The importance of the United States to Israel’s national security cannot be overstated.
Washington is usually the first, and often the sole, port of call for strategic consultation – almost always the foremost one, and inevitably the primary means of addressing the challenges Israel faces.
America is the be-all and end-all of most policy deliberations in Israeli national-security decision-making forums.
Some four decades into this ‘special relationship’, the price of a truly remarkable partnership has been a significant loss of Israeli independence.
Indeed, Israel’s dependence on the US has become so deep that it is questionable whether the country could even survive today without it.
For Americans and Israelis alike, these are controversial assertions.
Many Americans are critical of what they perceive to be ongoing Israeli disregard for US policy preferences, and even acts of defiance, despite an entirely asymmetric relationship and vast American aid.
This is particularly true at a time when Israel is led by a hardline government.
Israelis, for their part, do not wish to be this dependent on a foreign power, even one as friendly and well meaning towards Israel as the US, and they view Israel’s ongoing freedom of decision and maneuver as vital to its national security.
But, Charles Dunaway added, “The biggest loser is the United States.”
He made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Sunday after Iran and Saudi Arabia reached an agreement on Friday to restore diplomatic relations and re-open embassies in each other’s countries; seven years after ties were severed over several issues.
“The rapprochement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is indeed a major achievement of diplomacy,” said Dunaway.
“It underscores the difference between actual diplomacy where agreements can be reached between rivals and even enemies for the common good, and American foreign policy which consists solely of demands, threats and sanctions,” he stated.
“China is now the largest economy in the world and the largest market.
It makes good business sense for nations in the region to improve their relations with China and work toward a stable environment that is conducive to business,” the commentator added.
“The ancient enmities between Iran and Saudi Arabia will not disappear overnight but re-establishing diplomatic relations is a positive first step,” he noted.
“Hopefully future diplomacy can smooth the most dangerous points of friction between the two.
Among them is support for certain groups throughout West Asia.
The Saudis have been important supporters of US-sponsored terrorist groups seeking to overthrow independent-minded governments and destabilize the region, often for the benefit of the Zionist entity.
Iran has steadfastly supported resisting US regime-change efforts in Syria and elsewhere,” he said.
“The mere threat of regional stability is causing high anxiety among the Zionists.
The timing is also fraught for the occupation regime in Tel Aviv.
After months of increasing violent oppression of the Palestinian people, another Intifada is more likely than ever.
The anti-corruption riots against the Netanyahu government leave it in a precarious position which appears more uncertain with the new Saudi-Iranian detente.
Israeli politicians are already blaming the Netanyahu regime for this ‘dangerous development,’” Dunaway noted.
“The arrogance and incompetence of the US government have enabled the Chinese to assume a leadership role in the region.
That can only serve to bring stability to those nations willing and able to set aside their longstanding differences and work toward peace and justice.
It is welcome news not only in Tehran and Riyadh and Muscat, but in Beirut, Damascus, and Sana’a,” he observed.
“To have a superpower ally interested in collegial relations, trade, and development rather than one interested only in cheap resources, and military dominance provides a great promise for a peaceful and prosperous future for all those of goodwill.
Only one regional government stands to lose from this deal, the regime occupying historic Palestine.
“Having once again found itself in a military quagmire after interfering in Ukraine, with its political class clamoring to fight China, and with the influence of the US and its European allies diminishing in Africa, the US is unlikely to be able to reassert its status as the global hegemon.
It will probably not stop trying, but history is marching on toward a multi-polar world.
New possibilities are arising,” the analyst said.
“Can China bring more West Asian nations into its diplomatic orbit?
Can more pressure be put upon the US to leave Syria?
Can the situation in Yemen be resolved peacefully?
Is it possible to establish a stable government in Lebanon?
Can the US occupation of Iraq be brought to an end?
There are no answers on the horizon, but we can at least begin asking these questions,” he concluded.
Five years ago, I wrote an article entitled “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s wars.”
It turned out to be the most popular piece that I have ever written and I was rewarded for it by immediately being fired by the so-called American Conservative magazine, where I had been a regular and highly popular contributor for fourteen years.
I opened the article with a brief description of an encounter with a supporter whom I had met shortly before at an antiwar conference.
The elderly gentleman asked “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room?
Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu?
Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?”
In my article I named many of the individual Jews and Jewish groups that had been leading the charge to invade Iraq and also deal with Iran along the way.
They used fake intelligence and out-and-out lies to make their case and never addressed the central issue of how those two countries actually threatened the United States or its vital interests.
And when they succeeded in committing the US to the fiasco in Iraq, as far as I can determine only one honest Jew who had participated in the process, Philip Zelikow, in a moment of candor, admitted that the Iraq War, in his opinion, was fought for Israel.
There was considerable collusion between the Israeli government and the Jews in the Pentagon, White House, National Security Council and State Department in the wake of 9/11.
Under President George W. Bush, Israeli Embassy staff uniquely had free access to the Pentagon office of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, not being required to sign in or submit any security measures.
It was a powerful indication of the special status that Israel enjoyed with top Jews in the Bush Administration.
It should also be recalled that Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans was the source of the false WMD information used by the Administration to justify invading Iraq, while that information was also funneled directly to Vice President Dick Cheney without any submission to possibly critical analysts by his chief of Staff “Scooter” Libby.
Wolfowitz, Feith and Libby were of course Jewish as were many on their staffs and Feith’s relationship with Israel was so close that he actually partnered in a law firm that had a branch in Jerusalem.
Feith also served on the board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which is dedicated to nurturing the relationship between the US and Israel.
Currently, the top three State Department officials (Tony Blinken, Wendy Sherman and Victoria Nuland) are all Zionist Jews.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security, which is hot on the trail of domestic “terrorist” dissidents, is also Jewish as is the Attorney General and the president’s chief of staff.
They and their boss Joe Biden do not seem concerned that their client Ukraine is no democracy.
The nation’s current government came into power after the 2014 coup engineered by President Barack Obama’s State Department at an estimated cost of $5 billion.
The regime change carried out under Barack Obama was driven by State Department Russophobe Victoria Nuland with a little help from international globalist George Soros.
It removed the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych who was, unfortunately for him, a friend of Russia.
Ukraine is reputedly both the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe, witness the Hunter Biden saga.
The current President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish and claims to have holocaust victims in his family tree, is a former comedian who won election in 2019.
He replaced another Jewish president Petro Poroshenko, after being heavily funded and promoted by yet another fellow Jew and Ukraine’s richest oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who is also an Israeli citizen and now lives in Israel.
It all sounds like deja vu all over again, particularly as many of the perpetrators are still around, like Nuland, priming the pump to go to war yet again for no reason.
And they are joined by journalists like Bret Stephens at the New York Times, Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper at CNN, and also Max Boot at the Washington Post, all of whom are Jewish and can be counted on to write regular pieces both damning and demonizing Russia and its head of state Vladimir Putin, which means it is not only about the Middle East anymore.
It is also about weakening and even bringing about regime change in nuclear armed Russia while also drawing some lines in the sand for likewise nuclear armed China.
And I might add that playing power games with Russia is a hell of a lot more dangerous than kicking Iraq around.
To put it bluntly, many US government and media Jews hate Russia and even though they benefited substantially as a group by virtue of their preeminent role in the looting of the former Soviet Union under Boris Yeltsin and continue to be among the most prominent Russian oligarchs.
Many of the oligarch billionaires, like Boris Berezovsky, self-exiled when Vladimir Putin obtained power and began to crack down on their tax avoidance and other illegal activity.
Many moved to Western Europe where some bought up football teams while others went south and obtained Israeli citizenship.
Their current grievances somewhat reflect their tribe’s demand for perpetual victimhood and the deference plus forgiveness of all sins that it conveys, with the self-promoted tales of persecution going back to the days of the Tsars, full of allegations about pogroms and Cossacks arriving in the night, stories that rival many of the holocaust fabrications in terms of their lack of credibility.
Many Jews, particularly younger Jews, are finding it difficult to support apartheid Israel and the constant wars being initiated and fought for no particularly credible reason by both Democratic and Republican parties when in power, which is a good thing.
But Jewish power in Washington and across the US is difficult to ignore and it is precisely those Jewish groups and individuals who have been empowered through their wealth and connections who have been the most vocal leading warmongers when it has come to the Middle East and to Russia.
Interestingly, however, some pushback is developing.
The Jewish peace group Tikkun has recently published a devastating article by Jeffrey Sachs on the Jews who have been agitating for war.
It is entitled “Ukraine Is the Latest Neocon Disaster” and describes how “The war in Ukraine is the culmination of a 30-year project of the American neoconservative movement.
The Biden Administration is packed with the same neocons who championed the US wars of choice in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria (2011), Libya (2011), and who did so much to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The neocon track record is one of unmitigated disaster, yet Biden has staffed his team with neocons.
As a result, Biden is steering Ukraine, the US, and the European Union towards yet another geopolitical debacle…”
I had an excellent meeting today with @OMarkarova to discuss the situation in Ukraine and continued cooperation from NATO allies to assist in their defense. pic.twitter.com/jITCPcg6eU
Tikkun explains how “The neocon movement emerged in the 1970s around a group of public intellectuals, several of whom were influenced by University of Chicago political scientist Leo Strauss and Yale University classicist Donald Kagan.
Neocon leaders included Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan (son of Donald), Frederick Kagan (son of Donald), Victoria Nuland (wife of Robert), Elliott Abrams, and Kimberley Allen Kagan (wife of Frederick).”
It might be added that Kimberley Kagan heads the Institute for the Study of War, which is often cited in media coverage and even in Congress to explain why we must fight Russia.
It has long been recognized by many that a particular antipathy directed against Russia permeates the so-called neoconservative world view.
The neocons are hugely overrepresented at the top levels of government and, as noted above, a number of them are running the State Department while also holding high level positions elsewhere in the Biden Administration as well as in the foreign policy think tanks, including Richard Haass at the influential Council on Foreign Relations.
Likewise, the intensely Russophobic US and Western media, foundations and social networking sites are disproportionately Jewish in their ownership and staffing.
And beyond that, Ukraine is to a certain extent a very Jewish-identified place.
The Jewish media in the US and elsewhere has been showering Zelensky with praise, referring to him as a genuine “Jewish hero,” a modern Maccabee resisting oppression, a David versus Goliath.
T-shirts bearing his image are being sold that read “Resisting tyrants since Pharaoh” while the largely Orthodox Jewish community in New York City has already been raising millions of dollars for Ukrainian aid.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agencyreports that a “2020 demographic survey estimated that besides a ‘core’ population of 43,000 Jews, around 200,000 Ukrainians are technically eligible for Israeli citizenship, meaning that they have identifiable Jewish ancestry.
The European Jewish Congress says that number could be as high as 400,000.”
If that is true, it is one of the largest Jewish communities in the world and it includes at least 8,000 Israelis, many of whom have returned to Israel.
As US-Russian negotiations leading up the current fighting were clearly designed to fail by the Biden Administration, one therefore has to wonder if this war against Russia is largely a product of a long enduring ethno-religious hatred coupled with a belief in the necessity for a strong American military applied as needed to dominate the world and thereby protect Israel.
The neocons are most visible, but equally toxic are the Jews who would prefer to describe themselves as neoliberals or liberal interventionists, that is liberals who promote a strong, assertive American leadership role to support the basically phony catchwords “democracy” and “freedom.”
Both neocons and neoliberals inevitably support the same policies so they have both ends of the political spectrum covered, particularly concerning the Middle East and against Russia.
They currently dominate the foreign policy thinking of both major political parties as well as exercising control over media and entertainment industry coverage of the issues that concern them, largely leaving the American public with only their viewpoint to consider.
There is plenty of other evidence that prominent Jews both inside and outside the Administration have been stirring things up against Russia with considerable success as President Biden has now declared insanely that his Administration is engaged in “a great battle for freedom.
A battle between democracy and autocracy. Between liberty and repression.”
He has confirmed that the US is in Ukraine’s war against Russia until we “win.”
How else does one explain the ridiculous trip by Attorney General Merrick Garland to Kiev in late June to help set up a war crimes investigation directed against Russia?
As Garland is supposed to be the US Attorney General, it might first be useful to investigate crimes relating to the United States.
He might start with American war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan or Israeli war crimes using Washington provided weapons in Lebanon and Syria, not to mention the human rights violations using those same weapons that occur on a daily basis directed against the Palestinians.
Some conservatives are also wondering why the Attorney General spends his time pursuing “white supremacists” and has failed to investigate the rioting, looting and killing that rocked the nation in the BLM Summer of 2020.
Nevertheless, an undeterred and fearless Garland announced while in Kiev that Eli Rosenbaum, Jewish of course, and a 36-year veteran of the Justice Department who previously served as the director of the Office of Special Investigations, which was primarily responsible for identifying, denaturalizing and deporting Nazi war criminals, will lead a War Crimes Accountability team made up of DOJ experts in investigating Russian human-rights abuses.
After the obligatory photo op sucking up to Zelensky, the diminutive but steely eyed Attorney General declared that “There is no hiding place for war criminals.
The US Justice Department will pursue every avenue of accountability for those who commit war crimes and other atrocities in Ukraine.
Working alongside our domestic and international partners, the Justice Department will be relentless in our efforts to hold accountable every person complicit in the commission of war crimes, torture and other grave violations during the unprovoked conflict in Ukraine.”
And if any further evidence required to demonstrate the Jewishness of that week in Kiev, actor Ben Stiller, also a Jew, visited Zelensky and gave him a big hug.
If Eli Rosenbaum is still seriously interested in finding Nazis he will find many more of them in Ukraine than within the Russian Army.
So, one has to ask “Whose war is it and who is making it happen?” Can you please explain Joe Biden? Or, given your perpetual blank look, should I ask Merrick Garland or Tony Blinken or maybe even Victoria Nuland?
THANKS TO THE ONGOING conflict in Ukraine, we indeed seem to be rushing headlong into a major war—possibly a World War Three, possibly the world’s first (and perhaps last) nuclear war.
Ukraine leadership and their Western backers seem hell-bent on fighting to the last man, and Vladimir Putin, as an old-school Cold Warrior, seems equally determined to press ahead until achieving “victory.”
The cause seems hopeless for Ukraine, who cannot reasonably expect to prevail in an extended conflict with one of the largest militaries on Earth.
At best, they may bleed Russia over a period of months or years, but only at the cost of massive blood-letting themselves.
It seems that Ukraine will be the loser in this struggle, no matter what comes.
In the Western media, we are presented with a remarkably simplified storyline: Putin is an evil warmonger who simply wants to extend Russian territory; to this end, he is exploiting events in Ukraine, deploying his military ostensibly to support the Russian-speaking districts of Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine.
But this is just cover, they say, for his mad quest to rebuild the Russian empire.
In pursuit of his goal, he is willing to inflict any amount of material damage and kill any number of civilians.
Fortunately, say our media, Putin has thus far been largely contained; the brave Ukrainian fighters are constantly “reclaiming” land, Russia’s advance has “stalled,” and indeed, Russia seems to be in danger of losing.
Consequently, the US and its allies must do all they can to “aid” and “support” the brave Ukrainians and their beleaguered but heroic leader, Volodymyr Zelensky.
No amount of money, no assortment of deadly weaponry, no military intelligence, is too much.
Like World War Two, this “war” is an unconditional struggle of Good versus Evil; therefore the West, as the moral paragon of the world, must step up, undergo sacrifice, and ensure that Good prevails.
And indeed, the financial support from just the United States is breathtaking: As of early May, Congress has approved $13.6 billion in aid, much of it for direct Ukrainian military support.
And yet this would only cover costs through September.
Thus, president Biden recently called for an additional package of $33 billion, which would include over $20 billion in military and security aid, and, surprisingly, $2.6 billion for “the deployment of American troops to the region,” in order to “safeguard NATO allies.”
Incredibly, Congress responded by approving $40 billion, bringing the total aid thus far to $54 billion.
For perspective, this represents over 80% of Russia’s annual defense budget of $66 billion.
(By contrast, America allocates well over $1 trillion—that is, $1,000 billion—annually in direct and indirect military expenditures.)
Notably, such unconditional support and defense of Ukraine is a virtually unanimous view across the American political spectrum, and throughout Europe.
Right and left, conservative and liberal, working class or wealthy elite, all sectors of society are apparently united in opposition to the evil Putin.
In an era when virtually no issue garners unanimous support, the Ukrainian cause stands out as an extremely rare instance of bipartisan, multi-sector agreement.
The rare dissenters—such as Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and a handful of alt-right renegades—are routinely attacked as “Russian assets” or “tools of Putin.”
There is no room for disagreement, no space for debate, no opposing views allowed.
In fact, though, this is yet another case of what I might call the “unanimity curse”: when all parties in American society are united on a topic, any topic, then we really need to worry.
Here, it seems that the reality is of a potent Jewish Lobby, exerting itself (again) in the direction of war, for reasons of profit and revenge against a hated enemy.
There is, indeed, a Jewish hand at work here, one that may well drive us into another world war, and even a nuclear war—one which, in the worst case, could mean the literal end of much of life on this planet.
The unanimity comes when all parties are subject, in various ways, to the demands of the Lobby, and when the public has been misled and even brainwashed by a coordinated Jewish media into believing the standard narrative.
The best cure for this catastrophic situation is unrestricted free speech.
The Lobby knows this, however, and thus takes all possible measures to inhibit free speech.
Normally, such a struggle ebbs and flows according to the issue and the times; but now, the situation is dire.
Now more than ever, a lack of free speech could be fatal to civilized society.
Context and Run-Up
To fully understand the Jewish hand in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, we need to review some relevant history.
Over the centuries, there have been constant battles over the lands of present-day Ukraine, with Poles, Austro-Hungarians, and Russians alternately dominating.
Russia took control of most of Ukraine in the late 1700s and held it more or less continuously until the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991; this is why Putin claims that the country is “part of Russia.”
For their part, Jews have experienced a particularly tumultuous relationship with Russia, one that ranged from disgust and detestation to a burning hatred.
As it happened, Jews migrated to Russia in the 19th century, eventually numbering around 5 million.
They were a disruptive and agitating force within the nation and thus earned the dislike of Czars Nicholas I (reign 1825 to 1855), Alexander II (1855 to 1881, when he was assassinated by a partly-Jewish anarchist gang), and especially Nicholas II (1894 to 1917)—the latter of whom was famously murdered, along with his family, by a gang of Jewish Bolshevists in 1918.
Already in 1871, Russian activist Mikhail Bakunin could refer to the Russian Jews as “a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people, a collective parasite”.[1]
The assassination of Alexander initiated a series of pogroms that lasted decades, and which set the stage for a lingering Jewish hatred of all things Russian.[2]
For present purposes, though, we can jump to the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election (I note that Ukraine also has a prime minister, but unlike most European countries, he typically has limited powers).
In 2004, it came down to “the two Viktors”: the pro-Western V. Yushchenko and the pro-Russian V. Yanukovych.
The first round was nearly tied, and thus they went to a second round in which Yanukovych prevailed by around three percentage points.
But amid claims of vote-rigging, Western Ukrainians initiated an “Orange Revolution”—backed by the Ukrainian Supreme Court—that annulled those results and mandated a repeat runoff election.
The second time, the tables were turned, and the pro-West Yushchenko won by eight points.
The West was elated, and Putin naturally mad as hell.
The following years witnessed financial turmoil and, unsurprisingly, constant harassment from Russia.
By 2010, Ukrainians were ready for a change, and this time Yanukovych won handily, over a Jewish female competitor, Yulia Timoshenko—notably, she had “co-led the Orange Revolution.” Russia, for once, was satisfied with the result.
But of course, in the West, Europe and the US were mightily displeased, and they soon began efforts to reverse things yet again.
Among other strategies, they apparently decided to deploy the latest in high tech and social media.
Thus in June 2011, two of Google’s top executives—Eric Schmidt and a 30-year-old Jewish upstart named Jared Cohen—went to visit Julian Assange in the UK, then living under house arrest.
It is well-known, incidentally, that Google is a Jewish enterprise, with Jewish founders Sergei Brin and Larry Page running the ship.[3]
The nominal purpose of the trip was to conduct research for a book that Schmidt and Cohen were working on, regarding the intersection of political action and technology—in plain words, how to foment revolutions and steer events in a desired direction.
As Assange relates in his 2014 book When Google Met Wikileaks, he was initially unaware of the deeper intentions and motives of his interviewers.
Only later did he come to learn that Schmidt had close ties to the Obama administration, and that Cohen was actively working on political upheaval.
As Assange wrote, “Jared Cohen could be wryly named Google’s ‘director of regime change’.” Their immediate targets were Yanukovych in Ukraine and Assad in Syria.
By early 2013, the American Embassy in Kiev was training right-wing Ukrainian nationalists on how to conduct a targeted revolt against Yanukovych.
It would not be long until they had their chance.
In late 2013, Yanukovych decided to reject an EU-sponsored IMF loan, with all the usual nasty strings attached, in favor of a comparable no-strings loan from Russia.
This apparent shift away from Europe and toward Russia was the nominal trigger for the start of protest actions.
Thus began the “Maidan Uprising,” led in large part by two extreme nationalist groups: Svoboda and Right Sector.[4] Protests went on for nearly three months, gradually accelerating in intensity; in a notable riot near the end, some 100 protestors and 13 police were shot dead.
As the Uprising reached its peak, at least one American Jew was highly interested: Victoria Nuland.
As Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State (first under Hillary Clinton, and then under the half-Jew John Kerry), Nuland had direct oversight of events in eastern Europe.[5]
And for her, it was personal; her father, Sherwin Nuland (born Shepsel Nudelman), was a Ukrainian Jew.
She was anxious to drive the pro-Russian Yanukovych out of power and replace him with a West-friendly, Jew-friendly substitute.
And she had someone specific in mind: Arseniy Yatsenyuk. On 27 January 2014, as the riots were peaking, Nuland called American Ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt, to urgently discuss the matter.
Nuland pulled no punches: “Yats” was her man. We know this because the call was apparently tapped and the dialogue later posted on Youtube. Here is a short excerpt:
Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step? […]
Nuland: OK, good. I’m happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
It was clear to both of them, though, that the EU leadership had other ideas.
The EU was much more anxious to be a neutral party and to avoid direct intervention in Ukrainian affairs so as to not unduly antagonize Russia.
But in time-tested Jewish fashion, Nuland did not give a damn.
A bit later in the same phone call, she uttered her now-famous phrase: “F___ the EU.” So much for Jewish subtlety.[6]
But there was another angle that nearly all Western media avoided: “Yats” was also Jewish.
In a rare mention, we read in a 2014 Guardian story that “Yatsenyuk has held several high-profile positions including head of the country’s central bank, the National Bank of Ukraine…
He has played down his Jewish-Ukrainian origins, possibly because of the prevalence of antisemitism in his party’s western Ukraine heartland.”
For some reason, such facts are never relevant to Western media.
As the Maidan Uprising gave way to the Maidan Revolution in February 2014, Yanukovych was forced out of office, fleeing to Russia.
Pro-Western forces then succeeded in nominating “Yats” as prime minister, effective immediately, working in conjunction with president Oleksandr Turchynov.
This provisional leadership was formalized in a snap election in May 2014 in which the pro-Western candidate Peter Poroshenko won.
(The second-place finisher was none other than Yulia Timoshenko—the same Jewess who had lost to Yanukovych in 2010.)
It was under such circumstances that Putin invaded and annexed Crimea, in February 2014.
It was also at this time that Russian separatists in Donbass launched their counter-revolution, initiating a virtual civil war in Ukraine; to date, eight years later, around 15,000 people have died in total, many civilians.
With this American-sponsored coup finished, Ukrainian Jews began to reach out to the West to increase their influence.
Thus it happened that just a few months after Maidan, the wayward son of the American vice president got in touch with a leading Ukrainian Jew, Mykola Zlochevsky, who ran a large gas company called Burisma.
In this way, Hunter Biden incredibly found himself on the board of a corporation of which he knew nothing, in an industry of which he knew nothing, and which nonetheless was able to “pay” him upwards of $500,000 per year—obviously, for access to father Joe and thus to President Obama.
Hunter carried on in this prestigious role for around five years, resigning only in 2019, as his father began his fateful run for the presidency.[7]
Despite a rocky tenure, Yatsenyuk managed to hold his PM position for over two years, eventually resigning in April 2016.
His replacement was yet another Jew, Volodymyr Groysman, who served until August 2019. The Jewish hand would not be stayed. All this set the stage for the rise of the ultimate Jewish player, Volodymyr Zelensky.
This situation is particularly remarkable given that Jews are a small minority in Ukraine.
Estimates vary widely, but the Jewish population is claimed to range from a maximum of 400,000 to as low as just 50,000.
With a total population of 41 million, Jews represent, at most, 1% of the nation, and could be as small as 0.12%.
Under normal conditions, a tiny minority like this should be almost invisible; but here, they dominate.
Such is the Jewish hand.
Enter the Jewish Oligarchs
In Ukraine, there is a “second government” that calls many of the shots.
This shadow government is an oligarchy: a system of rule by the richest men.
Of the five richest Ukrainian billionaires, four are Jews: Igor (or Ihor) Kolomoysky, Viktor Pinchuk, Rinat Akhmetov, and Gennadiy Bogolyubov.
Right behind them, in the multi-millionaire class, are Jews like Oleksandr Feldman and Hennadiy Korban.
Collectively, this group is often more effective at imposing their will than any legislator.
And unsurprisingly, this group has been constantly enmeshed in corruption and legal scandals, implicated in such crimes as kidnapping, arson and murder.[8]
Of special interest is the first named above. Kolomoysky has long been active in banking, airlines and media—and in guiding minor celebrities to political stardom.
In 2005 he became the leading shareholder of the 1+1 Media Group, which owns seven TV channels, including the highly popular 1+1 channel.
(The 1+1 Group was founded in 1995 by another Ukrainian Jew, Alexander Rodnyansky.)
Worth up to $6 billion in the past decade, Kolomoysky’s current net wealth is estimated to be around $1 billion.
Not long after acquiring 1+1, Kolomoysky latched on to an up-and-coming Jewish comedian by the name of Volodymyr Zelensky.
Zelensky had been in media his entire adult life, and even co-founded a media group, Kvartal 95, in 2003, at the age of just 25.
Starring in feature films, he switched to television by the early 2010s, eventually coming to star in the 1+1 hit show “Servant of the People,” where he played a teacher pretending to be president of Ukraine.
Then there was the notable 2016 comedy skit in which Zelensky and friends play a piano with their penises—in other words, typical low-brow scatological Jewish humor, compliments of Zelensky and Kolomoysky.
[Zelensky also appeared in a trashy “music” video in which he simulates a grotesque homosexual “come on.” — Ed.]
By early 2018, the pair were ready to move into politics.
Zelensky registered his new political party for the upcoming 2019 election, and declared himself a presidential candidate in December 2018, just four months prior to the election.
In the end, of course, he won, with 30% of the vote in the first round, and then defeating incumbent Poroshenko in the 2nd round by a huge 50-point margin.
Relentless favorable publicity by 1+1 was credited with making a real difference.
Notably, the third-place finisher in that election was, yet again, the Jewess Yulia Timoshenko—like a bad penny, she just keeps coming back.[9]
Zelensky, incidentally, has dramatically profited from his “meteoric rise” to fame and power.
His Kvartal 95 media company earned him some $7 million per year.
He also owns a 25% share of Maltex Multicapital, a shell company based in the British Virgin Islands, as part of a “web of off-shore companies” he helped to establish back in 2012.
A Ukrainian opposition politician, Ilya Kiva, suggested recently that Zelensky is currently tapping into “hundreds of millions” in funding that flows into the country, and that Zelensky himself is personally earning “about $100 million per month.”
A Netherlands party, Forum for Democracy, recently cited estimates of Zelensky’s fortune at an astounding $850 million.
Apparently the “Churchill of Ukraine” is doing quite well for himself, even as his country burns.
In any case, it is clear that Zelensky owes much to his mentor and sponsor, Kolomoysky.
The latter even admitted as much back in late 2019, in an interview for the New York Times.
“If I put on glasses and look back at myself,” he said, “I see myself as a monster, as a puppet master, as the master of Zelensky, someone making apocalyptic plans.
I can start making this real” (Nov 13). Indeed—the Kolomoysky/Zelensky apocalypse is nearly upon us.
Between rule by Jewish oligarchs and manipulations by the global Jewish lobby, modern-day Ukraine is a mess of a nation—and it was so long before the current “war.”
Corruption there is endemic; in 2015, the Guardianheadlined a story on Ukraine, calling it “the most corrupt nation in Europe.”
An international corruption-ranking agency had recently assessed that country at 142nd in the world, worse than Nigeria and equal to Uganda.
As a result, Ukraine’s economy has suffered horribly.
Before the current conflict, their per-capita income level of $8700 put them 112th in the world, below Albania ($12,900), Jamaica ($9100), and Armenia ($9700); this is by far the poorest in Europe, and well below that of Russia ($25,700 per person).
Impoverished, corrupt, manipulated by Jews, now in a hot war—pity the poor Ukrainians.
Hail the American Empire
Enough history and context; let’s cut to the chase.
From a clear-eyed perspective, it is obvious why Zelensky and friends want to prolong a war that they have no hope of winning: They are profiting immensely from it.
As an added benefit, the actor Zelensky gets to perform on the world stage, which he will surely convert into more dollars down the road.
Every month that the conflict continues, billions of dollars are flowing into Ukraine, and Zelensky et al. are assuredly skimming their “fair share” off the top.
Seriously—who, making anywhere near $100 million per month, wouldn’t do everything conceivable to keep the gravy train running?
The fact that thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are dying has no bearing at all in Zelensky’s calculus; in typical Jewish fashion, he cares not one iota for the well-being of the White Europeans.
If his soldiers die even as they kill a few hated Russians, so much the better. For Ukrainian Jews, it is a win-win proposition.
Why does no one question this matter?
Why is Zelensky’s corruption never challenged?
Why are these facts so hard to find?
We know the answer: It is because Zelensky is a Jew, and Jews are virtually never questioned and never challenged by leading Americans or Europeans.
Jews get a pass on everything (unless they are obviously guilty of something heinous—and sometimes even then!).
Jews get a pass from fellow Jews because they cover for each other.
Jews get a pass from media because the media is owned and operated by Jews.
And Jews get a pass from prominent non-Jews who are in the pay of Jewish sponsors and financiers.
Zelensky can be as corrupt as hell, funneling millions into off-shore accounts, but as long as he plays his proper role, no one will say anything.
So the “war” goes on, and Zelensky and friends get rich.
What does Europe get from all this?
Nothing.
Or rather, worse than nothing: They get a hot war in their immediate neighborhood, and they get an indignant Putin threatening to put hypersonic missiles in their capital cities in less than 200 seconds.
They get to deal with the not-so-remote threat of nuclear war.
They get to see their currency decline—by 10% versus the yuan in a year and by 12% versus the dollar.
They get a large chunk of their gas, oil, and electricity supplies diverted or shut off, driving up energy prices.
And they get to see their Covid-fragile economies put on thin ice.
But perhaps they deserve all this.
As is widely known, the European states are American vassals, which means they are Jewish vassals.
European leaders are spineless and pathetic lackeys of the Jewish Lobby.
Judenknecht like Macron, Merkel, and now Scholz, are sorry examples of humanity; they have sold out their own people to placate their overlords.
And the European public is too bamboozled and too timid to make a change; France just had a chance to elect Le Pen, but the people failed to muster the necessary will.
Thus, Europe deserves its fate: hot war, nuclear threat, cultural and economic decline, sub-Saharan and Islamic immigrants—the whole package.
If it gets bad enough, maybe enough Europeans will awaken to the Jewish danger and take action. Or so we can hope.
What about the US? We could scarcely be happier.
Dead Russians, the hated Putin in a tizzy, and the chance to play “world savior” once again.
American military suppliers are ecstatic; they don’t care that most of their weapons bound for Ukraine get lost, stolen or blown up, and that (according to some estimates) only 5% make it to the front.
For them, every item shipped is another profitable sale, whether it is used or not.
And American congressmen get to pontificate about another “good war” even as they approve billions in aid.
And perhaps best of all, we get to press for an expansion to that American Empire known as NATO.
We need to be very clear here: NATO is simply another name for the American Empire.
The two terms are interchangeable.
In no sense is NATO an “alliance among equals.”
Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Albania have absolutely nothing to offer to the US.
Do we care if they will “come to our aid” in case of a conflict?
That is a bad joke, at best.
In reality, what such nations are is more land, more people, and more economic wealth under the American thumb.
They are yet more places to station troops, build military outposts, and run “black sites.”
NATO always was, and always will be, the American Empire.
The push for Ukraine to join NATO by the West-friendly Zelensky was yet another blatant attempt at a power grab by the US, this one on Russia’s doorstep.
Putin, naturally, took action to circumvent that.
But of course, now the push moves to Sweden and Finland, both of whom are unwisely pursuing NATO membership in the illusory quest for security, when in reality they will simply be selling what remains of their national souls to the ruthless Judeo-American masters.
For their sake, I hope they are able to avoid such a future.
And all the while, American Jews and a Jewish-American media play up the “good war” theme, send more weapons, and press ever further into the danger zone.
Ukrainian-American Jews like Chuck Schumer are right out front, calling for aid, for war, for death.[10]
“Ukraine needs all the help it can get and, at the same time, we need all the assets we can put together to give Ukraine the aid it needs,” said Schumer recently, eager to approve the next $40 billion aid package.
As Jews have realized for centuries, wars are wonderful occasions for killing enemies and making a fast buck.
Perhaps it is no coincidence that the present proxy war against Jewish enemies in eastern Europe began not long after the 20-year war against Jewish enemies in Afghanistan ended.
Life without war is just too damn boring, for some.
Public Outrage?
If more than a minuscule fraction of the public knew about such details, they would presumably be outraged.
But as I mentioned, the Jewish-controlled Western media does an excellent job in restricting access to such information, and in diverting attention whenever such ugly facts pop up.
The major exception is Tucker Carlson, who is able to reach some 3 million people each night; this is by far the widest reach for anything like the above analysis.
But Carlson falls woefully short—pathetically short—in defining the Jewish culprit behind all these factors.
Jews are never outed and never named by Carlson, let alone ever targeted for blame.
This crucial aspect is thus left to a literal handful of alt-right and dissident-right websites that collectively reach a few thousand people, at best.
And even if, by some miracle, all 3 million Tucker viewers were enlightened to the Jewish danger here, this still leaves some 200 million American adults ignorant and unaware.
The mass of people believe what they see on the evening news, or in their Facebook feeds, or Google news, or on CNN or MSNBC, or in the New York Times—all Jewish enterprises, incidentally.
This is why, when polled, 70% of the American public say that current aid to Ukraine is either “about right” or even “too little.”
This, despite the fact that around 50% claim to be “very concerned” about nuclear war; clearly they are unable to make the necessary connections.
And for many, it is even worse than this: around 21% would support “direct American military intervention” against Russia, which means an explicit World War Three, with all the catastrophic outcomes that this entails.
Our Jewish media have done another fine job in whipping up public incitement.
In sum, we can say that our media have cleverly constructed a “philo-Semitic trap”: Any mention or criticism of the Jewish hand in the present conflict is, first, highly censored, and then, if necessary, is dismissed as irrational anti-Semitism.
Sympathy toward the (truly) poor, suffering Ukrainians is played up to the hilt, and Putin and the Russians relentlessly demonized.
Leading American Jews, like Tony Blinken and Chuck Schumer, are constantly playing the good guys, pleading for aid, promising to help the beleaguered and outmanned Ukrainian warriors.
Who can resist this storyline?
Thus, we have no opposition, no questioning, no deeper inquiries into root causes.
Jews profit and flourish, Ukrainians and Russians suffer and die, and the world rolls along toward potential Armageddon.
The reality is vastly different.
Global Jews are, indeed, “planetary master criminals,” as Martin Heidegger long ago realized.[11]
They function today as they have for centuries: as advocates for abuse, exploitation, criminality, death and profits.
This is self-evidently true: If the potent Jewish Lobby wanted true peace, or flourishing humanity, they would be actively pushing for such things and likely succeeding.
Instead, we have endless mayhem, war, terrorism, social upheaval and death, even as Jewish pockets get ever-deeper.
And the one possible remedy for all this—true freedom of speech—recedes from our grasp.
On the one hand, I fear greatly for our future.
On the other, I feel that we get what we deserve.
When we allow malicious Jews to dominate our nations, and then they lead us into war and global catastrophe, well, what can we say?
Perhaps there is no other way than to await the inevitable conflagration, exact retribution in the ensuing chaos, and then rebuild society from scratch—older and wiser.
Most Zionist diplomacy takes place in secret, through corruption and blackmail (euphemistically called “lobbying”).
Most Zionist diplomacy takes place in secret, through corruption and blackmail (euphemistically called “lobbying”).
But sometimes it is deemed appropriate that some statement be written down by some government representative in support of Zionism.
The Goyim who write these statements may think them of little consequence, but Zionists know very well how to capitalize on them.
The most famous such document is the short letter written by the British Foreign Minister Lord Arthur Balfour to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, president of the Zionist Federation, on November 2, 1917. Prime Minister Lloyd George later explained the deal in those terms:
“Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to give facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause.
They kept their word.”
Less known than the Balfour Declaration is the letter obtained by Nahum Sokolow, head of the World Zionist Organization, from the French Foreign minister Jules Cambon.
Dated June 4, 1917, it not only anticipated the Balfour Declaration but cleared the way for it.
It states that the French government “feels sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is linked to that of the allies.”
The cause in question is “the development of the Israeli colonization in Palestine” and “the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.”
Back in London, Sokolow deposited the Cambon letter at the Foreign Office, where it stimulated a spirit of competition.
In January 1918, he returned to Paris, this time with the aim of securing a public French declaration in support of the Balfour Declaration.
A magnificent example of the efficiency of Zionist transnational diplomacy for war profiteering.
If Balfour thought that, after the war, his letter, cautiously worded and typed on unmarked paper, would be of little consequence, he was wrong.
Zionists made it a cornerstone to their project.
When the British government proved reluctant to deliver after the Versailles Treaty, they invested on the ambitious, unscrupulous and bankrupt Winston Churchill (1874-1965), whose thoughts were, in his own words, “99 percent identical” with Chaim Weizmann’s.
During WWII, Churchill and Weizmann conspired to repeat the winning strategy of the Balfour declaration in WWI, attempting to monetize Jewish influence to bring the United States into the war.
In a letter to Churchill dated September 10, 1941, Weizmann wrote: “I have spent months in America, traveling up and down the country […].
There is only one big ethnic group which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of ‘all-out-aid’ for her: the five million American Jews. […]
It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favor of Great Britain.
They are keen to do it—and may do it—again.”
As soon as he had become Prime Minister in May 1940, Churchill instructed his War Cabinet member Arthur Greenwood to craft a document assuring the Jewish elites that a winning Britain will give them not only Palestine but a major share in the “new world order” to compensate for “the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people.”
Although it is little known, this “Greenwood Pledge” is, according to Zionist Rabbi Stephen Wise, “of wider and farther reaching implications” than the Balfour declaration.
The New York Times published it in its October 6, 1940 edition, under the amazing title “New World Order Pledged to Jews” (reproduced here and here).
The recipient of the declaration, here presented as Dr. S.S. Wise, was a major player in Zionist deep politics since the time of Theodor Herzl, and a close collaborator of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and Samuel Untermeyer.
He was the founder of the New York Federation of Zionist Societies in 1897, the first seed for the Zionist Organization of America, of which he was president.
In 1917 he participated in the effort to convince President Woodrow Wilson to approve the Balfour declaration.
In 1936, he was a co-founder of the World Jewish Congress, dedicated to rallying world Jewry against Hitler.
Here is the full text of the New York Times, introducing the “Greenwood Pledge”:
New York Times, October 6, 1940
NEW WORLD ORDER PLEDGED TO JEWS;
Arthur Greenwood of British War Cabinet Sends Message of Assurance Here
RIGHTING OF WRONGS SEEN
English Rabbi Delivers to Dr. S.S. Wise New Statement on Question After War
In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, a member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of “justice and peace.”
Mr. Greenwood, who is Deputy Leader of the British Labor party, declared that in the new world the “conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted.”
He added that after the war an opportunity would be given to Jews everywhere to make a “distinctive and constructive contribution” in the rebuilding of the world.
The message was delivered last week to Dr. Stephen S. Wise, chairman of the executive committee of the World Jewish Congress, by Rabbi Maurice L. Perzweig, chairman of the British section of the congress. Rabbi Perizweig arrived from England Monday evening.
Intention to Right Wrongs
Comparing the statement with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, D. Wise declared that in a sense it had “wider and farther reaching implications,” as it dealt with the status of Jews throughout the world.
He said that Mr. Greenwood’s message could be interpreted as a statement of England’s firm intention to help right the wrongs which Jews have suffered and continue to suffer today because of Hitler’s “disorder and lawlessness.”
Mr. Greenwood, sending the Jews of America a message of “encouragement and warm good wishes,” wrote: “The tragic fate of the Jewish victims of Nazi tyranny has, as you know, filed us with deep emotion.
The speeches of responsible statesmen in Parliament and at the League of Nations during the last seven years have reflected the horror with which the people of this country have viewed the Nazi relapse into barbarism.
“The British Government sought again to secure some amelioration of the lot of persecuted Jewry both in Germany itself and in the countries which were infected by the Nazi doctrine of racial hatred.
Today the same sinister power which has trampled on its own defenseless minorities, and by fraud and force has temporarily robbed many small peoples of their independence, has challenged the last stronghold of liberty in Europe.
New World Order Forecast
“When we have achieved victory, as we assuredly shall, the nations will have the opportunity of establishing a new world order based on the ideals of justice and peace.
In such a world it is our confident hope that the conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted.
“In the rebuilding of civilized society after the war, there should and will be a real opportunity for Jews everywhere to make a distinctive and constructive contribution; and all men of good-will must assuredly hope that in new Europe the Jewish people, in whatever country they may live, will have the freedom and full equality before the law with every other citizen.”
In an interview at the Hotel Astor, Rabbi Perlzweig declared he was certain Mr. Greenwood “speaks for England.”
There is a clear realization, he added, that freedom and emancipation for the Jewish people are tied up with emancipation and freedom for people everywhere.
The message, Rabbi Perlzweig remarked, was the subject of earnest consideration by the British Government.
“This is a declaration on behalf of the whole world,” he observed. “Here the British Government expresses clearly what it hopes will take place after the war is won.”
The latest conjoining of the two is the ADL’s policy proposals to be included in the Democratic & Republican platforms.
Particularly pernicious and alarming is the ADL’s relentless targeting of the Internet.
Here is a Brave New ‘Zionist‘ World policy proposal the ADL wants on both party’s platforms:
“The ADL believes the US must mobilize government efforts to confront anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred and bigotry.
Anti-Semitic propaganda is disseminated throughout the world via the Internet.
The US must use inter-governmental forums to encourage legislative and judicial action to fight anti-Semitism and encourage the improvement of data collection of all anti-Semitic activities”Here.
The ADL’s persistent power in U.S. politics has been strangely unaffected by its history, probably because that history is so little known.
The Ilhan Omar debate should be shaped by at least two aspects of it.
The first is that the ADL has consistently sought to undermine the left, leveling a charge akin to dual loyalty: that the American left’s calls for redistribution of power, its solidarity with global movements, and its prioritization of people over states threaten the very concept of the state.
Indeed the ADL, in addition to its stated mission of shoring up U.S. support for Israel, is deeply loyal to the U.S. state.
The second is that the ADL has waged a long, vigorous, and successful campaign, alongside AIPAC, specifically to characterize Arab American political organizing as dual loyalty.
The United States is making a mistake in not concentrating on its own problems rather than meddling in China’s internal affairs, as a defeat against China—coming so soon after the war in Ukraine and the withdrawal from Afghanistan—would show U.S. imperialism to be just a paper tiger.
In 1958 the Royal Institute of International Affairs (aka Chathamhouse) founded the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
Many members on the board of directors were RIIA members and members of its U.S. Sister organization the Council on Foreign Relations.
It has become the pre-eminent British think-tank peddling the “new NATO” doctrine, and pressing for the United States to accept the role of “policeman of the world.”
The Council on Foreign Relations and Royal Institute of International Affairs can trace their roots back to a secret organization founded and funded by Cecil Rhodes, who became fabulously wealthy by exploiting the people of South Africa. Rhodes is the father of Apartheid.
The Council on Foreign Relations was founded by a group of American and British imperialists and racists intent on ruling the world.
In this reprint of the February 1994 “Notes from the Editors,” former MR editors Harry Magdoff and Paul M. Sweezy ask: “The United States could not have won a more decisive victory in the Cold War. Why, then, does it continue to act as though the Cold War is still on?”
Warmongers in Washington badly want a war with Iran
Many of the British members were British Intelligence Agents.
THE INQUIRY and its members, who included such notable Americans as Col. Edward Mandel House, Walter Lippmann, Isaiah Bowman, and James Shotwell, wrote most of Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points.
The CFR/RIIA method of operation is simple — they control public opinion.
They keep the identity of their group secret.
They learn the likes and dislikes of influential people.
The IISS website tells us IISS is “A registered charity headquartered in London, the IISS also has offices in Washington, Singaporeand Manama, Bahrain.
The IISS is a non-partisan organisation, independent of government and other bodies.
Its mission is to promote the adoption of sound policies to further global peace and security and maintain civilised international relations.”
This is untrue. Non-partisan is CFR/RIIA euphemism for controlling both sides of political spectrum.
The psycho-political operations are often designed to create tensions between different groups of people.
Keeping the world in a state of perpetual tension and warfare maximizes profits from CFR/RIIA munition, medicine, media, energy, and food businesses.
IISS is a CFR/RIIA psycho-political operations tool for achieving their goal of one world government under their control. Besides The Military Balance, the definitive reference source on the world’s armed forces, IISS publications include:
One of IISS’s main ways of reaching out to broader layers is through its publications, which include: Strategic Comments; Adelphi Papers; Survival; an annual report entitled The Military Balance; and the annual reference The World Directory of Strategic Studies Centers. The Strategic Survey 1997-1998, an IISS annual report, argues for the United States to accept its assigned role as global policeman. The only choice that the United States should make, the IISS survey argues, is whether to act unilaterally, to act through multilateral organizations like the United Nations or NATO, or through informal coalitions. “The U.S. is bound to find itself often in the future balancing the benefits of a more multinational approach . . . against the utility of a unilateral approach which allows the U.S. its preferredpolicywithoutthe encumbrancesofinter-alliedconsultation. The quality of U.S. leadership in the future is likely to be judged by the wisdom of the choice it makes between these mutually exclusive methods for dealing with crises.”
Conrad Black is the chairman and CEO of the Hollinger Corp. media cartel, which owns the Telegraph plc in Britain, the Jerusalem Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, and hundreds of other dailies and weeklies across the United States, and which has just launched a new nationwide daily in Canada. On July 6, 1998, Black addressed the annual meeting of the Center for PolicyStudiesinLondon,theflagshipthink-tankoftheradical free market Mont Pelerin Society. In his speech on “Britain’s Final Choice: Europe or America?” Black attacked the European Union as “the greatest engine for collectivism, illiberalism, and hyper-regulation in our national life.” He called upon Britain to abandon plans to join the European Monetary Union, and, instead, to formally press for membership in an expanded, transatlantic “super-NAFTA,” which he proposed be renamed as the “North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.”
“None of the continental European countries has a particular affinity with the United States and Canada,” Black lied, “or anything slightly comparable to Britain’s dramatic modern historic intimacy with North America. . . . Such an expanded NAFTA would have every commercial advantage over the EU. It is based on the Anglo-American free market model of relatively restrained taxation and social spending. The United States will make no significant concessions of sovereignty and does not expect other countries to do so.” Two years earlier, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher keynoted the founding “Prague Congress” of the New Atlantic Initiative, where she initiated the call for this super-NAFTA. Lady Thatcher chairs the international advisory board of the Hollinger Corp., and Black is a founder of the NAI.
What is today the Hollinger corporate octopus, started out during World War II as a front company for Britain’s war machine. In April 1940, Edward Plunkett Taylor was recruited into British intelligence by the Minister of Munitions and Supplies, Clarence Decatur Howe. Perhaps drawing on the Taylor family’s experience as smugglers during U.S. Prohibition, Howe assigned E.P. Taylor to secure the flow of U.S. dollars into the British Empire, and to obtain war supplies that were forbidden under the U.S. Neutrality Act. Taylor and his crew—including Conrad Black’s father, George Montagu Black—made a profit working through a British government front company that they had created, called War Supplies Ltd. The New York Times described it at the time as “a virtual merging of the economies of the United States and Canada.” At the end of the war, Taylor & Co. formed the Argus Corporation with the $1.3 billion they had amassed by procuring arms for the British government. Argus proceeded to buy up a number of strategic raw material firms, and Canada’s largest farm equipment manufaturer, Massey Ferguson. Conrad Black was groomed by his father and Taylor to take over Argus. When he assumed control in the 1970s, he changed the company’s name to Hollinger Corp., and he sold off the raw material and manufacturing subsidiaries; then he began a worldwide media grab, such that, today, Hollinger is among the largest print media cartels in the English-speaking world. Using funds from liquidated assets of the Argus Corp., supplemented by contributions from Li Kai Shing, whose family has a virtually hereditary board position on the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, the heroin bank for East Asia’s market, Black purchased 100% control of The Telegraph Ltd., publisher of the Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph is the largest newspaper in London—it is a favorite of the British royal family—and quickly became a mouthpiece for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Black purchased 100% control of the Jerusalem Post, the foremost English daily in Israel, turning its policies to support for the Likudnik Greater Israel crazies, such as Foreign Minister Gen. Ariel Sharon, “the Butcher of Lebanon.” Hollinger Canadian Publishing Holdings, Inc. began buying up daily and weekly papers across Canada, through its wholly owned Sterling Newspapers Co. and Southam groups. And, in the United States, Black purchased some 240 daily and weekly papers through his Chicago Group, including the Chicago Sun-Times, the Gary, Indiana Post Tribune, and the Community Newspaper Group. The Spectator, a British establishment journal since 1828, was purchased by Hollinger shortly after the takeover of the Telegraph Group Ltd. On July 9, 1990, the Spectatorfeatured an inflammatory anti-German article Thatcher’s Minister of Industry and Trade, Nicholas Ridley. Ridley assailed Chancellor Helmut Kohl for backing reunification of his country, and equating Kohl with Adolf Hitler, and calling a reunified Germany the “Fourth Reich.” The article kicked up such controversy that he was soon thereafter forced to resign. Thatcher, in her Memoirs, the Downing Street Years, acknowledged that it was British Empire policy to do everything to block German reunification. Ridley was merely just taking orders from Thatcher, Black, and the BAC.
The boards of directors and advisory boards of Hollinger and its subsidiaries are a veritable who’s who of the British American& Canadian inner circle, from policy shapers, like Black, to field hands like Anglo-Israeli spy Richard Perle. We provide a partial listing:
Conrad M. Black, Canadian Privy Council, Queen’s Council, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Hollinger, Inc.; Hollinger International, Inc.; Hollinger Canadian Publishing Holdings Inc.; Telegraph Group, Ltd; and, Southam Inc.; 1001 Nature Trust; New Atlantic Initiative.
Barbara Amiel Black, wife of Conrad Black, and VicePresident, Editorial, London. Director, Hollinger, Inc.; and, Hollinger International, Inc. R.
Donald Fullerton, chairman of the executive committee, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Director, Hollinger, Inc.
Baroness Margaret Thatcher, LG, OM, Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1979-90).
Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.
Vale´ry Giscard d’Estaing, President of France (1974- 81). Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.
Lord Peter Rupert Carrington, KG, GCMG, Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.; and, Director, Telegraph Group Ltd.
CFR member Henry A. Kissinger, KCMG, former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Adviser; former member President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.; and, Director, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski,former U.S. National Security Adviser, former chairman, Trilaterial Commission. Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.
Dr. Giovanni Agnelli, Honorary Chairman, Fiat S.p.A. International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
Dwayne O. Andreas, Chairman, Archer Daniels Midland Co. Director, International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc. CFR member David Brinkley, ABC News senior correspondent (1981- 97). International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member William F. Buckley, Editor-at-Large, National Review. International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (1995-98). International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
Lord Hanson,Chairman, Hanson PLC, London. International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member Richard Perle, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy 1981-87; Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.; Director Hollinger International, Inc.; and, Director, Jerusalem Post Publications, Ltd.; Chairman, Hollinger Digital, Inc.
Lord Jacob Rothschild, Chairman, Jacob Rothschild Holdings PLC. International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member Paul A. Volcker, Chairman, James D. Wolfensohn Inc. (1988-96); Chairman, U.S. Federal Reserve System, 1979- 87; North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission.
CFR member Richard Burt, Chairman, International Equity Partners; Chief Negotiator in Strategic Arms Reduction Talks with U.S.S.R., 1989-91; Director, Hollinger International, Inc.
Alfred Taubman (son William is CFR member) , Chairman, Taubman Co.; Chairman, Sotheby’s Holdings, Inc.; and, Director, Hollinger International, Inc.
Lord Weidenfeld of Chelsea, Chairman, Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., London; Director, Hollinger International, Inc.; and, Director, Jerusalem Post Publications, Ltd. Viscount Cranborne, Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd.
Rupert N. Hambro; Chairman, JO Hambro & Co., Ltd.; former officer, British Special Operations Executive; and, Director, Telegraph Group Ltd.
Henry N.L. Keswick, Chairman, Matheson & Co. Ltd. and Jardine Matheson Holdings Ltd., London; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd. Lord King of Wartnaby, President, British Airways PLC and Babcock International Group, PLC, London; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd. Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, Privy Council, Queen’s Council, U.K. Solicitor-General, 1962-64 and Attorney General, 1970-74; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd.
CFR member Raymond G.H. Seitz, Senior Managing Director, Lehman Brothers and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd. Maj. Gen. Shlomo Gazit, Senior Researcher, Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University; Former Chief of Israeli Military Intelligence; and, Director, Jerusalem Post Publications, Ltd
Ukraine is in fact ruled by a Jew and the country’s power structure is indeed publicly “democratic”, despite being internally authoritarian and corrupt.
The West, media outlets are claiming that Russia’s agenda to “denazify” Ukraine is unfounded.
At the same time, public opinion in Western countries is totally alienated from the Ukrainian reality, tending to believe only what is reported by the hegemonic media.
The result of this is strong disapproval of the Russian attitude based on the lie that there is no trace of Nazism in contemporary Ukraine.
In this sense, it is urgent that quality information be disseminated to the Western audience to avoid the proliferation of lies about the Ukrainian reality.
On almost every TV channel and newspaper in the West, Ukrainian Nazism is questioned with the worst possible arguments: Zelensky is Jewish, and the Ukrainian state is democratic.
This kind of superficial thinking prevents a detailed analysis of the catastrophic situation in Kiev since the Maidan, when, through a coup d’état, an anti-Russian junta took power and institutionalized a racist and anti-Russian ideology, which remains until the current days.
When we talk about “Ukrainian Nazism” we are not saying that Kiev is a contemporary copy of Hitler’s Berlin, but that the neo-Nazi element is a fundamental point of post-2014 Ukraine.
The Maidan coup was openly supported and financed by NATO as a way of undermining any Russian influence in Moscow’s own strategic environment.
The aim was to make Ukraine a puppet state, commanded from Washington, ending any link with Russia.
There was not only the objective to annihilate political, economic, and diplomatic relations between Kiev and Moscow, but also to eliminate cultural, ethnic, religious, and linguistic ties between both nations.
Since then, anti-Russian plans have been implemented.
Ethnic Russians have been persecuted for the past eight years – even through systematic extermination in some regions.
The Russian language has been criminalized in entire cities where the population does not speak Ukrainian.
Schisms in the Orthodox Church have been supported to form a Ukrainian “national church” out of the Moscow Patriarchate.
But the question remains: how has this been possible if Ukrainians and Russians are such close peoples?
Many Ukrainians speak Russian and marry ethnic Russians, in addition to the fact that most of the country’s population follows the Orthodox Church.
So how was it possible to initiate such a successful racist policy?
This was certainly one of the biggest concerns of the Maidan planners.
And the answer lies in the Nazi element, which was very well worked out by Arsen Avakov, Minister of the Interior during the Poroshenko government.
Avakov initiated a process of instrumentalizing neo-Nazi militias that had supported Maidan, making these extremist groups key points in the defense of the new Ukrainian regime.
In the West, due to collective ignorance about Slavic history, many people think that Nazi racism was restricted to Jews, but in fact, anti-Russian hatred was one of the biggest locomotives of WWII, having led Hitler to the irrational decision to invade and try to annex the USSR.
This sentiment is alive in these neo-Nazi militias, who are literally ready to do anything to annihilate the Russians, being much more fanatical in their racist convictions than the Ukrainian armed forces.
Groups such as the Azov Battalion, C14 and the armed militias of rightist parties such as Pravyy sektor and Svoboda operate freely in Ukraine and are most responsible for the extermination of ethnic Russians in the Donbass.
These groups act with more violence and using more sophisticated equipment than the Ukrainian armed forces themselves, being the real face of Kiev’s anti-Russian brutality.
As neo-Nazis, these militias have no obstacles in complying with the government’s objective of destroying any ties between Russians and Ukrainians, thus being the main allies of the Maidan era.
In a 2020 Freedom House’s report, “A new Eurasian far right rising”, it is said that the far right is one of the strongest and most influential elements in Ukrainian society today, being a sophisticated, highly professionalized, and visible political force.
In other words, what would be violent and criminal urban groups elsewhere on the planet have been converted by Kiev into a pro-Maidan parallel armed force.
The inspiration for this model of action comes from the original Nazism: the Schutzstaffel (SS) was one of the largest German armed political forces during the 1930s and 1940s, but the group was not part of the German Armed Forces, but a paramilitary militia instrumentalized by the government apart from the official troops.
There was a major strategic objective with this: while the German military was commanded by the government, the SS fought for the Nazi Party and for Hitler – that is, if Germany surrendered, the SS would declare war on the German military.
This type of “double-shielded” military system is the same one that Kiev has implemented: if one day a pro-Russian government is elected, the neo-Nazi militias will declare war on Kiev – and will be strong enough to defeat the official troops in the same way as the SS was stronger than the German armed forces.
It is necessary to note that these groups operate not only in the sphere of military force, but also in the cultural field, fomenting anti-Russian hatred among ordinary Ukrainians.
The exaltation of Stepan Bandera (Ukrainian anti-Soviet nationalist leader who collaborated with Nazi Germany) is one of the symptoms of this.
Before the Maidan, Bandera was a name like any other in Ukrainian history, but he came to be remembered and venerated as a national hero by neo-Nazis and anti-Russian politicians.
In the same sense, these groups vandalize parishes and monasteries of the Russian Orthodox Church and are responsible for the consolidation of a Ukrainian mentality entirely hostile to Russia, which is gradually permeating the local population.
Ukraine is in fact ruled by a Jew and the country’s power structure is indeed publicly “democratic”, despite being internally authoritarian and corrupt.
But the Nazi element is not in these aspects, but in the structure of protection of the post-Maidan Ukrainian state, which is supported by a national coalition of neo-Nazi militias whose objective is simply to persecute and kill Russians, regardless of who is in power in Kiev.
It does not matter to these militias if the President of the Republic is a Jew – what matters is that Russians are dying, which favors both neo-Nazis and the pro-NATO politicians they protect. In other words, the Western media’s arguments to deny Putin’s claims about Ukrainian Nazism are weak and superficial.
Moscow is right in its concern to denazify Ukraine. It is a measure that should be taken in coalition by several countries.
All over the world, Nazism is “condemned”, but only when it benefits the West.
The closest political experience to Nazism in the present days has been seen and peacefully tolerated by liberal governments that claim to be defenders of human rights and democracy.
Russia is simply no longer willing to put up with crimes being committed by neo-Nazis against its people and there is nothing wrong with that decision.
“Israel sees the destruction of Lebanon, along with Syria, as the key to destroying the Arab world. If Lebanon’s power-sharing system can be destroyed, if Christians can be driven out for economic or other reasons in huge numbers and if Lebanon’s different Muslim sects can be got to fight each other (with considerable Persian Gulf State/ISIS help), then Israel would be delighted. The only possible counters to that, besides Iran, are China and Russia. Lebanon’s leaders have some very hard choices ahead,” according to Declan Hayes.
“The reality is that Lebanon has long been in the cross hairs not only of Israel but she is one of the seven countries, along with Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran that General Wesley Clark said the USA had listed for destruction in his 2007 interview,” according to Declan Hayes.
Faraan: Over the past weeks, we have been witnessing a growing tension in Lebanon’s ties with some Arab regimes, which is apparently due to the anti-Saudi comments of Lebanese Information Minister George Kordahi on the Yemen war.
The fact is that Kordahi made these remarks a month before the starting of his role in the government and he was one of the TV presenters, who was proudly invited by the Saudi channels at the same time.
Speaking exclusively to Qods News Agency, Irish political analyst Declan Hayes said on Wednesday that the comments of George Kordahi will undoubtedly have consequences for Lebanon.
“The reality is that Lebanon has long been in the cross hairs not only of Israel but she is one of the seven countries, along with Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran that General Wesley Clark said the USA had listed for destruction in his 2007 interview,” he noted.
The Irish political expert went on to say that “the destruction of those seven countries is the medium term objective of Israel and her allies.
It is within the parameters of those objectives that the Persian Gulf State autocrats work in Yemen, in Lebanon and elsewhere.”
“Although flush with cash, they are not independent actors but, as Yemen shows, can operate only with the military muscle of the USA, Israel and their satellites behind them.
The same applies in the non-military sphere where, for example, Qatar can host the 2022 World Cup and Saudi Arabia can buy English Premier League side Newcastle Utd, all without sanctions or censure because they are the USA’s puppets,” Hayes said, referring to the steps taken by some Arab regimes against Yemen, Syria and Lebanon.
He also talked about the France’s policies towards Lebanon, stressing that “France, along with the West’s other fading powers, see the chance for further booty in Lebanon.
The French, like the Germans, the British and other powers, must sell weapons to those who can afford to pay for them.”
“The military market, along with the financial services and luxury goods market, is not only a lucrative one but it ensures NATO affiliated vultures will never be on the side of justice in Lebanon or anywhere else,” Declan Hayes added.
PNAC: a document between Israel & US [implanted by Israel: Jewish neo-cons]to invade 7 Countries within 5 years to help usher in NWO
The 7 nations on the list of invasion:
🔹 Iraq The war of Iraq was intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the “American imperialists” that our enemies always claimed we were. [Whistleblower for 9/11 and Iraq war] (https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=ErJQ59qFpTE )
🔹 Lebanon: General Clark has recently said ISIS was created to attack Hezbollah for the Israelis. Israel was defeated by 3,500 Hezbollah fighters in the 2006 Lebanon war. ISIS has fought against Hezbollah but they also attacked Syria and Iraq. The Syrians are Hezbollah’s closest allies. The US hired Jihadist proxy armies including Al Qaeda and ISIS to attack Syria using false allegations of chemical weapons. The US paid the Jihadists to kill 300,000 Syrians including 100,000 Christians.
🔹[Syria] (https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=DvLF9x0kGIs) & Libya President Obama surrounded himself with ‘Soft Power’ advocates like Susan Rice and Samantha Power. Obama did attack [Libya] (https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=1nszLUuILko) and Syria using proxies. That fit in with the ‘Soft Power’ program. It also met the guidance given by Richard Perle in A Clean Break. He had written in 1996 that Syria should be attacked by proxy armies over the issue of chemical weapons. Nobody believed the charges the Obama admin just recently made that Syria was again using chemical weapons to kill civilians. All of the previous allegations had been proven false. Obama followed the Israeli agenda by attacking Libya and Syria for them. My question is… will American people wake up and put a stop to war crimes in Syria? Or will we sit around and let the US murder Assad like they did [Gaddafi?] (https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=LQCwgcZqStc )
🔹 Sudan The USA and Israel encouraged the civil war. Since at least the early 1990s the USA funded the SPLA. Even former U.S president Jimmy Carter acknowledges the US role in destabilizing Sudan in the 1990’s. The Boston Globe in 1999 quoted Carter as saying, “The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is US government policy. The US is committed to overthrowing the government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by policies of the United States…. Instead of working for peace in Sudan, the US government has basically promoted a continuation of the war.” In 2011, the US backed South Sudan independence. A U.N. report in March 2016 accuses [South Sudan’s pro-government forces of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including systematic rape of civilian] (https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=I_6lpOJVWGk). Democracy is not what South Sudan wanted, but it wasn’t up to them. [Democracy in Sudan] (https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=RA50TO7t2mY) was part of the PNAC and the US helped installed it.
🔹 [Somalia & Yemen] (https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=N2XuK10xhzo) The Obama administration supports the Saudis in the Yemen war. Saudi Arabia is responsible for 60 percent of about 3,800 civilian deaths in Yemen, according to a UN human rights office report published in August. Saudi warplanes targeted markets, hospitals, schools and other civilian targets, the report says. The US supports the Saudi war effort by selling arms to the Saudis and providing refueling and logistical assistance. In November 2015 the US announced a $1.29 billion deal for precision munitions specifically meant to replenish Saudi stockpiles used in Yemen. In September 2016 the US Senate gave the go-ahead for a $1.15 billion sale of tanks and other military equipment to Saudi Arabia by blocking the bill opposing the controversial transaction. In December 2016, the Obama administration is [expanding the war to Somalia.] (https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=LMsUSEGFeas)
🔹[Iran] (https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=tvq9pfaB6DI) You might have noticed that the US never did get around to attacking Iran. In 2007 PNAC member Dick Cheney ordered US Navy Seals to attack a US Navy ship in the Persian Gulf so he could use the incident as an excuse to launch World War III by striking Iran for Israel. The Navy Seals refused to obey Cheney’s order so he backed down. Cheney had another go at starting WW III on August 8, 2008 when he and the Israelis convinced the nation of Georgia to fire a tank and artillery barrage at South Ossetia killing almost 2,000 civilians in the first few hours. That did not work out well for the conspirators. Russia defeated the Georgians and their US and Israeli advisers rather quickly. [Whistleblower on Iran] (https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=Z41QaC-xAIo)
Today corporate media is programming the mass population to hate Russia, china and Iran and favor Israel. Are they setting up the foundation for WW3? Russia, Iran, china vs Israel & US? The bankers could possibly get away with this if the majority of Americans fall for their propaganda, but I think many have woke and see right through them.
American soldiers have been subjected to one tour after another in poorly thought out wars. These wars all have something in common, the US banks use our military to invade countries the US banks yet to have control of. We take over their resourses, either it be oil to heroine in Afghan. We overthrow their governments and replace with a friendly puppet/govt to the US banks. The wars in Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Syria appear to benefit Israel. Will American soldiers wake up and choose not to fight WW3 for the criminal bankers?
Paul Craig Roberts used the words Murder Incorporated to describe America. We are not a righteous nation defending the poor and oppressed. Historically, Murder Inc was an organized crime syndicate created by Louis ‘Lepke’ Buchalter who killed people for money. The United States is not being paid to invade countries for Israel. In fact the US paid Israel over $30 billion in aid which the Israelis cycle back in part to buy American politicians.
Similarly, Britons can criticise Britain, but not Israel. Germans can criticise Germany… and so on.
What does this tell us? It tells us that, in spite of how Britons, Americans or Germans vote, they are not free to form their own governments.
There is a non-elected government that controls the UK Parliament, the US Congress, the German Bundestag, and many other legislatures.
It is a foreign reign of terror run by Israel and its Zionist networks.
Have you wondered why so many members of the US Congress have Israeli citizenship?
Or why a US citizen in Texas has to pledge allegiance to Israel (promise to refrain from participating in the boycott of Israel) in order to keep her job in Texas?
Over 50 per cent of US states, including Texas, has anti-BDS legislation.
The laws vary from state to state, but anti-BDS legislation has been widely challenged on legal grounds, and with good reason.
Without going into the specifics of the various anti-BDS laws, it would suffice it to say that unless Israel is officially a part of the US (or vice versa), state enacted anti-BDS laws violate the US Constitution by engaging in foreign relations (granting political privileges to Israel) – a right reserved for the federal government.
Moreover, whether state or federal law, prohibiting boycotts is a violation of the US Constitution’s First Amendment – the right to free speech and the right to political boycott.
In the US, as in all Western nations, “elections” and governments have become institutions of Zionist vetted and sustained selections.
Yet, we falsely believe that we exercised choices; that there were choices to exercise.
If you live in a “Western democracy”, your government supports Zionism, at least in the sense that it has buckled under to it.
Look at what happens to rare conscientious objectors, like Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Represnetative Ilhan Omar in the US.
My hat goes off to those honourable human beings for what they have endured in their attempts to pursue justice.
We might not all have the intellectual or emotional capacity of Corbyn and Omar, but we can surely all pull our weight. We mustn’t get intellectually lazy.
When a country acts against its own interests in favour of Israel, what does that mean?
Does it mean that Glasgow, Vancouver, Milwaukee and Bonn are Israeli territory?
Your guess is as good as mine. One of the five criteria for being a country is having borders.
To the best of my understanding, Israel has never established borders.
Therefore, we don’t exactly know where it is.
The USA has military bases in over 130 countries – some sources say over 170 countries.
But since Israel controls the US to the extent it does, the US is not a sovereign nation.
It would be more accurate to call it the USI.
No – Israel is not a country like any other, it is the world’s largest and oldest terror network, and it has achieved territory, no borders. We can call it Terror Without Borders.
In the run up to the recent Israeli elections, we saw Binyamin Netanyahu forming a partnership with Otzma Yehudit, or Jewish Power, a group that openly advocates the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. 2
Jewish Power, whose leaders have a long history of expressing support for the persecution of the Palestinians, the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine, the banning of intermarriage and sexual relations between Jews and Arabs, proudly call themselves disciples of Meir Kahane.
Similarly, Netanyahu’s primary challenger, former Israeli army chief Benny Gantz, broadcast a promo bragging about how much killing and destruction he committed in Gaza in 2014, in a series of campaign videos for his political party, posted on YouTube and social media prior to the elections.3
The Israeli New Right’s co-leader, Ayelet Shaked, performed in an advertisement where she sprayed on perfume from a bottle labelled “Fascism”, proclaiming that it “smells like democracy to me”.
That sort of thing works in Israel – a country where well over 90 per cent of the voting population have chosen to support ethnic cleansing. For over 70 years!
You can’t say that about the population of Saudi Arabia or any autocratic country.
You can’t even say it about the 12-year autocratic rule in Hitler’s Germany. Hitler was a crazy despot who, somewhat democratically elected, became a genocidal maniac.
In Nazi Germany, you could be killed for being Jewish. Or Roma. Or homosexual, etc.
In Israel, you can be killed for not being Jewish.
Zionism’s claimed raison d’être is that Jews from anywhere have a right to “return” to Palestine/Israel after thousands of years.
The logic changes in mid-sentence: Palestinians – although their right to return to identifiable properties can be verified (many families even retain keys to homes they were expelled from) – must accept “the realities on the ground”, after 70 years.
We are all Palestinians. The statement is not to be construed as cheapening the suffering of the Palestinians.
It is said to indicate that we all run the risk of the destiny that is theirs, if we don’t start resisting, like they have for over 70 years.
“We are all Palestinians” is also not to be construed as indicating that Rwandans, Sudanese, Congolese, the people of Yemen or any other people are not equally deserving of protection.
“We are all Palestinians” simply signifies that we are subject to the exact same dynamics of Zionist pursuit as the ethnically diminished Palestinians. Just at an earlier stage.
Zionist greed isn’t a legitimate cause, nor is the freedom to perpetuate it at everyone else’s expense.
Yet, the infliction of intellectual anaesthesia, alternated with threats, that we endure to prevent us from realising this, and from rising up against the obliteration of democracy is forceful, repeated, and often accompanied by popular symbols of freedom.
Anything to create a total chaos in the mind. Chaos and fear. Or simply exhaustion.
What levels of brainwash will we accept before taking back reason and humanity?
How much corruption of the minds of our children and ourselves are we willing to accept from institutions of learning or from “news” outlets?
This article addresses some of the reasons that our overriding pursuit of democracy needs to be concerned with, first and foremost, throwing off the multi-level terror of Israel.
The issues of this article will be roughly divided into the following four subsections (although they overlap to a large extent):
Democracy presupposes informed consent of the people to be governed.
How and why are people “educated”?
Is it a matter of opinion or fact whether the World Trade Centre exploded or imploded?
Punished for noticing the largest scale holocaust in known history
Democracy (people power) is a term derived from the Greek demos(people) and kratos(rule).
Democracy can exist only with the informed consent of the people, the governed. Consent is meaningless unless it rests on relevant information. Democracy does not exist where votes are either obtained by fraud or embezzled after the ballots are counted.
Democracy dies where information is suffocated.
What happens to your vote after the poll count? Does it die behind closed doors?
If the decisions that impact the “represented” are made behind closed doors, as a result of so-called lobbying that is inserted between the voter and the decision-maker, the vote is effectively cancelled.4
Israel sports an unbroken legacy of generation after generation of democratically elected genocide.
To achieve the Israeli brand of democracy, however, the population – the demos — had to be replaced, with Zionists.
The result is an ethnically cleansed democracy – voilá! That is Israel, or occupied Palestine or whatever you choose to call it.
As Israel has no borders, its brand of “democracy” affects a few other countries as well.
How do other Zionist-ruled countries replace the demos and its natural choices with Zionists, ruling in ways that go against the interests of the majority of people?
It is not necessary to replace every non-Zionist by eliminating them physically in all countries.
It often suffices to eliminate their ability, or their courage, or just their energy to think.
Was it Steve Biko who said that the most powerful weapon in the hands of an oppressor is the mind of the oppressed?That is pretty incisive and succinct.
To confuse us from seeing clearly, Hitler ramrodded down your throats throughout our educational captivity.
We are simply not told that Zionism is older and more organized than Nazism.
That that’s how it has had the time to achieve such depth and magnitude, to become even more deadly, more culture-suffocating.
In order to prevent us from noticing a holocaust even huger than Hitler’s mind-boggling genocide of Jews and Roma and many others, almost everything we have heard about Israel in school consists of outright fabrications.
Below: Rolf Mengele regarding his father, SS Dr. Josef Mengele. Joseph instructs son that his knoweledge of him is based on lies and propaganda.
I’m not just talking about how we were deceived about Israel’s “inception” or the 1967 war.
I’m talking about almost everything we are told about Israel in school.
Or did your teachers tell you that the plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine and replace the population with immigrants started in the 19thCentury?
Yet, we are compelled, by subtle and not so subtle terror permeating all areas of life, to reason and act against our better judgement.
The terror is executed, for instance, by attacking access to facts; instilling fear of retribution for asking questions or analysing; creating emotional exhaustion by ignoring obvious truths, making people prove self-evident things ad nauseum. Let’s have a look at how we are “educated”.
2. How and why are people “educated”?
Let’s start with the question of why anyone who has the power to influence education would want to educate people about anything.
The reason is likely to compel them to act in a certain way.
It has been explicitly stated in various terms that perception management and, where that doesn’t work, action management is at the core of Zionist goals.
The Oded Yinon Plan and the Project for the New American Century are but two chilling examples.
How are such plans implemented in daily life? How can the mind and its perceptions be controlled? One has to rinse the brain of competing impulses, including the impulse to question.
Hijacking and loading the language is a favorite means of controlling people’s thoughts and actions.
Ponder the term “holocaust denial” its expanding definitions, its application and who is excused from its reach.
Another perfect example of this type of brainwash is the term “diaspora”.
It implies a right to “return” to a place, i.e. it presupposes dispersement from a common geographical origin.
How about the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict”?
I’m particularly impressed with that deflection.
How about “conspiracy theorist”? Am I a conspiracy theorist?
I understand the term “conspiracy” to refer to the planning of a crime by more than one person.
Do I believe that more than one person is involved in the biggest heist since white supremacy – Zionism – which is expanding to new depth and magnitude as we speak?
Yes. I will explore the term anti-Semitismin a separate article.
For the time being, I will work with the following definition: I understand the term “anti-Semitism” to be limited to include any person or notion that does not support Jewish supremacy,
as naturally manifested by the right of Zionist Israel to create a Jewish democracy that has a right to defend itself against discomfort in any form by eliminating the suggestion of any threat to its way of life, by any means necessary, limited to the territory of Israel Without Borders.
While blackmail, extortion, racketeering, bribery, murder, money laundering, embezzlement, arson, robbery, dealing in obscene matter, etc. constitute prohibited acts in most or all legal systems, Zionist terror networks need not fear the application of these prohibitions to them, anywhere in the West.
In the US, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO) is a federal law that provides for severe criminal penalties and civil causes of action for mafia-like tactics and organised crime which affects interstate or foreign commerce.
RICO covers the aforementioned crimes and others, when performed as part of an ongoing criminal organisation, and provides that leaders of a syndicate can be tried for crimes they have ordered.
We know that RICO is not enforced against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) or similar networks.
Instead, these entities’may, and do, offer all-expenses-paid trips to Israel to each member of the US Congress, while enjoying the privilege of “legal” backing by a system that has “found” these trips to be educational.
This is a result of brainwash, as well as of subtle and not so subtle coercion of law-enforcement agents, including judges. Law-enforcement agents have been carefully educated in what they can and can’t “find”.
Similarly, acts of extortion, harassment, slander, libel, sabotage, persecution, including threats to life and livelihood, are determined to be “lobbying” if done by a Zionist.
Let’s compare the benign term lobbyingto the knee-jerk term terrorism. Obviously, if a Muslim engages in these practices, they are to be labelled “terrorism”.
Stated differently, the terms “lobbyism” and “terrorism” are interchangeable to a large extent,distinguished only by the identity of the actor, not by any element of the act.
Please folks, please, stop calling these acts “lobbying” – reinforcing the smoke screen plays right into the hands of the vilest terrorists on record.
Let’s consult the experts on how education works practically on an ongoing basis.
How do you go about information-suffocation, including culture-suffocation, with the aim of achieving reality replacement and maintaining self-censorship among the masses?
Following is a selection of means for Isra-Zio occupation of mind territory.
a. Israel’s internet-Invasion – Google, Wikipedia, the “Anti”-Defamation League, etc.
It is increasingly difficult to find certain relevant information on the web, even when you know it is there, including things you have viewed before, or even published yourself.
It is obvious that algorithms are re-set to catch what suits Google, the ADL, AIPAC and their ilk, while they simply remove a lot that threatens to shed light on Zionist terror.
[inaudible], in conjunction with My Israel, has arranged Instruction day for Wiki editors. The goal of the day is to teach people to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world… We wanna be there. We wanna be the guys who influence what is written there, how it’s written, and to ensure that it’sbalanced and Zionist in nature (emphasis added).
b. AIPAC and campus control
One avenue of culture strangulation / enforced cultureis the concerted threat-mechanism that has been part and parcel of Western campuses for a very long time.
One example is the onslaught on University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) students who voted in favour of the boycott Israeli products campaign, BDS. UCLA students have told me that one student received a phone call in which he was informed that if he voted for BDS, he “will never go to med[ical] school, you’ll see”.
Another student received a death threat around the time of the vote, but was not able to determine where the threat came from.
In the following clip from an AIPAC conference, AIPAC tells you in its own words how it replaces people who don’t agree with Israel (in the United States government and on campuses):
AIPAC student outreach:
A short version of AIPAC’s announcement of how it will take over student governments can be seen here:
c. Presstitution and the role of mainstream media
The above explains how the same blatant fabrications can come at us from hundreds of media outlets simultaneously, giving the illusion that so many reports must be based on actual facts or events.
When “investigative” journalists of almost all media outlets collectively lose the drive or the courage to investigate, they fall in line with official narratives that couldn’t be true by the laws of physics.
How many suspect that something is wrong with, say, the official 9/11-narrative? Why do they choose to remain silent if they do suspect?
Could it be that the overwhelming majority of journalists accept, or even agree, that it is necessary to keep the essential truths from the readers,to keep them voting for forces that bring about their destruction? Is the press one of these forces?
Does the press aim at subjugating us into thinking the government’s thoughts for it? Is the Press, like the legislature, the judiciary and the executive, and arm of the government in Western “democracies”?
If almost all “investigative” journalists are entirely without opinion, or integrity, in relation to the issues they spend their careers writing about, why do we keep calling them journalists? Shouldn’t they be referred to as presstitutes? 5
It would be less confusing. The alternative would be to declare almost every journalist of a mainstream “news” outlet mentally and emotionally unequipped to understand the results of what they write.
That might be preferable, since it clears them of responsibility for complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely, aiding and abetting the most sinister and well planned world war in our documented history.
There are a precious few conscientious objectors among mainstream journalists.
For example, Marc Lamont Hill. Look what happened to him.
3. Is it a matter of opinion or of fact whether the World Trade Centre exploded or imploded?
The reason I address this issue here is that the official 9/11 story has become one of the most devastating devices of deception that Zionism uses to gear the masses towards accepting endless war.
It is deception management at its finest.
The Official 9/11 narrative is one of those issues (mentioned below) that come to us in sealed envelopes, permitted conclusions provided within.
Questioning any part of it invokes reprisals; suggesting it was an inside job is taboo.
I have been called a “conspiracy theorist” for disbelieving the official narrative of how the 9/11 bombings against some of the most surveilled places in the world were planned and carried out by a man operating from a cave in Afghanistan, probably while on dialysis.
(What do you call someone who believes it?)
I have been met with angry responses like “Are you a holocaust denier as well?” “Are you anti-Semitic?”
My initial reaction to these responses was to wonder what kind of somnolent mind would jump to that impression from what I said.
However, I had to reflect anew when a very intelligent, honest, and well-educated friend recently stated that her main reason for believing the official story of 9/11 was that she couldn’t believe that so many people would be able to remain silent about what had actually happened.
She said that people in the know would not be able to keep quiet about it; that if there were people other than Muslim terrorists behind the bombings, they would start talking about it.
They do talk about it! But she is justified in not knowing that people go to great lengths, confer and compare notes, to pursue fact-finding on 9/11.
Most media outlets never touch the matter.
Even more interesting, in a sense, is that most media didn’t question who did it even in the very beginning. So, they didn’t have any questions to start with? Now, that chills me.
No, truth isn’toptional. There is a wide spectrum of room for opinions, but it is not a matter of opinion whether the World Trade Centre exploded or imploded.
Ask any engineer who hasn’t sold his or her mind. Or just ask any person who has seen an implosion.
The official explanation we receive for the collapse of the Twin Towers is that they exploded as a result ofbeing hit by jets. Yet, this doesn’t explain why the third tower of the WTC (Building 7) imploded in the same manner after not being hit by a jet. Does it?
The 9/11 example highlights the compelling need for history laws (discussed in the next section) in order to prevent our minds from wiggling about in the pond of knowledge. Perception managers will have you believe that it is your extremist leanings that lead you to doubt the official account.
4. Punished for noticing the largest scale holocaust in known history
We are in the midst of the largest scale holocaust in our known history. Over 40 million Muslims, and counting, have been ethnically cleansed as a direct and intended result of meticulously planned Zionist-operated wars.
But we don’t have a name for this holocaust.
It is a matter of no mention in every major news outlet.All focus must be reserved for the German holocaust.
Let me rephrase that. We must focus on the part of the German holocaust that targeted the Jews.
I just referred to that holocaust with a lower case “h”. Definitely anti-Semitic.
We have laws against “holocaust-denial”, which includes asking questions about the German holocaust. What happened? How many died?
You can go to prison for asking questions like that in Europe, and you are pretty much guaranteed to lose your job.
Not in 1619. In 2019. In other words, these history laws criminalise research and the broadcasting of information about the German holocaust.
The idea is that we don’t need to ask questions, because all legitimate questions have already been asked and answered by the relevant authorities.
The questions have been served upon us in sealed envelopes, permissible conclusions provided within.
In a message on YouTube, Gilad Atzmon argues that history is the attempt to narrate the past as we move along.
Accordingly, he says, history becomes a meaningful adventure once we revisit and revise the past.
He indicates that when history becomes a sealed, untouchable, chapter, it is to be equated with a religion and, when this happens, we have the right to be agnostic.
I note with sadness that not only do we lack the freedoms of information, thought, speech and press, but also the freedom of religion.
Germany has an anti-Semitism commissioner, and other countries have similar governmental posts. To protect Semites? Hardly.
Only Jews (I should sayallegedlyto protect the Jews) – Semites or not. So, what are these commissioners expected to monitor, and to prevent or punish? Xenophobia?
Or research and analysis? What I see is that we are punished in many ways if we notice the unparalleled genocide unfolding before us. In the Western world we are fond of boasting that we have democracy.
But we persecute those who try to enjoy it, by attempting to silence them with blackmail, threats and slander, or other methods that are formally illegal in every system of nominal democracy.
Danish journalist Poul Osmundsen is a case in point.
His published article, “Asmaas holocaust-porno [on] Facebook“,6 took issue with a photo gallery that Asmaa Abdol-Hamid posted on Facebook, which features photographs of the Nazi and Zio holocausts.
The title of the photo gallery translates as “the holocaust of our time”.
Osmundsen dedicated his entire article to what he called “holocaust porno” and “anti-Israel death-porno”.
He went on and on with variations on that theme.
Untroubled by facts, Osmundsen was unmoved by what he saw in the photos. That shocks me. I was very disturbed indeed by what I saw.
But Osmundsen was outraged that Abdol-Hamid dares to equate the Nazi holocaust with the Israeli holocaust.
I use the present tense about the gallery, because it is still available to view.
Osmundsen complained about the site’s 5,000 followers.
At the time of writing it had 10,845. His main complaint concerned the fact that pictures from the Nazi extermination of Jews were coupled with corresponding pictures from the Israeli-Palestinian “conflict” (sic).
He ranted about the distasteful anti-Israeli propaganda of equating Israel’s “policy” (sic) towards the Palestinians with the Nazi extermination of Jews; was outraged by the temerity of likening Palestinian deaths to Jewish deaths, of calling the Zionist holocaust planned.
He considered the photo of a dead Jew to depict the holocaust.
A similar photo of a dead Palestinian to depict “Palestinian death-porno”.
The mendacity of his article was outshone only by the intensity of his hatred, possibly paralleled by a perplexing stupidity.
His revelling in terms like “porno” (the article was replete with sexual innuendo) is interesting.
When I read his rantings and ravings, I felt a sense of embarrassment for witnessing what was nothing short of an onanistic frenzy of narcissism.
One does wish that people would do these things in private.
Osmundsen asserted that Israel practices self-criticism, that it punishes those who persecute Palestinians, but that the media fail to report this.
Osmundsen explained that, “in Arab culture”, no distinction is made between Israeli and Jew – they are all guilty.
In “Arab culture”, theyfail to distinguish the guilty from the non-guilty. The article was supplemented by shocking outpourings of raw hatred, in the comments section. Shocking outpourings.
And Zionism is to be treated as a political ideology?
Only in Israel. Osmundsen refers to Israel as “the only democratic legal system in the Middle East”.
He gripes about reprisals against those who mention the elephant in the room, where Muslims are concerned.
He complains about hate speech.
Yet, we must give credit where credit is due.
Osmundsen was correct about one thing: equating the Nazi with the Zio holocaust isunfair.
It can’t be right to compare a 12-year rule by a crazy despot to a country where the majority chooses ethnic cleansing for seven decades.
And claims that 70 years of genocide is legitimate self-defence. That comparison really is unfair to the German people.
It is a complete waste of time, of course, to discuss anything with any avid Zionist, as with anyone else severely afflicted with narcissism and delusions of grandeur, not to mention sociopathy.
The trouble with Zionism is that these ailments are prerequisites for becoming a Zionist.
All analyses of relevant matters should therefore be geared to educating sane people about Zionists.
Or those able and willing to be cured, who just happened to get caught in the crosshairs of hasbara(Israeli propaganda) and been confused by it.
I hesitate to call the current state of affairs World War III, because to my way of thinking, World War II didn’t end.
There were regroupings and new methods of pursuing Western supremacy, now with Zionism leading the charge.
But I haven’t seen a decrease in violence or ethnic cleansing since World War II supposedly ended. On the contrary.
These are some of the reasons why it is more important to oppose Zionism and Israel than any other country or entity.
“When the ICC investigates Israel for fake war crimes, this is pure anti-Semitism.”
Well, as usual, there is good news and bad news.
The good news is that the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has finally received authorization to proceed with the investigation of possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Israel-Palestine, to include both the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and also Hamas in Gaza.
On February 5th ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced that her office is now studying the decision made to confirm ICC’s jurisdiction and would be “guided strictly by its independent and impartial mandate” to investigate and prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The ICC has already ruled in December 2019 that “war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip” but was waiting for confirmation that it had jurisdiction to proceed.
Both the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and armed groups including Hamas were named as possible perpetrators.
The bad news is that Bensouda has been replaced as the United States is already intervening in support of its best friend and closest ally in the whole world and will inevitably do all sorts of stupid things that do not serve its own interests when the Israeli tail starts wagging the American dog. Count on it.
That has apparently already included pressure exerted both by Washington and Jerusalem behind closed doors to make Bensouda go.
She was replaced last Friday by British human rights lawyer Karim Asad Ahmad Khan, who is expected to be more accommodating to Israel and might even decide not to proceed with the investigation.
There has also been some speculation that the ICC was waiting for Donald Trump to be gone as Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had already more-or-less declared war on the ICC back in June 2020.
The Trump White House had sanctioned key members of the court and had also blocked the travel to the U.S. by investigators associated with it.
It threatened to arrest anyone who cooperated with the investigation. Washington also warned in the strongest terms that there would be “consequences” for any attempt by the court to investigate or punish Israel.
The Joe Biden White House clearly is on the same page on the issue, releasing the following State Department press statement on February 5th, immediately after the ICC decision became public: “Today, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a decision claiming jurisdiction in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, while expressly recognizing the serious legal and factual questions that surround its ability to do so.
As we made clear when the Palestinians purported to join the Rome Statute in 2015, we do not believe the Palestinians qualify as a sovereign state, and therefore are not qualified to obtain membership as a state, or participate as a state in international organizations, entities, or conferences, including the ICC.
We have serious concerns about the ICC’s attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel.
The United States has always taken the position that the court’s jurisdiction should be reserved for countries that consent to it, or that are referred by the UN Security Council.”
State Department Spokesman Ned Price provided additional commentary on the press release, saying “We will continue to uphold President Biden’s strong commitment to Israel and its security, including opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly.”
Neither the U.S. nor Israel is a signatory to the Rome Statute that created the ICC.
The argument Washington is using is essentially a legal one, at least at this point, that Palestine is not a “sovereign state” and that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over any county that is not a signatory.
Both are, of course, debatable. Israel has also taken steps to prevent any investigation by the court on its soil, to include the occupied territories and it is not clear if Egypt will allow ICC investigators to enter Gaza from Sinai.
The initial issue that turned Washington against the court in 2018 was the concern that it would begin inquiries into possible U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan since 2003, where both avoidable deaths and torture have been well documented.
The U.S. used at the time the argument that it was not a signatory to the ICC but, as Prosecutor Bensouda observed, one does not have to be a signatory to be investigated as the court was specifically set up by the Rome Statute in 2002 to inquire into atrocities where there had been no accountability, either because the local government had no ability to do so or chose not to investigate itself.
So, it is all a bit of a non-starter since Israel and friends are non-signatories and will not cooperate while the United States will be using all its resources to stop the process stillborn.
But that is not exactly the way it might play out.
If the court holds the Israeli government accountable for war and human rights crimes those countries in Europe and elsewhere that are signatories to the ICC might consider themselves obliged to honor arrest warrants naming senior Israeli government officials whenever they are traveling.
Israel is predictably reported to be already seeking to make arrangements whereby it will be warned by “friends” in foreign chanceries whenever such warrants are issued.
And then there is the matter of Israel’s approval rating vis-à-vis the rest of the world, which is already low, hovering down at the bottom of the list together with the United States.
To be sure, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands all that and has reacted sharply to the ICC decision to proceed.
He said: “When the ICC investigates Israel for fake war crimes, this is pure anti-Semitism.
The court established to prevent atrocities like the Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish people is now targeting the one state of the Jewish people.
First, it outrageously claims that when Jews live in our homeland, this is a war crime.
Second, it claims that when democratic Israel defend itself against terrorists who murder our children, rocket our cities, we’re committing another war crime.
Yet the ICC refuses to investigate brutal dictatorships like Iran and Syria who commit horrific atrocities almost daily.
As Prime Minister of Israel, I assure you, we will fight this perversion of justice with all our might.”
Israel’s security cabinet subsequently endorsed Netanyahu’s criticisms, describing the “outrageous” decision as one that “exposes the court as a political body, standing in one line with international organizations driven by antisemitic principles.”
The Netanyahu government’s response is, of course, typical boilerplate that seeks to cast the Jewish state as a perpetual victim surrounded by a sea of anti-Semites.
The only thing Netanyahu’s statement left out is the claim that Iran will have a nuclear weapon in weeks, but the Biden Administration’s Secretary of State Tony Blinken has already said that for him.
The drum roll includes “fake war crimes,” “Nazi Holocaust,” “pure anti-Semitism,” “defend itself against terrorists who murder our children,” and “brutal dictatorships like Iran and Syria who commit horrific atrocities almost daily.”
The reality is quite the reverse with the Israelis committing real war crimes by attacking its neighbors almost daily to include frequently killing Palestinian children.
The horrific atrocities are being committed by the Israeli Army and the armed monstrous settlers against helpless Palestinians on both the West Bank and in Gaza.
One might add the theft of Arab land, the destruction of their houses and livelihoods, and the lack of any due process for those who live and die under the brutal occupation.
The numbers tell the tale. According to United Nations records, 3,601 Palestinians have been killed and over 100,000 injured by Israel between 2010 and 2019, versus 203 Israelis killed and 4,700 injured in the same time period.
And now, when there at last might be some real accountability for Israel’s crimes, the United States, under Netanyahu’s thumb, is yet again on the wrong side of the argument.
I learned a while back to be especially skeptical of western mass media and their governments.1
My experience of life in China is nothing like how western demonization portrays it to be.
Therefore, I looked forward to the chance to experience North Korea first hand.
I traveled there with a Chinese group departing China. Starting out from Dandong, China, we crossed the Yalu River to Sinuiju, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).
From Sinuiji we took a train to Pyongyang and explored other areas of the DPRK in 2017.
Abrams does this by focusing on a United States-designated enemy state: the DPRK.
Abrams begins with the history.
He writes about the role of Lyuh Woon Hyung (aka Yo Un Hyung)3 and the seldom-mentioned grassroots formation of the People’s Republic of Korea at the end of World War II, a republic that was successfully functioning before the arrival of the Americans in Korea.
However, the “independence and nationalist character of the People’s Republic was seen as a threat to American designs for the Korean nation…” and the republic was deposed and outlawed. (p 14)
The US split the peninsula into northern and southern states.
The United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) ruled the southern half of the Korean Peninsula using the despised former Japanese occupiers to aid in ruling.
Later the US brought in an Americanized Korean, Sygnmann Rhee, to be a dictator.
The US staunchly opposed reunification fearing a democratic result that would bring about socialism in the entire peninsula.
North Koreans formed their own government and at the outset outperformed the Republic of Korea (ROK, i.e., South Korea) economically.
To maintain a grip, the Americans and Rhee government brutally suppressed socialism in South Korea, committing many massacres. (ch 6)
This helped set the stage for war on the peninsula.
Abrams casts serious doubt on the notion that the war in Korean was started by the North.
Several South Korean attacks on North Korean communities “confirmed by U.S. and British intelligence” and the seizure of the small North Korean city of Haeju initially confirmed by South Korean sources. (p 68)
Regardless of whichever side fired the first shots, Abrams posits this may be inconsequential to the actual casus belli. He points to
… the forceful abolishment of the Korean People’s Republic and later extremely brutal suppression of its remnants by the United States Army Military Government with the assistance of youth groups–described as terrorists even by their American allies–and with the backing of the Rhee government itself. (p 59)
After the onset of war, the DPRK almost achieved a quick military victory, but after the US landing at Inchon, the forces and military equipment of the US were too much for the small republic to withstand.
In addition, the DPRK was facing a United Nations coalition arranged to back the US.
The US pushed back and carried out a scorched earth campaign. General Douglas MacArthur of the UN Forces in Korea referred to the devastation as “a slaughter never heard of in the history of mankind.” (p 65)
Chapters 3 to 8 in Immovable Object are a must read to grasp the magnitude of the extreme brutality and gore fomented by US warfare; the killing of civilians (including South Korean political prisoners);4 widespread rapes and sexual violence; torture by US forces; its willfulness to lie for imperial ends; the obliteration of agriculture (to create famine), industry, cities, towns, and buildings; firebombing and the use of chemical and biological weapons along with the demands by the US military brass to use nuclear bombs.
*****
US wars are not only a function of its government and military. It is important to realize that the US carries out it warring and provocations against foreign countries often with overwhelming approval of the American populace.
Abrams writes that the majority of American citizens supported using nukes against North Korea.
(p 131) American public support for warring was also evident by support for intensified bombing by the US during armistice negotiations.
(p 224) That this American public support for militarism was not an anomaly was revealed during the US attacks on Muslim nations following 9-11, with 70% of Americans indicating a belief in Saddam Hussein being connected to Al Qaeda. (p 390)
*****
Massacres and gore were a staple of US-inflicted violence in Korea. Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and My Lai are just more recent accounts of the cornucopia of American war crimes. WARNING: The following accounts are graphic!
Kim Sun Ok, 37, the mother of four children [who had been] killed by a bomb, stated that she was evacuated in the village by Americans…. The Americans led her naked through the streets and later killed her by pushing a red-hot iron bar into her vagina. Her small son was buried alive. (p 175)
Kim Sen Ai, another 11-year-old girl…, said she was in the fourth class in school when American soldiers entered her village and apprehended her and her parents. Her mother was a member of the Korean Workers’ Party, and so earned special treatment–her breasts were cut off. Her father was tortured and thrown in a river, and her four-year-old sister was then buried alive. (p 177)
Jo Ok Hi, chairman [sic] of the Haeju women’s organization, was imprisoned and submitted to slow torture. Her eyes were pulled out, and after some time her nose and breasts were cut off. (p 178)
The Commission of the Association of Democratic Lawyers issued a report that concluded:
Taking the view that excessive murders are not the result of individual excesses, but indicate a pattern of behaviour by the U.S. forces throughout the areas occupied by them… the Commission is of the opinion that the American forces are guilty of the crime of Genocide as defined by the Geneva Convention of 1948. (p 183)
With the US military approaching the Yalu River despite warnings from China to steer clear, China entered the war and together China and the DRRK pushed the US-ROK-UN forces back to the middle ground of the peninsula.
China had recently emerged from a civil war, and the war on the peninsula was a costly proposition for China.
The middle ground represented a return, more-or-less, to the geopolitical border prior to the outbreak of war. Here was a seeming stalemate, perhaps a result that war-weary combatants could accept without loss of face.
But Americans threw a wrench in talks to end the war by
… what can only be described as gross violations of the law and serious war crimes.
These pertained to the brutal mistreatment of prisoners including killings, medical experimentation, torture and coercion of the most extreme kind to force them to remain behind enemy lines after the war’s end. (p 230)
China has trumpeted the end of the warring 70 years later as a victory for itself and North Korea. Abrams is more circumspect: “Which party, if any, ‘won’ the Korean War5 remains open to interpretation.” (p 240)
The results reverberate through to today as the clean-up for unexploded American ordnance is estimated to endanger North Koreans for another century. (p 66, 242)
An armistice has been signed but no peace treaty; therefore, the foes remain technically at war.
The DPRK has learned from its experience and has made itself militarily adept at defending itself.
North Korea has become a leader in underground fortifications, and has placed much of its armaments and materials deep beyond easy reach of missiles.
Northerners have also become technically proficient and have developed an intercontinental ballistic missile capability of striking anywhere in the continental US, including submarine-launched ICBMs.
These missiles can be topped with miniaturized nuclear devices and pose a most credible deterrent.
And a deterrent it is, as the DPRK has pledged no first use of nukes — unlike the US. As well, it is well known that the DPRK will not hesitate to respond to provocation.
The DPRK’s nuclearization has prevented any attack against it by a rational actor, as both sides would be extremely bloodied and damaged by such a conflict.
It is an important lesson that Iran ought to closely consider: the effectiveness of military strength, including nuclearization, as deterrence.
In fact, much of Iran’s missile capability and fortification resulted from cooperation with the DPRK. (p 289-295)
Libya paid the price for
… having ignored direct warnings from both Tehran and Pyongyang not to pursue such a course [of unilaterally disarming], Libya’s leadership would later admit that disarmament, neglected military modernization, and trust in Western good will proved to be their greatest mistake–leaving their country near defenseless when Western powers launched their offensive in 2011. (p 296)
Has South Korea Not Also Paid a Price for Trusting Western Goodwill?
Abrams examines how the ROK has fared as an independent and sovereign state.
Is South Korea independent and sovereign?6 Asked Abrams, “Could America claim to ‘liberate’ southern Korea while at the same time occupying it, forcefully dismantling its existing government and threatening those Koreans who did not abide by its will with death?” (p 310)
Abrams describes the “apparently sadistic pleasure [American] personnel took in tormenting the [South] Korean people…,” (p 312) the objectification of “servile Korean women,” (p 313) and the massive expansion of the Japanese system of comfort stations.
“Methods used to recruit comfort women to serve American soldiers involved rape and violence to disorient and break women in.
They would afterwards have little choice but to ‘consent’ to sex work for the U.S. Military.” (p 327)
In contrast,
Pyongyang not only abolished the comfort women system from 1945, but strictly enforced the outlawing of prostitution entirely and establishing formal legal equality for women…. [Thus] the nation’s dignity, pride and right to self-determination were never violated–neither were its women. (p 330)
DPRK Resilience
In the 1990s, the North Koreans were hit hard by weather calamities, crop failures, while the western sanctions continued to be applied, but the DPRK pulled through what they call the Arduous March.
How did the North Koreans resist? Early on, the war-ravaged homefront on the Korean peninsula ably put up a staunch defense, abetted by a Chinese peasant fighting force.
North Koreans practice Juche (self-reliance) and Songun, a military first posture that “is firmly rooted in resistance to external pressure as a means of safeguarding Korea independence.”
(p 553) To this end, the DPRK has emphasized modernization, advanced technologies, and providing for economic needs.
Pyongyang Photo: kim
The DPRK has a no first use of nukes policy, but any strike against the DPRK will result in a lethal counter attack.
It must be emphasized that the DPRK military’s orientation is: “among the most defensively oriented in the world, with its power projection capabilities negligible to non-existent–in stark contrast to the U.S. Military which is heavily oriented towards overseas power projection.”
(p 437) Along with having achieved a self-sustaining economy that provides the basics for the people, it would appear that the DPRK has withstood, and some would say triumphed, against US machinations aimed at the country and its system of governance.
To be fair, it is not just US warring against the DPRK. Every country that participates in the warring and sanctions against the DPRK, arguably, has sullied itself.
Take Canada, for example; Canadian peace activist James Endicott was harassed by his government for verifying American biological weapon use in the war, in which Canada was also a belligerent against the DPRK.
(p 141) Reporter George Barrett wrote that Canadian troops along with US troops committed “widespread and regular rapes.” (p 168, 184) Egregiously, Canada was also a destination for human trafficking of young girls and women from South Korea. (p 330)
It must also be pointed out that in stark contrast to western forces committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Korea, the Chinese and North Korean troops were highly disciplined in their conduct toward civilians and adversaries. (p 152)
A Highly Recommended Read
Abram has irrefutably laid bare the intentions of US imperialism. Immovable Object leaves no stone unturned.
The sordid history of the US toward Koreans, in the north and south, is scrutinized, detailed, and substantiated.
It is a battle of ideologies that drives Americans to pursue information warfare (actually a disinformation war) and economic warfare (sabotaging the economies of designated enemy states through sanctions, “a weapon of mass destruction,” and hence the well-being and lives of the people in targeted countries).
In the case of imposing US hegemony to Korea, it appears that while the US is succeeding in the ROK, it has suffered ignominious failure against the DPRK.