnanimous Israel is with its Arab citizens, who apparently held the same rights as Jews, worked in border and police defense forces, were elected to parliament, studied at universities…

He pointed to Arabs coming from elsewhere for medical treatment, and to “the fact that it is as natural for an Arab to serve in public office in Israel as it is incongruous to think of a Jew serving in any public office in an Arab country.” The UN ambassador finished his tirade by ripping up the resolution and defiantly stating he would have UN Avenues in Haifa, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv renamed Zionism Avenues.

Herzog didn’t mention how traditionally Jews lived freely under Muslim rule and often served Muslim leaders as advisers, how Arab anger today is directly due to Israel’s murderous, illegal actions against the rightful citizens of what was once the Roman province of Syria Palaestina. He didn’t mention the millions of Palestinians denied their basic rights because Israel is apparently free of racism.

At least the 1975 gathering had some punch. There was no substance in the commemoration in 2015. Kerry waffled, despite a weeks-long wave of violence that has claimed the lives of at least 77 Palestinians along with 10 Israelis. No mention of that. He said that a two-state solution in the Middle East was “not an impossible dream” but would require courage. Yawn.

Kerry called the 1975 resolution “ominous” because it gave “a global license to hate” the state of Israel. But then “hate” covers just about any word of criticism of Israel. After all, election fever is rising in the US and the Israel lobby is alive and well.

Bush Senior’s Half Truths

It is more instructive to deconstruct the speech by US President HW Bush, who introduced the UN motion overturning resolution 3379 in 1991, which he said “mocks this pledge and the principles upon which the United Nations was founded. Zionism is not a policy; it is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people, to the State of Israel. To equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history.”

He was half correct. Zionism is an idea, one that turned into a policy of racial exclusion and victimization of the Palestinian natives, whose land and property the new immigrants stole, even as they conducted a state policy of terror against the natives. Bush made no explanation of why Zionism is not a policy. But the Soviet voice was gone by 1991; only the US voice was heard defending the pious hope that Israel would one day make peace with the Palestinians based on the original 1947 UN Resolution 181 to partition the territory.

Bush’s claim that Zionism is not a policy of racism simply flies in the face of reality. But then the US itself was founded on an idea much like Zionism. The Puritans, Quakers and many other religious groups immigrated intending to establish an ideal Christian society modeled on the Bible, an idea which also was a policy of genocide of the American natives.

The 17th philosopher Francis Bacon penned a utopian novel New Atlantis based on his enthusiastic support for establishing the British colonies in North America, depicting the creation of a utopian land where “generosity and enlightenment, dignity and splendor, piety and public spirit” are the commonly held qualities of the inhabitants of the mythical Bensalem.

The idea of a “new Jerusalem” is the bedrock of the US idea.
Even such a respected philosopher was able to disregard the racist policy of genocide against the American natives in the name of “generosity and enlightenment etc.” No one noticed that, from the start, that the idea of the US (Bensalem) was a racist idea, just as its policies were. Only in the 19th century did international opprobrium finally push the US to abolish its most glaring racist policy—slavery.

But by then, the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine was already being mooted by British politicians such as Lord Shaftsbury, and Israel was finally forced down the UN throat by FDR and Truman. For Shaftsbury et al, it was merely a logical development of western ‘civilization‘.

Bush lauded the crushing of the racism resolution in 1991 as “a real chance to fulfill the UN Charter’s ambition of working ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person’.” Yet he was unable to see that the emperor (himself) and his offspring were wearing no clothes, that it is Israel that is the scourge of war, the violator of human rights and human dignity.

Bush stated that the UN “cannot claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel’s right to exist.” Again a half truth. No one intended to wipe Israel off the map, as long as it was a nation that followed international norms, in particular human rights of the peoples who live there or who will return there from refugee camps when a peaceful solution to the stand-off is agreed. But this is only possible if we address Bush’s other half truth that lies at the heart of Zionism, both as idea and policy.

Bush’s other mistake was to define the State of Israel as “a home for the Jewish people”. This makes Israel racist by definition, just as Hitler identified Germany as the home of the Aryan people, a similarly vague, racist definition of the state.

Bush’s Lesson: Don’t Cross Israel

There is a bitter irony in Bush’s kowtowing to Israel in 1991. In September he had asked Congress to delay Israel’s request for $10 billion in loan guarantees to help settle Soviet Jews, trying to force Israel to stop its illegal settlement construction and negotiate a real peace. He no doubt was recalling how Eisenhower had made Israel bend to the US game plan in 1956. Ford/ Kissinger/ Carter had too, though just barely in the 1970s, curbing somewhat Israel’s colonial ambitions. Both times, ironically, US leaders relied on the Soviet ‘threat’ to give them some backbone.

But ‘in victory, defeat’. The Soviet ‘threat’, providing the US some leverage with Israel, was no more, and in the meantime, the Israel lobby in Washington had become too powerful for a president to counter. The Zionists were in no mood to swallow their pride and obey a newly holier-than-thou imperial Washington.

Bush senior found he had no allies for his plan to bring Israel into line. He scurried to the UN to burnish his credentials, but to no avail. The Israel lobby mobilized, found their ideal candidate in Bill Clinton, and Bush suddenly was being attacked in the media. Incessant negative publicity as election day approached did the trick. He lost his re-election bid, going from a 90% approval rate following the Iraq invasion to 37% on election day.

It is time for a new resolution 3379, something with teeth that will wake Israel up and push it to admit its sins. There is no hope to find a sponsor in Washington. However, the support for Palestinians struggling for their rights continues to grow. The EU, BDS and others boycott settlement goods are having their effect. Israel‘s neighbors continue to resist. As US power wanes, there is hope that the UN will once again find some backbone.

4 Comments

Filed under Anti-Zionism, Arabs, Britain, Democrats, Europe, History, Islam, Israel, Jewish Racism, Jews, Law, Left, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Modern, Palestine, Palestinians, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Republicans, US Politics, USA, USSR, Zionism

France, Zionism and US Imperialism

Julian Hochscritt writes:

The all-Zionist turn in our foreign policy is fairly recent. It harks back to Sarkozy in 2007 bringing France into NATO’s integrated military command. He waged a war to replace the Ivory Coast President by a puppet. Then killed his campaign sponsor Qaddafi and 50,000 of his people. Supported the uprisings in Syria.

Finally, Hollande and Valls, the latter one being particularly Zionist (Freemason, Jewish spouse,
Philosemitism-driven), got closer to the Sunni fundamentalists, like a US puppet. “We”? We know it. But we can’t do much. We are in a quasi-dictatorship. The regime is crumbling. France feels like a People’s Democracy in the 1980’s.

Every media is a a Pravda with journalists vilifying ‘deviants’. Politics are a one-party state (with two factions). The Nomenklatura justifies its power with dogmas it doesn’t apply to itself, namely anti-racism (they’re sending their children to all-White schools, and they’re tied to Israel), anti-sexism (they’re wealthy families and they’re Masons), and anti-pollution (they’re the airports’ hyperclass and they’re calling for more immigrants). And of course, the Euro, the EU, the LGBT, which are codewords for finance worship, US worship, Antichrist worship.

Last time in January, the movement of grief was channeled to crack down even more on free speech: ISIS propaganda relies heavily on the Internet much like the Alt Right, and they know it. Again this time they used the shock wave to finalize our cultural genocide – they managed to get the Charlies and the United Morons think the attacks were caused by an ‘apartheid’ that could only be corrected by a ‘repopulation plan’ where mayors are forced to accept housing schemes. It’s crazy.

Perhaps the third attack will see people disconnecting with the government? For as of now, the 129 corpses are a huge Hollande win.

Julian writes an excellent rundown on the madness that seems to have seized the French. It almost seems that France has turned into another USA, as has the UK recently. Canada started implementing its “Little America” plan under Harper.

One thing I notice is that there is seems to be little difference between the French “Left” and the French “Right” anymore. What on Earth is the differences between Sarkozy and Hollande for God’s sake? I can’t see a thing! Sarkozy is Hollande is Sarkozy is Hollande. Where does one end and the other begin? It’s like a snake eating its tail. On economics? The same. On foreign policy? The same. It’s like the difference between the US Democratic and Republican Parties. There’s really not much there. Just two wings of Deep State Party of the Multinationals and the rich.

We did seem to see a strong pro-Israel turn under Sarky. I noticed that. Apparently he was Jewish?

I am not so sure that France has gone pro-Zionist, but the anti-Iran madness that opposes Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and the Houthis benefits only Israel. Sure, these entities carry out overseas actions – against Israelis and sometimes Jews! What does that have to do with the US, France or the UK? Can someone please tell me how Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis are dangerous to the US or the West? I am still trying to figure this out. When was the last time they attacked us? Lebanon? Saudi Arabia? Iraq? And whose fault was that?

The West’s lunatic anti-Shia jihad that has thrown it into bed with ISIS, Al Qaeda and the endless similar salafi jihadi factions can only be for Israel or for our Sunni allies in the Gulf, Jordan or Turkey. Of course the Gulf states, Jordan and Turkey want to kill all the Shia. We have known that for years now. But why on Earth would the West get in on the Sunni anti-Shia jihad?

The best evidence from Seymour Hersch’s work is that the West is not siding with the Sunni fanatic states’ Shia Holocaust Plan but is instead using them to smash Iran and roll back Iranian influence in the region. But why should Iranian or Shia influence in the region matter to the US? Is the US a Sunni Arab country? Do we want to genocide the Shia because they are heretics and infidels?

No, instead of backing the Sunnis mad exterminationism, we are simply using the Sunni states as a tool to “smash Iran and Iranian influence.” But why should Iran and Iranian influence in the region matter to the West? Unless the Jews have actually succeeded in the multiyear campaign of screaming at us and whispering in the Kings’ ears that Iran is the real enemy, that is.

Have the Israelis convinced the West that the enemies of Israel are the enemies of the West? Or is this Western anti-Shia campaign simply for Israel and for no one else? After 2001, we were tasked with destroying all of Israel’s enemies. We quickly took out Iraq. Then we tried to take out Lebanon and Hezbollah with the March 14 Color Revolution. Then we took out Libya. Now we are trying to take out Syria.

The only enemy of Israel left is Iran. All of the Sunni states surrendered to Israel long ago, and most of them now work hand in hand with the Israelis. The Saudis in particular are very close to Tel Aviv. For a long time, Qatar was a holdout. It even housed the main offices of Hamas. However, they came under extreme pressure from someone (Who? The US?), and they booted Hamas out a while ago.

If the Western anti-Shia and anti-Iran campaign is all about Israel, one wonders if NATO and the West have gone seriously over to the Israelis side in recent years.

Tony Blair set the Brits’ part in motion by invading Iraq.

Since 2007, the French have joined the “get Iran” Coalition.

NATO is spearheading the “Get Iran” campaign. Has NATO gone seriously over to Israel recently? Why don’t they just make Israel a member of NATO? Has NATO always been so strongly in favor of Israel?

Another possibility is that instead of making a strong turn towards Israel, France, the UK, and NATO are simply lining up slavishly behind US foreign policy. This perhaps makes the most sense of all. The British and French have simply tied their ship to America. The British have been American slaves for a very long time. British foreign policy can be summed up for a long time now as supporting the US in every single one of its foreign policy endeavors.

This blind “follow the Yanks” policy goes way back and is related to something called Atlanticism. Atlanticism is a foreign policy doctrine that suggests that the UK (and other northern European countries) and the US have very special and unique ties by history and blood to each other. Hence the foreign policy of the US and Northern Europe should be coordinated as much as possible. In practice this tends to boil down to “Follow the Yank Pied Piper.” Other Atlanticist countries (that I know of) are the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.

So has France recently become an Atlanticist country? It seems that since 2007, they are as Atlanticist as the UK.

10 Comments

Filed under Asia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Europe, France, Geopolitics, Imperialism, Iran, Islam, Israel, Jordan, Journalism, Lebanon, Middle East, Netherlands, North America, Norway, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Saudi Arabia, Shiism, Sunnism, Syria, Turkey, USA, Zionism

American Exceptionalism Is the Culprit

Found on the Net:

Americans are the Exceptionalist nation.

They can do whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want – no matter how many millions of people they slaughter (see the invasion of Iraq or the Vietnam War) or regions of the world they destabilize (see the Middle East and Central Asia).

At base, the West in general suffers from a psychopathic delusion that they are a Force for Good – hence, all their wars of aggression are perfectly justified or at worst an unintended mistake.

At base, Americanism and Westernism are one and the same with Zionism.

Just as the Zionists believe that Jews are God’s Chosen People.

Westerners and Americans believe that their nations are God’s Chosen “Democracy” – which is just their Orwellian way of saying that they are God’s Chosen Empire.

This is the worldview and value system of the American/Western/Zionist threat.

This is 100% true and the majority or possibly eve4n the vast majority of Americans actually believe this drooling idiocy. Even my father, a lifelong liberal Democrat, believed in this. The US Democratic Party believes in this completely. The Democrats and Republicans only differ on how hawkish they are going to e ab out US exceptionalism – the Democrats are flat out batshit nuts imperialists, and the Republicans are far worse.

Furthermore, the American people either support everything the US government does or simply do not care about US foreign policy, so the US Deep State just does whatever the Hell it wants because the American people say, “Go ahead and do whatever you want to.” Then when the inevitable blowback comes from diabolical US foreign policy, Americans simply get even more exceptionalistic and jingoist and start demanding even more crazy wars and aggression which was what caused the blowback in the first place which in turn creates even more blowback.

When was the last time the American people ever said, “Hey, we really oppose US foreign policy here?” Vietnam. Vietnam was the end of the “bipartisan foreign policy consensus” whereby both the Democratic and Republican Parties agree on the basic of US foreign policy and only differ on how crazy, psycho and hawkish they should be about it. However, the bipartisan foreign policy consensus was reinstated a while afterwards when Reagan came in and it’s been there ever since.

Think about it. Vietnam was the last time we had any real debate about US foreign policy. Ever since then, Americans have been “good Germans.” Vietnam was the last time we marched in the streets to protest US foreign policy.

Don’t think the Deep State doesn’t know this. They know that Americans have given them the green light to go ahead and do whatever the Hell they want to. In fact, they can usually get most Americans to agree on whatever the nuttiness du jour is via the 100% control that the Deep State has over the US media. Realize that six huge corporations (all of them part of the Deep State in effect) own 90% of US media. Realize that when it comes to foreign policy, all media outlets in the US say exactly the same thing with no variation whatsoever.

Therefore, polls show that ~70% of the American people, when polled, tend to agree with US foreign policy on whatever foreign policy question is put before them. They do this obviously because they have been completely brainwashed by the media. And keep in mind that it is typical that only ~30% of respondents have typically even heard about whatever foreign policy question that is asked. So ~70% of Americans typically know absolutely noting about the major foreign policy questions of the day and of the ~30% who do, typically 70% of them whatever the whatever Deep State position the media has been brainwashing them into believing.

That a strong majority typically backs the Deep State on whatever it wants to do cannot be a coincidence. The only reason those people can possibly have felt that way is because they have been brainwashed by the media into feeling that way. Since obviously the vast majority of Americans simply blindly allow the media propaganda machine to brainwash them into believing whatever it wants them to believe, it follows that Americans must have extreme faith in the US media and that the media and state is telling them the truth.

After all, if large numbers of Americans thought they were being lied to to 24-7, they would not mimic like Myna birds whatever the media line of the day is. Obviously the vast majority of Americans do not think that the government and media is lying to them all the time.

After all, we live in a free country with free speech and a free press, not a totalitarian state where the media is 100% controlled by the State and its functionaries. But that is indeed what is the case. Our free speech and free press is useless because the opposition has no way to get their message out. States in which all of the media is controlled by the state (in our case, the Deep State) and its functionaries are not democracies. They are properly called totalitarian or authoritarian states. Therefore, on that metric, the US is an authoritarian or totalitarian state. But We the People are 100% at fault for this state of affairs because we have shrugged our shoulders and let them get away with it when we were not cheering them on.

1 Comment

Filed under American, Culture, Democrats, Geopolitics, Government, Imperialism, Iraq War, Journalism, Military Doctrine, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Sociology, US Politics, USA, Vietnam War, War, Zionism

Are There Really a Lot of Antisemites on the Left?

Pumpkin Person writes:

You could be right. Traditionally WASPs had all the power in America so perhaps that’s why there are so many right wing anti-Semites. Also, WASPs represented tradition & Jews caused a lot of social change so that’s another reason antisemites might lean conservative

But I have heard there are a lot of antisemites on the left, particularly among anti war types & the occupy Wall Street crowd.

Antisemites are not really anti-power structure. They are more like, “We Whites used to have all the power until these Jewish bastards stole it all, and we want it back.” And a lot of antisemitic conservatives think Jews are behind the moral ruin in the country.

As far as the notion that there are a lot of antisemites on the Left, that is a great big fat lie pushed by the pro-Israel crowd and US rightwingers. The truth is there are almost no antisemites on the Left other than some Muslims or Arabs, if they would even consider themselves on the Left at all.

There are almost no non-Arab, non-Muslim antisemites on the Left among the antiwar crowd and the Occupy Wall Street folks. The reason is that antisemitism is absolutely not tolerated on the Mainstream Left. It’s seen as poison, and if you start talking that way, they come down on you very hard. If you don’t shut up, soon you are ostracized and thrown out of the Left or out of whatever movement you were with. Most of your Left friends take off.

What you see instead of antisemites are anti-Zionists or the anti-Israel crowd, but generally on the Left, you have to say, “I don’t hate Jews, I just hate Israel or Zionists,” something like that.

It’s uncertain whether anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism at all. The Jews say it is, but so what? Jews say everything is anti-Semitism. Jews probably even think some animals and plants are anti-Semitic. They literally see it everywhere and are always looking under the bed for more.

There are a lot of Israel-haters who differentiate well and refuse to hate Jews per se, but it sort of a tightrope act. And for sure there are a lot of Jew-haters who are wrapping their antisemitism up in anti-Zionism and hatred of Israel. Yes, they hate Zionism, and they very much hate Israel, but they also hate Jews, probably because Jews were behind the former. A lot of Arabs are like that.

4 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Arabs, Conservatism, Israel, Jews, Left, Middle East, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, The Jewish Question, Zionism