Libertarian Today

Obama Takes Bush’s Plutocratic-Socialism to the Next Level

2009-07-04T10:04:00.000-07:00

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com)

It has been noted by observers of both Left and Right that the Obama administration has adopted nearly exact duplications of the Bush administration’s authoritarian policies in a multitude of areas, both foreign and domestic. And now it appears that Obama and the Democrats are only going to accelerate the economic plutocratic-socialism which became a problem during the Clinton administration, increased exponentially in the Bush years, and is poised to consume the entire country and its economy under the Obama presidency.

Matt Taibbi has a deeply disturbing article at Rolling Stone that serves as a microcosm for the problem of plutocratic socialism and crony capitalism revolving around how mega-bank Goldman Sachs has had its hand in helping the U.S. federal government engineer a succession of economic bubbles that both knew would inevitably burst (most recently the housing and commodity bubbles, for example), in a partnership that has lasted decades:

“The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s…”

In more recent times, however, as both the Democratic and Republican parties have sealed their tacit agreement for each not to penalize the other on this joint plutocrat-socialist corruption, the bubbles have become ever larger and more frequent. These modern bubbles started in the 1990’s, when President Clinton and his Goldman Sachs-alumn Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin allowed investment banks to engineer the Internet bubble. Writes Taibbi:

“Companies that weren't much more than pot-fueled ideas scrawled on napkins by up-too-late bong-smokers were taken public via IPOs, hyped in the media and sold to the public for megamillions…[bankers] did this by setting up what was, in reality, a two-tiered investment system — one for the insiders who knew the real numbers, and another for the lay investor who was invited to chase soaring prices the banks themselves knew were irrational. While Goldman's later pattern would be to capitalize on changes in the regulatory environment, its key innovation in the Internet years was to abandon its own industry's standards of quality control.”

And banks like Goldman relied on inside-men like Rubin to see to it that they were never penalized or prosecuted for their fraud.

So how is a failure to properly regulate the banks and the markets to prevent this kind of fraud plutocratic-socialism? Essentially it arranges a transfer of wealth from average Americans to a highly-centralized, government-connected elite that cycles in and out of government regulatory and upper level policy-setting positions. In addition to using government regulators to rig markets, this elite relies on the largesse of government itself to buy-off potential "oppositional" party opponents and critics with pork. It also relies on the moral authority of and intimidation factor of big government to convince average Americans that the corrupt enterprise is legitimate. ‘After all,’ the average American thinks to himself, ‘if anything was remiss, the government would step in. That’s why we pay for this vast government bureaucracy.’ The vast size and scope of government itself essentially becomes a party to the enterprise and helps convince Americans that all is above board, and if it's not, it's all too big to fight, anyway. Moreover, the vast size and scope of the government is maintained by charging much of its expense (the deficit and national debt) on the national credit card, which is essentially a process of selling future generations of Americans into debt servitude -- which is itself a profitable enterprise for bankers and the big-spending politicians who partner with them.

As the federal government and the two-party regime running it have become ever more corrupt, the bubbles have become ever larger and more frequent. And it is these successively more frequent bubbles that have destroyed the American economy, bankrupted Americans, and simultaneously made these revolving-door federal government elite/plutocrat-socialists in both parties rich -- wealth recycled back to politicians who then use it to reinforce the corrupt system and ensure their own re-election.

Taibbi says following the engineered Internet bubble was the housing bubble, and most recently, the commodities bubble, all following the same basic template of elected, big government "regulators" working with their big business cronies to write legislation conducive to the successful perpetration of the fraud.

So according to Taibbi, what bubble is up next for the Obama regime and the financial sector cronies who played such a huge role in financing both his and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns? Listen up, lefties: the scam is “green,” and known as Cap and Trade, which will create a government engineered carbon credit “market” ripe for abuse by the crony capitalists and plutocrat-socialists who are initiating the entire scheme -- including former vice president Al Gore.

Concludes Taibbi: "Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm's co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion- dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade. The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance."

Actually, Taibbi should note that former Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson isn’t really “gone” at all. He’s part of a partnership that owns the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), a “commodity” marketplace where buyers and sellers of carbon credits and permits do business, paying CCX a commission on each transaction.

*Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

Giuliani advisor extols virtues of Palestinian suffering; are Americans next?

2008-01-01T14:29:00.000-08:00

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Featured in Jewish World Review and headlined ‘The Benefits of Palestinian Economic Collapse,’ one of Rudy Giuliani’s large coterie of Neocon advisers wrote in a recent article that the more Palestinians suffer, the better off they are.

Daniel Pipes, the founder of the McCarthyite group Campus Watch, a thought-police organization that that monitors academia for criticism of Israel, had the following to say about the virtues of subjecting Palestinians to privation:

‘For Palestinians, hope derives from a perception of Israeli weakness, implying an optimism and excitement that the Jewish state can be eliminated. Conversely, when Palestinians cannot see a way forward against Israel, they devote themselves to the more mundane tasks of earning a living and educating their children. Note that the Palestinian economy peaked in 1992, just as, post-Soviet Union and post-Kuwait war, hopes bottomed out to eliminate Israel.’

‘Exhilaration, not hardship, accounts for bellicose Palestinian behavior. Accordingly, whatever reduces Palestinian confidence is a good thing. A failed economy depresses the Palestinians' mood, not to speak of their military and other capabilities, and so brings resolution closer.’

If destroying Palestinian morale had a positive correlation toward resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, certainly the entire decades-long mess would have been settled years ago. The Jewish state has premeditatedly, sadistically and steadily strangled the life from the Palestinian people since its inception in 1948. For decades, Palestinians have suffered at the whim and mercy of Washington-funded Zionist troops who have systematically turned the occupied territories into a Jewish-administered gulag camp in an effort to drive Arabs out of the Levant and secure a firm foothold for an expansion-minded Jewish empire.

Jewish Zionist Pipes goes on at length in his article about how poor and inept the Palestinian economy is and how relatively prosperous the Jews living right next door are (the clear implication being that Palestinians are too backward and primitive to conduct their own economic affairs) without mentioning the billions in currency and material welfare injected into the Israeli economy annually by the Israel-lobby bought US Congress, the fact that the Jewish economy derives much of its lifeblood through exploiting the cheap labor of its non-Jewish second class citizens, and the fact that the Israeli government does everything within its power to wreck the Palestinian economy at each and every opportunity available.

No doubt the economies at Dachau and Belsen weren’t too hot, either.

But what really fascinated me about Pipes’ article is his Judeofascist thought-process. Like nearly all Judeofascists, he employs the same kind of logic as that used by Big Brother in Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. Recall the Party’s three main slogans: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. In the case of the Palestinians, Pipes apparently wants to add: PRIVATION IS PROSPERITY.

And I don’t believe that Pipes’ mindset towards Palestinians in particular and gentiles in general is uncommon among Jewish Zionists.

Recently in Philip Weiss’s blog Mondoweiss, the author lamented of his fellow American Jews that “as an autonomous ethnic group, we are accountable only to ourselves. It's completely out of step with millennial America, where Jews are part of the establishment and have true power, the ability to influence others' lives. It would be nice to see more responsibility.”

My response in the Comments section of that blog is relevant to the discussion of the mindset of Pipes and other Jewish-American Zionists:

‘Dream on, Phil. You yourself recently cited an AJC poll that (despite unconditional support for Israel for decades, to great US tragedy and detriment) found that 87% of US Jews still see American anti-Semitism as "a very serious problem" or "somewhat of a problem" and found that 91% of US Jews expected anti-Semitism around the world to "stay the same," "increase somewhat," or "increase greatly."

‘Fear and loathing, paranoia and neurosis obviously isn't the result of anti-Semitism in America; they are obviously conditioned into the Jewish people by organized Judaism itself for its own purposes. And you want that irrational, paranoid, neurotic collective filled with fear and loathing of the gentiles that surround it to act "responsibly" toward people that they believe mean them harm? That itself is a fantasy.

‘Kevin McDonald is right: Due to their conditioned fear and hatred of gentiles, most Jews in America (unfortunately) comprise a "hostile elite."

‘This explains why America is having, and will continue to have, huge social, political and economic dislocation: a powerful minority within despises its neighbors, and on some level wants to see them suffer. It also apparently believes it is an imperative to extract as many resources as possible from them before those neighbors finally and inevitably turn on them so they can at least live comfortably in Israel with their extracted loot.’

The fact that the Giuliani campaign has so many Jewish Zionists advising it should scare a lot of Americans. The American Conservative recently did a cover story that took a close look at the Giuliani brain trust, and nearly all of them were fanatical Zionists. That disproportionate influence is not unlike the state of affairs in Washington, where much of US foreign policy is bought and paid for by the Israel lobby, and Congress is under heavy Zionist influence. Consequently, Washington has apparently internalized the Zionist mindset; its stubborn unwillingness to bring US troops home as demanded for months now by an overwhelming majority of Americans is a reflection of that.

The treacherous Jewish Zionist and philosemitic gentile elite that has Washington firmly in its grip has a deep-seated contempt not only for Palestinians, but apparently for Americans as well.

How long before it starts economically strangling Americans in order that ‘they devote themselves to the more mundane tasks of earning a living and educating their children’ and quit pestering Washington about sacrificing those same children to a Middle Eastern Jewish empire?

We are all Palestinians now.

Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com and Judeofascism.com

What is "Judeofascism"?

2007-12-17T18:24:00.000-08:00

(By Chris Moore, Judeofascism.com) -- What do Bolshevism, Zionism and Neoconservatism have in common? In addition to being murderous, elitist, authoritarian and organizationally insular, they are all mass political movements in which Jewish ideologues played decisive and even definitive roles. In fact, without the Jewish contribution to each, they likely all would have been rendered either historically stillborn or unconceived altogether.

And although all three are scattered along the traditional Left-Right political spectrum, the Jewish network at the intellectual and political center of each has exhibited consistently fascist characteristics both operationally and in its bigoted treatment of “out-group” religions, ethnicities, opponents, rivals, dissidents, and even neutral bystanders. Hence all three can be categorized, to varying degrees, as Judeofascist movements.

In modern history, perhaps the history of the world, no ethno-religious-political network has inspired more chaos and mass murder, yet been able to remain virtually anonymous and even unnamed. It's death toll is staggering, easily in the tens of millions, and the devastation it has wrought is incalculable: tens of millions more maimed, rendered homeless, disenfranchised and financially ruined; families separated and broken, never to be reunited; civil wars sparked and governments overthrown.

What, precisely, is Judeofascism and, given the earth-shattering consequences of its political manifestations, how has it been able to keep itself hidden largely below the radar of mass consciousness? Researchers are only beginning to scratch the surface of its nature, motives and modus operandi, but certain characteristics and patterns in its behavior, organization and composition are beginning to emerge:

--If diaspora Judaism has been described as a "nation within a nation," Judeofascism might be described as "a network within a nation within a nation."

--Judeofascism is a fascist political network comprised of an elite, self-selected religo-ethnic Jewish membership.

--Not all Jews are Judeofascists, but all Judeofascists are Jews, and Judeofascists have repeatedly leveraged organized Judaism on behalf of their agenda.

--Judeofascists believe that Jews are racially and religiously superior to non-Jews (gentiles) and that this supremacy gives them certain rights and privileges over gentiles either through historical fiat or in the eyes of God -- rights and privileges that should be extended and formally incorporated into the laws of man. These beliefs spring from a fixation on the supremacist components of the Jewish religious canon in general and the Talmud in particular, which expresses contempt and hatred for Christ and generally portrays gentiles as unclean, inferior and to be regarded with fear and loathing. It also springs from the living canon of Judeofascist experience, wherein the historically successful subjugation of gentiles by Judeofascist networks reinforces Judeofascist delusions of grandeur and supremacy.

--Judeofascism also draws its racialist beleifs from Jewish racial law, wherein only those born of a Jewish mother are worthy of "chosen" status, and from Israeli race law, which awards Jewish citizenship (and thus privilege) based upon Jewish bloodlines. Jewry as defined by Jewish or Israeli law then goes through a process of social natural selection wherein only the most shameless, clever, manipulative, greedy and ruthless of the Jews emerge into the ranks of the Judeofascists.

--Judeofascist racial supremacist beliefs find expression both in Judeofascist-constructed Israeli apartheid law (which formally extends special rights and privileges to its Jewish citizens over its non-Jewish citizens) and in Judeofascist attitudes towards and treatment of gentiles outside of Israel.

--Wherever they are located, Judeofascists regard the manipulation, subjugation, exploitation and general usury of gentiles as ethically, morally and spiritually justified due to the gentiles' inferior, non-chosen status. They regard their "rights" over gentiles as divinely, racially or historically ordained and self-evidently validated by the very ability of Judeofascists --through their collective guile--to successfully subjugate gentiles (and the inability or unwillingness of the gentiles to do anything about it). Judeofascists see Israel's ongoing ability to flout gentile international law without consequence as further evidence of Judeofascist supremacy.

--Judeofascism has no membership roles, political charter or political headquarters. However, as with any network of like-minded and subversive individuals that wishes to remain anonymous and unscrutinized, Judeofascism often operates within existing religious and secular institutions in the diaspora in order to co-opt their resources, credibility and power on its behalf. The Israeli government also regularly harbors its operatives and itself has been regularly co-opted on Judeofascism’s behalf.

--Usually, wherever there are Jews in large numbers, self-selected Judeofascists will coalesce into a unit or cell, which together comprise the Judeofascist network. In most cases, the network works on behalf of organized Judaism or Jewry, but at times it puts its own goals ahead of Jewry and is willing to sacrifice even masses of Jews to its agenda. Zionism's collaboration with Nazism during World War II in order to make the creation of Israel an international imperative is one such example of this strategic sacraficialism. A more contemporary but less consequential example (albeit one with a similar potential for violence) is the regular, angry, public denunciations by Neocons of their Jewish opponents in America as “self-hating Jews.”

--While there are technically no gentile Judeofascists, Judeofascism does receive financial, spiritual and material support and sustenance from useful idiot gentiles the world over. This comes A) through foreign aid and weaponry gifted to Israel by other governments, or through wars or military engagements fought by them on Israel's behalf (such as the Iraq war); B) from superstitious, bible-educated Christian Zionists who see "the Jews" as God's chosen people whose continued ingathering in Israel is a necessary component to eventual Rapture, Armageddon and the return of Jesus; and C) from more secular, "compassionate" and ostensibly intelligent Judeophile gentiles from both the liberal and conservative traditions who regard Jews as both perpetually embattled, and racially or socially gifted, and hence worthy of "protected status." The historical persecution of many Jews contributes to this line of thinking, even though anti-Semitism has usually been the consequence not of gentile bigotry, but rather of Judaism's arrogant, foolish and naive tolerance, protection and on-again, off-again collaboration with the Judeofascists in its midst.

This website approaches the Judeofascist problem from a pro-Israel perspective to the extent that it believes Jews have the right to self-association , self-determination and self-governance within a clearly demarcated Israel proper. However, it is anti-Zionist in that it believes Israel should extend all the rights and privileges enjoyed by Jews to its non-Jewish citizens (which is anathema to Zionism) if its wants continued aid and welfare from the West. (This web site believes all states the world over should be subject to such secular, pluralistic litmus tests). Alternatively, Israel can remain a Zionist state but be deprived of foreign aid and assistance and instead rely on contributions from sympathetic individuals the world over (both Jew and non-Jew alike) if it so chooses.

This website also believes that punishment for Judeofascist aggression is best dealt with by Jews themselves to the most reasonable and effectual extent possible. This means that those diaspora Jews who have not committed any technical crime, but who have demonstrated a pattern of intractable social subversiveness and active enmity and hostility towards gentile social cohesion on behalf of the Judeofascist or Israeli agenda that collectively amount to an attempt to fatally undermine or overthrow gentile self-governance and hence deprive gentiles of their own right to self-determination, should be stripped of their diaspora citizenship and deported to Israel without further punishment. Those Jews who are suspected of a technical crimes such as treason or sedition, or conspiring to overthrow or undermine the democratic process in gentile nations on behalf of the Judeofascist or Israeli agenda should first be tried and, if found guilty, punished by the gentile nations in which the crime was committed before loss of citizenship and deportation to Israel, similar to the way in which illegal alien criminals first serve time in domestic prisons prior to deportation. (Christian Zionists or Judeophiles attempting to overthrow gentile self-governance on behalf of Judeofascism either knowingly or through ignorance should be punished by the nations in which the crime was committed as appropriate.)

The continued existence of Israel is obviously a necessary component of this theoretical remedy to the Judeofascist problem, which has been a centuries-long plague upon humanity (particularly the West).

Clearly, for those interested in the continued existence, maintenance, prosperity and progress of Western civilization, ignoring the Judeofascist problem is no longer a viable option.

Chris Moore is publisher of Judeofascism.com and LibertarianToday.com (a libertarian-populist website)

No Iran nukes, says US intelligence; Thankfully, America didn’t listen to “World War” braying Neocons

2007-12-04T12:25:00.000-08:00

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- The collective judgment of the United States’ best intelligence agencies has concluded that Iran long ago suspended its nuclear weapons program, which remains in mothballs to this day, according to recent analyses.

“A new assessment by American intelligence agencies made public Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold,” reports the International Herald Tribune.

The new National Intelligence Estimate, which represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, contradicts apocalyptic rhetoric that emanated from the White House following President Bush’s meeting with Neconservative guru and professional warmonger Norman Podhoretz, a Jewish nationalist Zionist who received the Guardian of Zion Award from Bar-Ilan University in May of 2007.

As reported in September by Politico:

‘President Bush and Karl Rove sat listening to Norman Podhoretz for roughly 45 minutes at the White House as the patriarch of neoconservatism argued that the United States should bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. The meeting was not on the president’s public schedule. Rove was silent throughout, though he took notes. The president listened diligently, Podhoretz said as he recounted the conversation months later, but he “didn’t tip his hand.”’

Following that meeting, President Bush began publicly painting dark visions of the future unless Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program -- a program that US intelligence now says hasn’t been functioning for years.

“The administration called new attention to the threat posed by Iran earlier this year when President George W. Bush suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to "World War III" and Vice President Dick Cheney promised "serious consequences" if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program,” reported the Herald Tribune. “Yet at the same time officials were airing these dire warnings, analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency were secretly concluding that Iran's nuclear weapons work halted years ago and that international pressure on the Islamic regime in Tehran was working.”’

Americans should be thankful that Jewish nationalist Zionist agitator Podhoretz, who has been steadily lobbying for the bombing of Iran and “World War IV” for months, didn’t get his wish.

Recall back in June, holding forth in the Zionist fever swamp Commentary magazine in an article titled ‘The Case for Bombing Iran,’ Podhoretz wrote the following:

“As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department’s latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism’s weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.”

In a follow up interview, Podhoretz compounded his pro-war rhetoric with a strange utterance that really said more about the usurious state of mind of he and his fellow Jewish nationalist Zionists and their latent hatred of Americans than it did about the supposed “Islamofascist” enemy he was urging war against:

“Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will,” Podhoretz said, “we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.”

Podhoretz later released a book titled “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism” in which he fantasized that America is merely in the early stages of an epic conflagration with Islam that will be fought for years to come.

Now take Norman Podhoretz and multiply him by thousands of pro-war, Jewish nationalist Zionist agitators, and what you get is the Israel lobby. Take the Israel lobby and combine it with an ignorant Christian Zionist like president Bush, and what you get is the Iraq war.

This is why these Jewish nationalist Zionist agitators should be deported to Israel: they are more loyal to that country than they are to America; they want to use the blood of American soldiers and the treasure of American taxpayers to secure a Jewish empire in the Middle East through world war; and like the Communist agitators who were deported to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, they are highly organized, disciplined, subversive and insidious.

If Podhoretz had had his way, America would have bombed Iran by now for its non-existent nuclear weapons program and probably be in the early stages of a world war that he and the Israel lobby helped to conjure.

Podhoretz is currently working as an advisor to Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign along with other well-known pro-war Jewish nationalist Zionists such as “Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, who has called for profiling Muslims at airports and scrutinizing American Muslims in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps; and Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has written in favor of revoking the United States’ ban on assassination,” according to the New York Times.

Jewish nationalist Zionists of this ilk are riddled throughout the American establishment, in both parties, on both sides of the aisle, in in the halls of Congress as lobbyists, in the corporate boardrooms, and in US government agencies. Many of them are no less dedicated to sparking an American war against the entirety of Islam on behalf of a Jewish empire than is Norman Podhoretz.

Why even Michael Chertoff, absurdly a Secretary of Homeland Security for the US who has “de jure” Israeli citizenship and a record of funneling million of US taxpayer funds to US Jewish organizations for “security,” is among their ranks

They are warmongers, and they won’t stop until America is either neck deep in a bloody world war, or they have been deported to Israel, which is where their hearts truly lie anyway. Anyone who denies this is either simply ignorant of the history of Judeofascism (which spawned Bolshevism, Zionism and Neoconservatism), a Zionist collaborator sympathetic to their cause, or a selfish coward -- too scared, politically correct or financially-absorbed to fight back against the most potent threat to American democracy of the modern era.

I hope the FBI is reading, because if it didn’t know it already, that agency and the rest of the American intelligence and security communities have a fight on their hands -- and it’s not with Islamofascism.

Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

Destined to remain in Sisyphean hell, Neocons are dragging the West into their ordeal

2007-11-28T07:37:00.000-08:00

From Wikipedia: “In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was a king punished in the Tartarus by being cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll down again, and repeat this throughout eternity.”

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- The Neocons were warned by libertarians that the invasion of Iraq would be a disaster for both Israel and America. The insight wasn’t one of divine revelation or special powers of prognostication, but rather of common sense and the observation of nature and history.

Historically, occupying powers almost never succeed in subduing the occupied and, when success is attained, it is short term and comes at an ultimately intolerable cost to the alien power’s country or empire of origin.

In the past, empires most certainly have been able to plant seeds that grew into replicants of the empire that then took on lives of their own (ie British in N. America, Spanish in S. America) but that was before the Western civilization collective had settled those continents, and while the West was still working towards fidelity to its profession of God-endowed human rights for all, including the right of native peoples to self-governance.

While not perfect, libertarian factions in the West, in conjunction with modernity, are still working towards those ideals, but are being obstructed and drawn backwards by Neoconservative totalitarians, who, operationally, are a collaboration between Judeofascists and Christian Zionists.

The Judeofascists are warped by the history of Jewish persecution, which in most cases flows from Jews collectively surrendering their sovereignty to cynical, charlatan Judeofascist leaders who then set the Jewish people in opposition to rationalism out of a combination of religious delusion, narcissism, egoism and opportunism.

Similarly, the Christian Zionists, through subservience to their charlatan leader Bush, have surrendered their sovereignty to the Neocons, who, utilizing the same Pharisaic tradition as the Judeofascists, have pitted the US against the Islamic world out of a similar combination self-important arrogance and hubris.

Just as the Judeofascists have always led the Jews to ruin (and always will), Neoconservatism is leading the US to ruin and always will. Yet in the warped, deluded collective mind of the entity, it sees its mission as essential and, indeed winnable -- if only the US invades one more country or sheds a bit more blood.

Just as Sisyphus was supernaturally forced to continue the futile effort of rolling the boulder up the hill time and again in a Greek version of hell, so too are the Neocons spiritually motivated to persist in their futile effort to attain totalitarian control over the Middle East. They seem to believe that in doing so, they can perhaps leverage such a position into totalitarian control over humanity.

Such are the delusions of “faith” as interpreted by Neoconservatism, which in its Judeofascist/Christian Zionist incarnations means not only the suspension of disbelief, but the suspension of judgment itself.

Perhaps the hate-blinded way in which the two components of the Neoconservative collaboration each interpret their respective religions leads to a similarly acquiescent, malleable mindset amongst the followers, one conducive to the psychological suppression of critical thinking and scientific evidence, and hostile to the lessons of history unflattering to their respective tribes.

To be sure, Muslim totalitarians are caught in their own irrational, Sisyphean hell. But then, they don’t attempt to pass themselves off as modern and enlightened; they admit what they are and confess their intentions and bigotries. Fortunately, the innate intolerance and bigotry of Islamic totalitarianism leads, inevitably, to a self-negating Islamic schism.

No doubt, the Neocon Christian Zionist/Judeofascist axis will itself one day self-negate, but because it is not nearly as honest as Islamic totalitarianism, in the mean time it is far more dangerous.

Misery loves company, and so the Neoconservative movement is attempting to drag the world into its own version of hell by passing itself off as sophisticated, rational, modern and enlightened. And much of the West seems to be falling for this charade, proving that the Left-liberal establishment that now dominates the West, grown fat and soft on the coatails of rationalism, is intellectually unsuitable to the task of critical thinking necessary to defeat Neoconservatism.

In fact, due to years of worshipping at the altar of political-correctness, Left-liberalism’s own repressed masses may now be as malleable as the mass of Christian Zionist, Judeofascist, Islamic totalitarian intellectual peasantry.

No wonder the Neocons have been able to take the West down the Sisyphean road as far as they have. The Left-liberal “opposition“ is as morally and intellectually bankrupt as those it professes to oppose.

Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

Bush: Iranian “knowledge” of how to make the Bomb enough to trigger World War 3

2007-10-17T17:13:00.000-07:00

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- 10/17/07 -- True to his pattern of using false claims to justify wars of agenda (recall Bush’s pernicious inferences that Saddam Hussein had ties to the 9/11 terrorist attacks used to deceive Americans into Iraq) the president is again playing deceptive word games in order to lower the threshold necessary to trigger his latest dark ambition: war with Iran.

"We have got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," President Bush recently claimed of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "So I have told people that, if you are interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

What a clever mix of rhetorical propaganda, verbal gymnastics and outright lies -- all masked by a thin veneer of feigned idealism -- Bush and his neocon speechwriters are capable of employing in order to push America ever further down the road toward a Middle East conflagration.

Let’s start with Bush’s outright lie: "We have got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel."

What Bush is referring to is a 2005 speech in which Ahmadinejad is alleged to have said "Israel must be wiped off the map."

The problem is, even though the so-called quote was widely reported in the propaganda organs of Western media and to this day is parroted on television, in magazines and newspapers by neocon ideologues with a pro-war agenda, Ahmadinejad never actually said any such thing.

In an article entitled 'Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century, Farsi speaker Arash Norouzi painstakingly corrected the mistranslation of Ahmadinejad’s statement:

‘So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime," pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

‘So this raises the question...what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," despite never having uttered the words "map," "wipe out" or even "Israel.” ’…

‘The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).’

How can President Bush, with elaborate worldwide intelligence institutions like the CIA and billions of dollars worth intelligence resources at his disposal, possibly be unaware of the correct translation of Ahmadinejad’s speech? Of course, he isn’t unaware. The president is fully aware of what Ahmadinejad really said, but the correct translation is inconsistent with his war agenda, and so, like his neocon brethren, he has deliberately chosen to put false word’s into Ahmadinejad’s mouth and broadcast the so-called quote to the world as authentic.

But isn’t the distinction between whether the Iranian president said he wants Israel “wiped off the map” or said the “regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time” mere semantics? Aren’t Ahmadinejad’s malicious intentions clear either way? Don’t both translations cry out for war?

To find out, let’s look back to another set of “menacing” quotes from a powerful leader who once was alleged to have threatened an entire rival civilization with destruction during a period of heightened mutual animosity.

In the 1980’s, President Ronald Reagan was quoted as saying the Soviet Union was an “evil empire,” and joking through an open microphone that “we begin bombing in five minutes.” Using the same clever rhetorical tricks as Bush and the neocons have used in the Ahmadinejad case, Soviet commissars and Communist sympathizers of the time argued that Reagan was threatening to wipe the Soviet Union off the map, even though he never made any such threat.

What Reagan was saying with his “evil empire” crack was that the Soviet regime (not the Russian people) was evil and thus unworthy of its position of authority over those suffering under its yoke. Ahmadinejad is saying something similar of Zionists.

Reagan was pilloried by Soviet agitprops as an aggressor for his statements, just as Ahmadinejad is being pilloried by neocon agitprops as an aggressor today. It seems the formerly Trotskyite neocons brought their nasty Bolshevik rhetorical tricks with them on their journey from Left to Right, and are now employing them to facilitate war with Iran.

But even the Soviets didn’t take the absurd next step of threatening the country that had elected their outspoken critic with “preemptive” destruction as a consequence of a deliberate mistranslation of his words, as Bush and the neocons have with Iran.

***

Now, let’s move on to the second part of Bush’s quote, where after (falsely) citing Ahmadinejad’s alleged threat to Israel, he says “if you are interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [the Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

By inference, Bush thus seems to be insinuating the possibility of the following chain of events: Iran has threatened Israel with destruction, Iran is in possession of “knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Israel or the US feel threatened by this conjunction, Israel or the US preemptively attack Iran, and the whole sequence of events ends up sparking World War 3.

Yet Iran already has the know-how to make a nuclear bomb, it just doesn’t have the technology and materials in place to utilize it, and according to both Ahmadinejad and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the man monitoring Iran’s nuclear power development program as part of their respective countries’ nuclear power partnership agreement, it doesn’t have the will to make a bomb, either.

"The Iranians are cooperating with Russian nuclear agencies and the main objectives are peaceful objectives," Putin recently said.

Irregardless of the facts, through his rhetorical conjecture, Bush has managed to lower the threshold of justification for an attack on Iran from active, aggressive pursuit of a nuclear bomb to the mere conjunction of its attainment of “the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon" with the Iranian president’s threats to wipe Israel off the map -- threats he never made in the first place.

Thus, by Bush logic, if the US or Israel were to immediately attack Iran for possessing nuclear bomb making know-how and for Ahmadinejad’s non-threat, and consequently start World War 3 -- it would all be Iran’s fault.

And the neocons want Americans to believe that it’s the mullahs who are crazy?

Perhaps the “knowledge” that the Bush-Neocon Inquisition really fears, and from which it is hoping to distract its American subjects with an Armageddon-like bloodbath in the Middle East, is the knowledge that the Christian Zionist, Jewish nationalist Zionist and Big Government Conservative war profiteering coalition that makes up the Bush regime is no more representative of God-fearing Christians, Jews and Americans than the Soviet regime was representative of the people over which it ruthlessly ruled in Russia and the Eastern Bloc for so long.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no Ronald Reagan, but he does get one thing right: unjust regimes do indeed end up in the ash heap of history.

And the demise of the unjust regimes now ruling Tel Aviv and Washington will be no more lamented by the world than was the downfall of the Soviet regime by average Russian, Polish, Ukrainian and East German citizens who wanted nothing whatsoever to do with the Communist ruling elite’s murderous ways.

Average Americans want nothing to do with the crazed Neocons’ murderous ways either.

Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

How the Israel lobby has played the Democrats for fools

2007-09-05T11:10:00.000-07:00

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who recently bragged of being “a master in calculation and tabulation” whose “double proof” formulas showed the US wouldn’t wage war on Iran, may want to recheck his figures and compare them with Pat Buchanan’s assessment of the chances for such an attack.

On MSNBC on Monday, August 27, and in his follow up columns of August 28 and September 1, Pat Buchanan hit the nail on the head in identifying the powerful forces pushing for a US war against Iran, a war that Buchanan believes might be met (at least initially) with public approval.

As Buchanan noted on MSNBC: “I think if you took polls of the American people, they would put Iran right up at the top of America's enemies list.”

The recent US public paranoia over Iran, of course, isn’t based on reality, but rather on the latest neocon media campaign claiming anti-US machinations by Iran in Iraq, and portraying Iran’s ongoing nuclear power program as an imminent WMD “threat.” The propaganda has effectively allowed the Bush administration to scapegoat Iran for America’s self-inflicted Middle East wounds, and portray Iran as on the cusp of developing renegade nuclear weapons, which is a lie.

Buchanan continues: “So I think in the Democratic Party, of course, you've got the -- with due respect, you've got the Israeli Lobby and Israel, and you've got the hardline like [Sen. Joe] Lieberman, and you've got the Neoconservatives, and you've got a lot of evangelical Christians and others who think this is a real menace and you ought to hit them.”

Translated from PC-speak, what Buchanan is correctly conveying here is that the Democratic Party is in the grip of the Israel lobby not only in the form of groups like AIPAC and the office of “hardline Joe Lieberman,” but also in the form of other members of the Congressional Jewish nationalist caucus, which includes left liberal Jewish Zionists such as Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, Tom Lantos, Gary Ackerman, Howard Berman, Carl Levin, Steve Rothman and Barney Frank, among others.

On the other side of the aisle, Buchanan says, you’ve got a GOP hierarchy heavily influenced by “evangelical Christians” and providing it cover for war. What Buchanan really means is, not all evangelicals, but rather fanatical Christian Zionist dispensationalists, who make up only a percentage of evangelicals, but who are as committed to putting Israeli interests ahead of American interests as are the Jewish ethnic nationalists in the Democratic Party, but for different political, cultural and theological reasons.

In his follow up columns, Buchanan continues to drive all these points home: ‘Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on al-Quds camps for months. And a War Party facing lasting disgrace for having lied the country into an unnecessary war, and for having assured the American people it would be a "cakewalk."'

In its rush to ape the GOP, Buchanan says, the Democratic Congress has basically destroyed its own ratings on the war issue--and this just months after it was swept into power on a huge American backlash against Bush’s incompetent management of the Iraq war:

“Incredibly, only 3 percent of the nation gives Congress a positive rating on its handling of the war,” Buchanan notes.

Why didn’t the Democrats simply continue to ride the anti-war tidal wave all the way to another big victory over the wounded, discredited GOP? Again, due to the Jewish nationalist influence over party leadership:

“Last spring, Nancy Pelosi herself, after a call from the Israeli lobby, pulled an amendment that would have forced Bush to come to Congress for specific authorization before attacking Iran,” writes Buchanan. “Before the August recess, the Senate voted 97 to zero for a resolution sponsored by Joe Lieberman to censure Iran for complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.”

As blogger Arthur Silber observed, this vote has put the Democrats on record as supporting “an amendment that accuses Iran of committing acts of war against the United States. Thus, if we were to attack Iran, we would purportedly only be acting defensively, and in response to what Iran has already done. This amendment, based entirely on unproven, propagandistic, intentionally warmongering allegations, was pushed in large part by Lieberman. Democrats (and progressive bloggers) may condemn the former Democrat all they wish: the fact remains that every Democratic Senator who voted on this measure voted for it. When the wider war begins, they will have no serious basis on which to object.”

So what were the Democrats supposed to do, ask party partisans, cede the national security issue to the GOP by opposing the Lieberman’s censure?

Well, going back to the amendment that could have been used to stop a Bush attack on Iran that was killed by Nancy Pelsoi at the behest of AIPAC, (and from a sane, war-opposed perspective inline with the overwhelming majority of educated Americans), the Democrats could have done the following:

1) Passed the amendment forcing Bush to come to Congress for permission to wage war against Iran.

2) If such a request came, put forward a full throttle campaign portraying it as yet more GOP warmongering destined to compound America’s problems in the Middle East, consistent with the GOP’s last wrongheaded and misleading initiative against Iraq. Such a campaign would have properly educated the public about the minimal threat posed by Iran.

3) Rejected the request with the overwhelming support from the American people, which would have forced Bush to back down and limp from office in disgrace, thus solidifying the anti-war voting block going into the 2008 elections.

But it must be remembered: the Democratic leadership isn’t interested in what’s best for America or in advancing the will of the American people; they’re only interested in satisfying their Zionist partners and the actualization of a left-liberal, big-government, quasi-totalitarian state. War with Iran helps accomplish both.

The Democratic leadership didn’t want to allow their members to force Bush to obtain permission to attack Iran because they knew it would put them on record if and when the request came from Bush. Such a vote could have been painfully divisive to the party (in the same way their vote last May granting Bush the $120 billion Iraq war spending package with no strings attached has proven a problem ever since). Likely to pass, any Iran war vote would have demonstrated to the American public once and for all that the majority of Democrats are as complicit in America’s Middle East disasters as are the Republicans.

And if the American public realized that the Democrats were equally culpable, how could the party win the presidency by pulling off yet another bait and switch scam running as a force for “change” as it did in the 2006 elections? Simply put, it couldn’t. And so Pelosi killed the amendment vote altogether.

Democratic strategists thought the no-vote policy would accomplish two goals at once: an official position of ambiguity on Iran that, cynically, would allow the party to maintain at least some support from its huge war-opposed rank and file; and at the same time, advance the Israel lobby’s goal of a war with Iran (which is clearly the Bush administration default policy) by giving Bush a free hand to bomb without a any possible hitches--which is what originally motivated AIPAC to demand the amendment’s removal.

Of course, the Democrats didn’t count on the treacherous Joe Lieberman’s censure resolution, which forced them take a position anyway. And as a result, it has been all downhill for them since.

As Pat Buchan noted, when it comes to war, the Democratic Congress “has lost the hawks, and the owls, and the doves. No one trusts its leadership on the war.”

Indeed, few trust the Democrats now on anything at all; a recent Gallup poll found 55% of Americans disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are handling their overall job. And why should they be trusted? They have tried to manipulate and massage nearly everyone, and as a result, have ended up with the support of no one.

Their collapse is almost epic, but a Logic 101 student could have predicted such an outcome.

The 10 - 20% of Americans who are fanatical hawks are of course always going to back the GOP, which has proven time and again it will happily wage perpetual war against “Islamofascism” on behalf of Israel with no qualms whatsoever. But the owls (wise independents and realists) have been backing away from Washington’s Middle East adventures for months now, and or today in full retreat; and the doves have been loudly opposed to U.S. Middle East interventionism for years.

So why didn’t the Democrast simply side with the owls and the doves and ride the anti-war tidal wave to yet another overwhelming election victory in 2008? Because in their greedy grab for power, they tried to have it all ways: as the "strong on defense" (read war) party, and as the party of peace; as the pro-Israel party, but also the party of responsible Middle East policy.

The Democrats are also making terrible decisions because they are listening to the neocons’ secret weapon, the Democratic Jewish nationalist Zionists, who are so warped by their Israeli loyalties that they can no longer determine what is and is not in the Democratic Party’s best domestic political interests. And of course, the bitter Joe Lieberman, who still caucuses with the Democrats, is ever eager to repay in kind the party that rejected him in his 2006 primary and forced him to run as an independent.

What all this really boils down to is that the Democrats are a venal party of cynics, knaves, and fools, because they have no principles other than the quest for power, and because in that quest, they take counsel from groups that put Israeli interests ahead of American ones. The GOP can get away with such behavior because its large Judeo-Christian Zionist base has no problem subordinating what it views as an increasingly decadent and pagan America’s interests to those of the Judeo state of Israel. But with a large secular base opposed religious wars, such a strategy could never have succeed for the Democrats.

Of course, the delusional, scheming Democratic leadership apparently thought it could--so long as war with Iran was staved off until Hillary Clinton and a large Democratic Congressional majority were safely in office. But while successfully pounding away at the GOP on the issue of Iraq, the Democratic Party was back-stabbed by Joe Lieberman on behalf of the Right side of the Zionist-axis, which has now successfully moved the goalposts. The Democrats have been forced to buck up the battered and teetering GOP by siding with it on a contrived issue designed to demonize Iran in the form of a censure that was worded by Lieberman so as to be virtually fail proof .

Why were the Dems so easily played for fools? Perhaps they earnestly thought they could trust the historically Democrat-partisan Israel lobby to wait until 2009 for an Iranian war. But clearly, the Jewish Zionist coalition, which now includes many Republicans, wasn’t convinced that a future Congress, one that will likely be elected amidst an unpopular Iraq war, would be sufficiently hawkish to back a campaign against the Iranians--even one orchestrated by a president Hillary.

And so the U.S. is left once more with two parties at the helm in Washington DC hopelessly removed from the best interests of the people they purport to represent, and both yet again putting the country on the path to a destructive and unnecessary war.

Really, how much longer can a “democracy” with an unrepresented majority possibly continue to survive, let alone function?

Chris Moore is publisher of www.LibertarianToday.com

The Jewish nationalist problem in the Democratic Party

2007-07-13T14:46:00.000-07:00

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- In yet another public relations stunt designed to maintain the illusion that the Democratic controlled Congress is serious about withdrawing US troops from Iraq, the House has passed, for the third time, “Iraq withdrawal legislation” that is virtually guaranteed to either be vetoed by President Bush or die in the Senate, as Congress’ first two ploys at creating the appearance of voter accountability already have.

Yet when the opportunity presented itself last May to attach troop-withdrawal deadlines that could have been made to stick by repeatedly inserting them into the Iraq war-spending package, Congressional Democrats and their GOP allies instead overwhelmingly voted President Bush $100 billion more in US taxpayer funds to escalate the war with no strings attached.

Democrats claimed it was because the president vetoed the first bill they sent containing withdrawal requirements. Yet when it mattered most and all they had to do was stick to their guns and keep sending the president bills with drawdown deadlines until he signed one in order to secure funding for the troops, they instead quickly caved in and granted Bush yet billions more in unregulated war money after one meager veto. Talk about “opposition” theatre.

Is that the behavior of a body that really wants to end the Iraq war?

Time and again a majority of Americans have told Washington that the Iraq war was a mistake and to start bringing the troops home; time and again numerous politicians from the two-party system (especially its Democrat wing) have nodded gravely and said to the voters: “You have been heard.” And time and again the voters have been betrayed by their “representatives.”

Are these beltway cads politically suicidal, or do they understand something about the nature of the two party monopoly in Washington and how elections and policy there are bought and paid for by certain special interests that the rest of us do not?

Writing for CounterPunch.org, Jerry Kroth thinks so.

‘Bloggers called them "traitor Democrats", and the descriptor is apropos. At the time of the [$100 billion war funding] vote, sixty-two percent of the American people favored a time-table for a withdrawal, but, more significantly, seventy percent of Democrats were so inclined. Voting against this burgeoning tide of anger betrayed the will of the people and party that put these Democrats in office.

‘Curiously, all of the traitor Democrats were huge career recipients of funds from the Israeli lobby. If we took ten Democratic apostates and compared them to ten Democrats who stood by the voters, pro-Israeli PAC contributions were ten times greater for the turncoats than those who stayed with their constituencies ($322,000 versus $34,000 on average)…

‘Three months before we invaded Iraq, a New York Times poll showed only 30 percent of the American people favored an all-out invasion, but the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) did, and it prevailed. Hardly a sprinkling of Americans favored the "surge", a meager fourteen percent, but AIPAC did, and the surge is surging as we speak. Fewer than thirty percent of Democrats supported that no-strings-budget, but AIPAC did, and the conclusion plays out another hackneyed chorus of ‘Whatever AIPAC wants, AIPAC gets’.’

***

Over the course of the Iraq war, most Americans have come to understand that the modern GOP has been co-opted by militant Zionists whose (failing) retail political brand in the US is now widely known as neoconservatism. While it is true that some neocons (like President Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Guliani) are Christian Zionists, the overwhelming majority of the movement’s intellectual and political movers and shakers are Jewish nationalist Zionists: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Scooter Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, and Charles Krauthammer, to name just a few. All of these men were instrumental in lying America into the Iraq war.

What is not widely known is that a large percentage national Democratic Party politicians are also Jewish nationalist Zionists, and many of them are in party leadership positions.

For example, Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the Democratic caucus and the fourth highest ranking Democrat in the House, was a patriotic volunteer during the first Gulf War in 1991 -- for Israel. As chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2006 elections, Emanuel hand-picked pro-Iraq war candidates in toss-up races, thus ensuring that the “change” being sold to voters by the Democrats wouldn’t dramatically affect the war status quo.

While Emanuel was celebrated as a genius by the left-liberal cognoscenti following the Democrats’ victory, a post-election analysis showed that Emanuel’s strategy actually cost the Democrats seats they otherwise would have won. Because so many Americans were opposed to the war, Emanuel’s pro-war Democrat candidates discouraged voter turnout in many war-opposed districts across the country.

He was, however, able to help secure a record number of Jewish members (43) into Congress, an accomplishment that excited Doug Bloomfield, the former legislative director for AIPAC.

"It's unprecedented that there have been so many [Jews] in so many positions of leadership in both houses," Bloomfield chortled after the election, perhaps confident in the knowledge that polls show 82% of American Jews identify themselves as supporters of Israel, meaning the increase in Jewish members would make Congress even more pro-Israel than it already was.

These new Jewish members have joined established Democrat Congressional leaders with staunch Jewish nationalist credentials such as Chuck Schumer, Tom Lantos, Gary Ackerman, Joe Lieberman, the notorious war profiteer Diane Feinstein, and many others.

While most on this list have decidedly left-liberals views when it comes to domestic American social policy, nearly all of them suddenly become right-wing hawks when it comes to US foreign policy in the Middle East and wars against Muslims. For example, all of the Jewish nationalist Democrat leaders listed in the paragraph above voted in favor of the 2002 Iraq War Resolution authorizing the Iraq war.

In fact, given the crossover of their political positions, it is somewhat unclear why Jewish nationalist Democrats aren’t also labeled neocons like their Jewish nationalist cousins on the right. After all, many components of the neoconservative foreign policy agenda (blind loyalty to Israel, a muscular US presence in the Middle East, massive military budgets) and the neoconservative domestic agenda (lax border control, massive immigration and a powerful central government that extracts wealth from the provinces and redistributes it to Washington-connected cronies), are also embraced by Jewish nationalist Democrats, too.

Regardless, the crossover between parties when it comes to worldviews and their policy manifestations hasn’t been lost on everyone. In 2004, writing for the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal, Julia Gorin noted:

‘As a new staple of mainstream American vocabulary, "neoconservative" warrants a reminder of the term's beginnings, before it became chic newspeak. It originally referred to a movement of largely Jewish liberals who gave leftism an honest and protracted effort, who dutifully reviled every Republican president through Eisenhower, who did their time in inner cities, and who gave peace and social engineering a chance, until the real-world consequences of their good will forced them to acknowledge that what they were doing wasn't working but in fact backfiring. At which point, these men (e.g., Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol) underwent a midlife epiphany and became conservative after the 1960s. Today the word applies to anyone who undergoes such a transformation, Jewish or not…With today's "post-9/11 omigod I think I may be Republican" Democrats, what we have in effect are neo-neoconservatives.’

Gorin is right: today’s Democrats do bear a close resemblance to neocons of the right. And not just the Jewish nationalist Democrats. Politicians like the Clintons, and even Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all have distinctly neocon foreign policy leanings. Hillary voted for the Iraq War Resolution, Pelsoi stripped a provision from the controversial $100 billion Iraq war funding bill that would have made it harder for Bush to go to war against Iran, and Harry Reid recently admitted he wants to keep tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq, even after the mythical ‘withdrawal.”

The sub-text of Gorin’s article for The Wall Street Journal (which was a long-winded complaint about how the word “neocon” had become a coded anti-Semitic epithet) was not just that after 9/11, we’re all “Republican Democrats” now, but that after 9/11, all Americans should adopt the perspective of Zionist victims of Islamic terror as well; after all, aren’t we all united in our common “victimization” at the hands of those evil Muslims?

Gorin may be indulging in a bit wishful thinking about the average American’s willingness to embrace the militant victim mantle (as so many hair-trigger Zionists have) and about Americans’ susceptibility to being manipulated into adopting the siege mentality of Israelis, but judging from the Israel-like policies of the two-party political class in Washington since 9/11, she’s taken a perfect reading of the character of Republican-Democrats of today, who’s post 9/11 policies can best be described as…kosher genocide.

***

So why does the left, ostensibly the opposition to the right, put up with neocon Democrats?

In part, it’s because as Kroth’s analysis of the “traitor Democrats” shows, they don’t have a choice. Strings are being pulled for -- and huge money is being thrown behind -- traitor Democrat candidacies. (Insiders like Rahm Emanuel and his wealthy friends see to that.) So essentially, the neocon Democrat problem in the Democratic Party is part and parcel of the Jewish nationalist presence in the Democratic Party.

But the left-liberal intelligentsia refuses to touch the Jewish nationalist problem because confronting it would largely undermine the worldview that motivates the left-liberal base’s raison d’etat: namely that A.) Christianity is the apex of evil, (and we all know that Jews are victims of Christians, never the other way around); and B.) there is a nearly miraculous, transcendent quality to multiculturalism (and Jews are part of the multicultural tapestry).

With regard to the latter, to acknowledge that the left-liberal program to institutionalize multiculturalism may in fact cause more problems than it solves (insomuch as the successful group-conscious warmongering of Jewish-American nationalists demonstrates that not every ethnic group that is granted a foothold in America is willing to assimilate, and some of those that are not have their own distinctly anti-liberal agendas and are fully capable of imposing those agendas on the rest of us) is to strike a huge blow to a major left-liberal tenet.

The left-liberal conceit is that a permanent minority victim class is perpetually under siege from the Christian majority, and only they (left-liberals) can hold back the tide and save Enlightenment, tolerance, and the progressive American way. (Ironically, this echoes the Israeli conceit that it is a bulwark against Islamofascism). If it turns out that a large percentage of a crucial member of the progressive-minority-victim coalition (the Jews) isn’t so enlightened (or even tolerant) after all, that poses a huge problem to left-liberal theory and a crisis to its self-image, at which point serious contemplation would be in order.

Will the left-liberals continue to compromise their principles to maintain the partnership with wealthy and powerful Jewish nationalists for the money, the influence and the shock troops that Jewish nationalists bring to the left-liberal cause, or will they break with them on principle and risk their flight to the GOP?

It’s all too much for the left-liberal intelligentsia to contemplate, and so it averts its eyes and insists that the Christian-Right, capitalism, the oil industry and the military-industrial complex comprise the extent of the forces pushing the Iraq war from the wings.

However, the left-liberal fantasy can only be maintained for so long. Americans want to end the war and bring the troops home, but the left-liberals will never be able to do that because their Jewish nationalist caucus won’t let them. Eventually, Americans are going to realize this.

And when that happens, the left-liberal Democratic coalition is going fracture on the question of US troops in the Middle East -- whether they are fighting in Iraq, Iran, or both -- just as the GOP coalition has been fractured by the same issue.

At that point, one possibility is that the Republican-Democrat neocons will morph into a single party (in many ways they already have), leaving the field wide open for a coalition of authentic conservatives and authentic liberals.

Libertarianism, anyone?

Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

The Bitter Education of Cindy Sheehan

2007-06-01T09:03:00.000-07:00

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Two embittered letters of resignation marked famous anti-war mom and citizen-activist Cindy Sheehan’s departure from both the Democratic Party and full-time activism in opposition to the war in Iraq. The tone in each reflected Sheehan’s frustration, disillusionment and ultimate despair at the two-party system’s craven betrayal of the voting public on the issue of withdrawal from Iraq--a withdrawal an overwhelming majority of Americans now support.

The first, titled “An Open Letter to the Democratic Congress--Why I Am Leaving the Democratic Party” appeared on the Internet May 28 following the Democrats’ latest capitulation to the Bush administration on the issue of ongoing funding of the conflict. The Democrats had just sent Bush a $120 billion war spending bill without any troop drawdown requirements attached, essentially issuing the president yet another blank check to wage the war as he sees fit through the rest of the budget year.

(“Bush got his $100 billion, then magnanimously agreed to let Democrats keep the $20 billion in pork they stuffed into the bill – to soothe the pain of their sellout of the party base,” quipped Pat Buchanan following the vote.)

Sheehan’s second letter appeared on her blog at the left-liberal (and Democratic Party-backing) web site Daily Kos on Memorial Day, just over three years after her son Casey’s April, 2004 death while serving in the Iraq war.

Sheehan’s anger, perhaps even her stages of despair, are shared by more and more Americans as it becomes self-evident that the entire Washington establishment has been co-opted by a coterie of special interests hell-bent on pursuing their own narrow and selfish agendas at the expense of the American military, the American people, and ultimately at the expense of the American republic itself.

Sheehan singles out in particular the Democratic leadership, whose party was swept into office in 2006 on a wave of public outrage over the Iraq war, and who, in the wake of that victory, promised it had gotten the message from voters on the Iraq issue loud and clear. As Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said at the time: "The election of 2006 was a call to change — not merely to change the control of Congress, but for a new direction for our country. Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in Iraq. The American people rejected an open-ended obligation to a war without end.”

Today it is clear to Sheehan that Pelosi and the Democrats have successfully carried out a massive public bait-and-switch scam. The goal all along was to exploit the public’s anger at Republicans over the Iraq war in order to attain a Congressional majority, without ever have had any real intention of changing the status-quo of the war’s conduct.

The Democrats apparently intend to give Bush and the Republicans enough rope over the next 18 months to finish the job of hanging themselves. But Sheehan correctly sees this as a sell-out of the thousands of US troops and Iraqis who will be unnecessarily killed as the Bush administration blunders on, financed by the Democratic congress.

“There is absolutely no sane or defensible reason for you to hand Bloody King George more money to condemn more of our brave, tired, and damaged soldiers and the people of Iraq to more death and carnage. You think giving him more money is politically expedient, but it is a moral abomination and every second the occupation of Iraq endures, you all have more blood on your hands,” Sheehan writes.

“Ms. Pelosi, Speaker of the House, said after George signed the new [war] funding authorization bill: ‘Now, I think the president's policy will begin to unravel.’ Begin to unravel? How many more of our children will have to be killed and how much more of Iraq will have to be demolished before you all think enough unraveling has occurred? How many more crimes will BushCo be allowed to commit while their poll numbers are crumbling before you all gain the political ‘courage’ to hold them accountable. If Iraq hasn't unraveled in Ms. Pelosi's mind, what will it take? With almost 700,000 Iraqis dead and four million refugees (which the US refuses to admit) how could it get worse? Well, it is getting worse and it can get much worse thanks to your complicity.”

“Being cynically pessimistic, it seems to me that this new vote to extend the war until the end of September, (and let's face it, on October 1st, you will give him more money after some more theatrics, which you think are fooling the anti-war faction of your party) will feed right into the presidential primary season and you believe that if you just hang on until then, the Democrats will be able to re-take the White House. Didn't you see how ‘well’ that worked for John Kerry in 2004 when he played the politics of careful fence sitting and pandering?”

As Sheehan and a growing number of Americans see it, this cold political calculus being employed by the Democrats is a premeditated sacrifice of a tangible, measurable quantity American blood--and puts that blood on the hands of the party that had heretofore been able to get away with laying the war at the feet of Republicans.

“So, Democratic Congress, with the current daily death toll of 3.72 troops per day, you have condemned 473 more to these early graves. 473 more lives wasted for your political greed: Thousands of broken hearts because of your cowardice and avarice.

“By the end of September, we will be about 80 troops short of another bloody milestone: 4000, and MoveOn.org will hold nationwide candlelight vigils and you all will be busy passing legislation that will snuff the lights out of thousands more human beings.

“Congratulations Congress, you have bought yourself a few more months of an illegal and immoral bloodbath. And you know you mean to continue it indefinitely so ‘other presidents’ can solve the horrid problem BushCo forced our world into. It used to be George Bush's war. You could have ended it honorably. Now it is yours and you all will descend into calumnious history with BushCo.

“We gave you a chance, you betrayed us.”

But Sheehan’s angry condemnation didn’t end there. She also condemned left-liberal Democrat true-believers for their blind dogmatism and for enabling the continuation of the war by circulating the false notion that the Democratic Party would bring an end to the war if only the Republicans were driven from office.

“I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.

“The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a ‘tool’ of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our ‘two-party’ system?

“However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the ‘left’ started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of ‘right or left’, but ‘right and wrong.’

Sheehan now recognizes an unpleasant truth about the machinations of the two-party system: it rallies average Americans under this banner or that with spirited, soaring rhetoric even as it plots to stab them in the back on behalf of the power brokers and special interests that really run the show.

The rank and file Democratic Party loyalists have been turned into automatons. They have been conditioned to fixate on the faults of Republicans and avert their eyes from the betrayals by the Democratic leadership for so long now, they can’t see that the Democrat leaders have morphed into soulless, power-mad traitors to the public trust themselves.

For both parties, governing is all about attaining control. Neither party really cares about the fate of the nation or its soldiers anymore. The fate of Party Leadership, the internationalist moneyed elite, and the ability to exercise raw dominion and intimidation at home and around the globe is all that matters to the venal political class and those who purchase its policies.

“I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike,” Sheehan continues. “It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt ‘two’ party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?”

In the end, Sheehan’s palpable anger, frustration and disappointment returns to the death of her son and a hope for her children still alive, a duality of emotion which seems to ground her in a kind of tragic resignation combined with a redemptive spirit of perseverance that together show her a clear-eyed way forward.

“The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

“I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.”

The journey that Cindy Sheehan has traveled over the last three years has been one fraught with betrayal, shameless exploitation and acts of despicable treachery committed by her own government and even some of those who claimed to be sympathetic to her cause.

Her son and thousands of others were emotionally blackmailed into the Iraq war by Bush and Congress on a post-9/11 pack of lies. But when he was killed, rather than crumple into a ball and limply succumb to the perfidy of her government leadership, she fed off of her emotion and became an inspired opponent of those who cynically sent him to his death.

She helped change the public atmosphere and consequently the public opinion about the Iraq war that led to the removal by angry voters of the Bush-compliant GOP Congress.

That anti-war atmosphere was subsequently tapped into by shrewd Democratic political operatives who rode it all the way to a Congressional majority for their party--only to promptly betrayed Sheehan and the rest of the country yet again by voting Bush hundreds of billions more in funding to continue the slaughter of both Americans and Iraqis.

It’s no wonder Sheehan is heartbroken. Unfortunately, her tragic experience is one that thousands more Americans will suffer through in the coming years as more and more U.S. soldiers arrive home in body bags.

How many body bags will it take before a majority of Americans recognize that the two-party system no longer represents their interests? Apparently we are going to find out.

Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

Now that the GOP is spent, is the Israel lobby shifting back toward the Democrats?

2007-03-29T12:32:00.000-07:00

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Jewish nationalists across America and Israel are growing increasingly frustrated by the American people’s stubborn refusal to back any more Middle East wars on behalf of Israel and its territorial ambitions. Polls show that the vast majority of Americans are now opposed to the open-ended occupation of Iraq, and despite a steady drumbeat of demonization by Judeofascism’s allies in the media, only 10% of Americans view Iran as an imminent threat to the U.S.

Even the Bush administration, perhaps chastened by the Iraq fiasco, the GOP’s mid-term election “thumping,” or world polls showing Israel, Iran, the U.S. and North Korea as neck and neck in the running for “most negative influence in the world,” seems to have lost much of the revolutionary zeal behind its push for Middle Eastern “democracy.” And despite all it has done for them, it’s hearing from various Judeofascist factions about its lack of enthusiasm.

For example, none other than Vice President Cheney, who for years has sheltered Israeli-loyalists in the White House as they have painstakingly gone about propagating “evidence” that Israel’s enemies are also the primary threat to America, received a less-than-enthusiastic reception at the recent American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) conference, according to The Jewish Daily Forward:

“The vice president’s speech, which focused on the war in Iraq, received a lukewarm welcome from the Aipac delegates. The crowd gave Cheney only one standing ovation and only partial applause when he made the connection between the need to stay in Iraq and the ability of the United States to deal effectively with Iran’s nuclear threat. In sharp contrast, when Cheney dedicated his speech last year to the dangers posed by Iran and Palestinian terrorism, he drew 48 rounds of applause, including eight standing ovations.”

Apparently the Aipacers were expecting Cheney to announce that the U.S. would happily blunder into yet another strategic disaster on behalf of Israeli security by bombing Iran at the Israel lobby’s beck and call.

As if that narcissistic mindset wasn’t bad enough, the Forward (which according to Alexa falls into the categories of “Jewish” and “socialist,” but who’s editorial board is closer to Jewish-nationalist-socialist) later that week took Cheney to task via an angry editorial for being insufficiently deferential to Zionist sensitivities about accusations of warmongering.

Cheney had the bad taste to remind the Aipacers that America still has Israeli-related business in Iraq that, if left unfinished, poses a threat to the Jewish state. “It is simply not consistent,” Cheney said, “for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while, at the same time, acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel’s best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened.”

The Forward correctly interpreted this statement as an implicit linking of the Iraq war with Israeli security.

From the Forward editorial:

“And so Cheney came to Aipac, not to deliver the expected message of solidarity and good cheer, but to administer a spanking. Friends owe it to friends, he said. You must support us in Iraq, he said, or else.”

“No less alarming, Cheney was telling the Jewish community that the war in Iraq had been launched and fought in considerable measure for their benefit and Israel’s. That’s precisely the message that Israel’s worst enemies have been peddling for the past four years as America’s blood and treasure have been poured wastefully down the sinkhole of a misconceived and unwinnable war. It was a lie then, and it is a lie now. And now he seems to be casting Iran in the same light: as the Jews’ war.”

The problem is that it wasn’t a lie then, and it isn’t a lie now. Who would know better if the Iraq war is being fought largely at the behest of Zionism: The Vice President, who’s Jewish nationalist underlings helped manufactured the false intelligence used to justify the invasion, or the Forward editorial board (hardly an objective source to begin with)?

To rebut the Forward’s lie that the Iraq war had nothing to do with Israeli security, one need only review a few short paragraphs from the study “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” originally published in the London Review of Books by distinguished academics John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt:

‘On August 16, 2002, eleven days before Vice President Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hard-line speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that "Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein."140 By this point, according to Sharon, strategic coordination between Israel and the U.S. had reached "unprecedented dimensions," and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programs.141 As one retired Israeli general later put it, "Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non- conventional capabilities."142

‘Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when President Bush decided to seek U.N. Security Council authorization for war in September, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let U.N. inspectors back into Iraq, because these developments seemed to reduce the likelihood of war. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002 that "the campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors."143

‘At the same time, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that "the greatest risk now lies in inaction."144 His predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled "The Case for Toppling Saddam."145 Netanyahu declared, "Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do," adding that "I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime." Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003: "The [Israeli] military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq."146’

So why would the Forward mislead its own readers about the role played by Israel in the push behind the Iraq war? Because the truth is not conducive to the ongoing Jewish nationalist agenda of conscripting as many Americans as possible into the cause of Zionist expansionism under the guise of defending Western civilization and America from “terrorism” and “Islamic extremism.”

The supposedly shrewd, rough and tumble political operative Dick Cheney is belatedly learning a hard lesson about the true nature of his chosen allies in the “war on terror”: Judeofascists never say “Thank you for your efforts on Zionism’s behalf” or “We’re satisfied you’ve done enough.” With them, its always “What have you done for us lately?”

This epic ingratitude and ceaseless grasping was driven home by the Forward’s editorial harangue, which continued:

“Let’s be clear. Iran is a genuine threat, in a way that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq never was. It threatens not just Israel but all of America’s allies in the region — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and even the Palestinian Authority. It is the top issue on Aipac’s agenda, yet Aipac has worked hard to present it, correctly, as a global problem, not just a Jewish or Israeli one. Cheney, in his desperation, appears willing to undo that hard work and put the Jewish community at the center of the debate. That’s wrong. Friends don’t let friends drive each other over a cliff.”

Dick Cheney’s insistence on securing Iraq before moving onto Iran is getting in the way of the Israel lobby’s “hard work” alright -- the hard work of deflecting attention away from the fact that Zionism was a major force behind the Iraq invasion, and of framing Iran “as a global problem, not just a Jewish or Israeli one” as a precursor to a U.S. bombing campaign on behalf of Israel. By the way, if Iran were truly a threat, why did Aipac need to work so hard to sell it “a global problem”? Maybe because of the CIA’s assessment that Iran is a good 10 years away from developing a nuclear bomb, and today probably even longer given that the Russians have withdrawn from assisting Iran’s nuclear program.

“Cheney, in his desperation” -- is spilling the beans.

Clearly, the Bush administration is no longer up to the task of enabling Zionist expansionism. Perhaps it time to bring in…the Democrats?

Neocon William Kristol, the editor of the “conservative” Weekly Standard, hinted at just such a Judeofascist strategy as far back as 2004

“If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me,” he told the New York Times. "I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over [Pat] Buchanan....If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."

And no doubt the Democrats will welcome back the Zionists (and all their “New York money people,” as General Wesley Clark correctly labeled them) with open arms. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled as much when she killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have required congressional approval before launching a new war on Iran. She did this at the behest of -- you guessed it -- Aipac.

And so the treacherous Jewish nationalist strategizing again kicks into high gear: Americans are increasingly opposed to the GOP as a result of the Iraq invasion? Let’s morph into Iraq war opponents, snuggle back up to the Democrats who have ridden the anti-war wave to power (we know they will accept us because of our money, and the fact that Democrats, like the Republicans, have no moral or ethical principles other than greed and the quest for power) and then use our insider status and our agents like Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank and Tom Lantos to push for war with Iran. Aren’t we clever?

Yes, the Judeofascists are clever -- too clever by half. Or as one sage has put it: Often clever, but rarely wise.

It may take a population some time to figure out their game, but playing both sides against the middle sooner or later ends up enraging both sides, and the middle to boot.

The “new anti-Semitism” that is getting ever more play in the media is merely a byproduct of Judeofascism’s ceaseless scheming and the growing realization by more in the U.S. that both the Republicans and the Democrats are more interested in representing Israel, its lobby, and money-worshipping war profiteers than the American people.

Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

Why the Israel lobby and Judeofascism must be forsaken to restore liberalism -- and America

2007-03-22T14:10:00.000-07:00

(By Chris Moore, Judeofascism.com) -- March 08, 2007 -- Former CIA analysts Bill and Kathleen Christison’s latest exposé of the Israel lobby and the way it works is a fascinating journey through the Judeofascist organizational structure and its timeless ability to adapt, evolve and adjust to opposition and resistance, as well as exert a strong psychological control over Jews who don’t necessarily even subscribe to its insidious program of insinuation and subjugation.

Much of the Christison’s article challenges the intellectual acrobatics carried out by some on the left to maintain the fiction that US Mideast policy is dictated by U.S. imperial interests alone and that the Israel lobby holds little to no sway over its formulation. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the Israel lobby’s power (and evidence of its propensity to use that power to push U.S. Mideast interventionism on behalf of Israel) many of those liberals who should be the far-right lobby’s natural opponents are in such deep denial about its nature that they can’t begin to examine the subject objectively. This denial is largely the result of Judeofascism’s psychological control over the minds of many Jewish-American liberals, who are often Israel’s chief apologists on the left and thus end up running interference for its powerful lobby in the U.S. as well.

Opposition to Judeofascsism from the left and from liberals is an important subject because so much of the right has already been co-opted by the Judeofascist movement. “Christian” Zionists, large segments of big business and big oil, the military-industrial complex, and a large portion of the GOP (and more than a few Democrats) are already basically in the Judeofascist camp.

These groups’ tacit agreement with Israel and its lobby is as follows: You spearhead the fight to take America into World War III against Islam under the guise of the “war on terror” and “defending our ally Israel,” and we’ll push (and pay, through campaign contributions) for congressional acquiescence. Together, we’ll all get disgustingly rich in the processes. (Never mind that it will be at the expense of American taxpayers and the lives of countless US soldiers and innocent Muslims, who are expendable to the moneymaking ambitions of the Judeofascists and other ruthless factions of the U.S. elite).

The Christison’s list the arguments of well-known and influential left-leaning writers and academics Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Stephen Zunes as epitomizing opposition from the left to the notion that the Israeli lobby tail is wagging the U.S. government dog. None of these writers are uncritical of Israel, but they are more inclined to blame the U.S. government for the actions of the Israelis than the Israelis themselves. On top of that, they cloud the fact that the Israeli government and much of the country’s private industry is deeply intertwined with the U.S. “political-corporate-military complex.”

“These critics do not dispute the existence of a lobby, but they minimize its importance, claiming that rather than leading the U.S. into policies and foreign adventures that stand against true U.S. national interests, as [Israel lobby critics] Mearsheimer and Walt assert, the U.S. is actually the controlling power in the relationship with Israel and carries out a consistent policy, using Israel as its agent where possible,” the Christison’s write.

“The tragedy of the present situation is that it has become impossible to separate Israeli from alleged U.S. interests -- that is, not what should be real U.S. national interests, but the selfish and self-defined ‘national interests’ of the political-corporate-military complex that dominates the Bush administration, Congress, and both major political parties. The specific groups that now dominate the U.S. government are the globalized arms, energy, and financial industries, and the entire military establishments, of the U.S. and of Israel -- groups that have quite literally hijacked the government and stripped it of most vestiges of democracy.”

By denying the reality of the Israel lobby’s indispensability to the neo-fascist power structure and pointing the blame for America’s growing corporate-government fascism in other directions, liberal defenders of Israel are dragging red-hearings across the American people’s pursuit of the truth.

But why would the likes of Chomsky, Finkelstein and Zunes want to minimize the Israel lobby’s role in formulating the U.S.’s belligerent and hegemonic Mideast policy? Is it because they are all Jewish, and thus (given their arguments) perhaps Zionists shills? Or is there some other component at play?... (click here for full article)

2007-02-28T16:52:00.000-08:00

Judeofascist authoritarians and the ‘War on Terror’ laws

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Blogger Xymphora recently noted the connection between Zionism and the post-9/11 ‘War on Terror' legislation passed in much of the West by big government authoritarians of both the Left and Right. He says Zionists and authoritarians want to use homeland security laws to maintain Americans citizens and others in an Orwellian state of paranoia and agitation in order to control them with fear, and to normalize Israel’s oppressive and totalitarian treatment of the Palestinian people as a rational reaction to their “terrorism.”

Of the ongoing battle over whether to maintain current 'War on Terror' restrictions on civil liberties, he writes:

“The Zionists and the jack-booted thugs…of the security establishment [have] relied on fear to attempt to keep the legislation. Terrorist hell is supposed to break loose once there is any glimmer of freedom from oppression.

“The ‘war on terror’ was created by Netanyahu and the Israeli right for three reasons: 1. It was supposed to replace the idea that Israel was the ally of the United States in the Middle East in the battle against the Soviets, by the idea that Israel was the ally of the United States in the Middle East in the battle against fundamentalist Islam (the shift was needed when the Soviet Union no longer existed). 2. It was intended to create the idea that Israel’s struggle against the justified reaction by the Palestinians to Israeli war crimes was the same struggle faced by the United States, and the world. 3. It has been extended to include the entire gamut of propaganda weapons which we know of as Islamophobia, intended to create a general fear of Islam which is used to make possible various Zionist outrages.

“One of the Israeli spies caught while cheering at the collapse of the World Trade center put it clearly: ‘We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.’ Netanyahu himself, on being asked about what the September 11 attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations, said: ‘It's very good. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.’”

Xymphora is inclined to cast much of the blame for the authoritarian legislation on behind-the-scenes lobbying by the “Jewish Billionaires Club” (which I read as his metaphor for the wealthiest of Jewish authoritarians and their network of pro-Zionist organizations emanating from Israel and through much of the Caucasian world).

He is probably correct in his assessment that Jewish nationalist Zionists are sympathetic to authoritarianism (so long as they hold the reins of power) and deserve much blame for draconian, post-9/11 legislation. But they most certainly weren’t and aren’t acting alone. Jews make up a tiny minority of Westerners -- under 5% of the United States and well under that in all of (for lack of a better term) Caucasland (which comprises Caucasian-dominated Europe plus the five nations Xymphora names as impacted by Zionist-engineered authoritarian legislation (Canada, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and Britain). Wealthy Jewish Zionist fanatics sympathetic to authoritarianism make up an even smaller percentage of the overall population of Caucasland still.

Part of the point of Xymphora’s article is that the “horrific Orwellian legislation” engineered by the Zionists and designed to oppress Muslims must be endured by everyone (as a result of commendable equal protection clauses written into the laws of nearly all countries of Caucasland). He does not indicate one way or another, but I believe that the legislation is directed not only at Muslims, but at every other group that the Zionists see as a potential threat both today and in the future, including, theoretically, Christians. (Remember, the authoritarian laws of the ‘War on Terror’ are similar to -- and perhaps even patterned on -- those imposed by the disproportionately Jewish Bolsheviks on the people of the Soviet Union used to strangulate and ultimately annihilate Russian Christians and other anti-Communist dissidents.)

This is ironic given that a large percentage of the Christian Right is also Christian Zionist. The Christian Zionists know the history of Jewish Bolshevism and its murderous hatred of Christianity, and that is why I identify the premeditated Jewish nationalist/Christian Zionist alliance as Judeofascism instead of Christofascism. There is nothing “Christian” about Judeofascism whatsoever, except in the sense that it includes partners from a group that identifies itself as “Christian” and subscribes to the theory that Western civilization is exclusively a construct of the Judeo-Christian tradition (as opposed to a construct of Greco-Roman/Christian/Enlightenment tradition). But nothing in blood-drenched Christian Zionist behavior is consistent with the teachings of Christ or any of the words that actually came out of his mouth (including its love of corrupt Jewish leaders).

On the other hand, given that Bolshevism, Zionism and Neoconservatism are all disproportionately Jewish movements, and that their Manichean, cliquish, warmongering, “good vs. evil," "with us or against us” world view is consistent with certain racialist interpretations of Jewish doctrine that fixate on the concept of “choseness,” obsess over dividing Jews from gentiles, and emphasize the Talmud (itself filled with the most bigoted and vituperative anti-gentile rhetoric), there is something distinctly Jewish about Judeofascsim. In fact, pushing choseness, obsessively segregating Jews from gentiles and fixating on the Talmud are all, unfortunately, commonplace in today’s organized Jewish mainstream.

As Xymphora’s assessment points up, the problems start, then, when the racialist-oriented organized Jewish mainstream (as opposed to the silent majority of disorganized Jewry) takes hold of the levers of power and starts imposing its divisive, polarizing world view on Western politicians as a template for governance. The problem snowballs when philo-Semitic “Christian” Zionists and the greedy military-industrial complex join with organized Jewry to undertake a clash of civilization against Muslims, resulting in the latest incarnation of Judeofascism-on-the-move. And the problem turns into an avalanche when corrupt and unprincipled Democrats and Republicans are bought off by wealthy Jewish nationalist/Christian Zionist Judeofascists with campaign contributions to undertake a ‘War on Terror’ using Judeofascist methods, tactics and principles in pursuit of a Judeofascist agenda.

Unfortunately, most self proclaimed conservatives or liberals are willing to both deny Judeofascism’s existence and look the other way as it carries out its murderous campaign. They say that Islamic fanaticism merits a strong response.

Yes, Islamic totalitarianism exists; yes, Judeofascism exists. Both are hopelessly inimical to liberty, authentic conservatism and authentic liberalism. Yet the two-party extremists, all of whom say they want to fight Islamic totalitarianism to one degree or another, are willing to surrender to the Judeofascist agenda to do so. They have made their deal with the devil.

So now that we know where Judeofascist extremism leads (to the Gulag) how are these sell-outs who are collaborating with the Judeofascists from within our very borders less of a threat than the Islamic totalitarians?

Hillary Clinton? Barak Obama? Rudy Giuliani? John McCain? All sell-outs. All Judeofascist appeasers. All phony “liberals” or faux “conservatives.”

As the saying goes, something’s gotta give. America and the world have a minor Islamic totalitarian problem and a major Judeofascist one, and the corrupt, two-party monopoly is never going to solve either.

Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

2007-02-09T09:30:00.000-08:00

Will global warming break the pro-war, globalization paradigm?

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- On more than one occasion during his presidency, Ronald Reagan whimsically pondered whether all of humanity would finally unite if confronted with a catastrophic, otherworldly danger that threatened the very survival of all nations and people.

"I occasionally think how our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world," Reagan once said in an address to the United Nations General Assembly

Today, all of the world may indeed be facing a catastrophic threat, although not one in the extraterrestrial vein of Reagan’s imagination.

On the very day an international panel of climate change scientists announced its findings that man-made emissions are causing dangerous global warming leading to extreme weather patterns, a series of powerful tornadoes pounded central Florida, leaving at least 19 people dead in their wake.

The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists representing 13 countries whose work was cross checked and endorsed by hundreds of representatives from nations around the world, said that it is now "unequivocal" that global warming is a scientific fact, and that there is a 90 percent likelihood that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is the cause.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level,” the scientists said.

The panel said that man-made emissions associated with global warming are also likely driving other extreme weather patterns, including drought, heat waves and severe storms. If left unchecked, global warming could lead to a rise in sea levels of up to three feet by the end of the century as polar ice caps continue to melt. Other calamitous weather events as a result of the warming are unpredictable, but there is little doubt they are on the foreseeable horizon.

The group said advances in science and the analysis of comprehensive new data underpin its startling new conclusions.

The summary of the panel’s findings was released on February 2, the very day a battery of storms bearing powerful tornadoes hit central Florida, forcing Gov. Charlie Crist to declare a state of emergency in four counties. The storm took at least 19 lives, including three members of a family and a 7-year-old boy and his father.

The Bush administration responded to the report on global warming by saying it opposed mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The administration says it believes unspecified future technology will solve the global warming crisis. "We are a small contributor [of greenhouse gasses] when you look at the rest of the world," energy secretary Sam Bodman said.

People of good will can disagree about the best means to go about tackling the problem of global warming, and even whether or not the problem will eventually correct itself so long as moderate measures are taken to reduce (or even hold neutral) the amount of greenhouse emissions over time. But in light of the new report, few responsible public policy advocates will conclude that the entire phenomenon can be safely ignored, and America can go about the business of exporting its way of life (and rates of consumption) across the entire globe as has heretofore been the case, which is apparently the Bush administration’s position.

The new reality of global warming completely changes the paradigm of world business, diplomacy, politics and war. No longer is attaining oil and wrenching open new markets -- the growth-at-any-cost strategy that has been relentlessly pursued by the Bush administration -- an option that Americans or the world can afford.

The status-quo advocacy of unfettered (and often forced) world market growth will lead to more and more pollutants as the global masses, wrenched from their minimalist way of life, clamor for multiple cars, boats, SUV’s and other emission-spewing luxuries. The problem will grow worse as pollution-absorbing trees are cut to accommodate the growth and to build the palatial homes, businesses and emission-spewing factories that are a byproduct of extravagant, American-style consumption. Pollutants, and the lack of forests (which act as the earth’s “lungs”) will lead to faster global warming, which, if it continues its exponential growth, could ultimately result in the eclipse of humanity.

While some will still claim that globalization is inevitable and only “losers,” “demagogues,” and “Luddites” rail against it (as syndicated columnist Tom Plate recently argued), the new report makes clear that it is the globalization advocates who have their fingers firmly in their ears and their heads buried deeply in the sand. Despite their selfish, greed-driven illusions, conspicuous consumption on a global scale is not a sustainable way of life.

The tragic experience of the people of New Orleans in the wake of hurricane Katrina offers merely a glimpse of the miserable future in store for our children and grandchildren as the consequences of globalization bear their poisonous fruit -- and points up just how dangerous and callous advocacy of globalization can be.

Hence, forcing America’s way of life on the rest of the world in the name of profits, markets, modernity, and “progress,” which are clearly the objectives of neoconservative and neoliberal globalization advocates (one openly-admitted goal of the Iraq war was to “change the face of the Middle East”) looks less and less appealing by the day.

But are Americans ready to embrace a more benign and less belligerent foreign policy in order to save the earth? Or, given Washington’s lack of regard for the American majority’s will on the question of withdrawal from Iraq, perhaps the question should be: are they ready to force their politicians to do so?

If the results of a new UPI/Zogby International poll are any indication, in the case of Iraq, most Americans have already made the connection between US war making and the pursuit of fossil fuels, a link which belies Washington’s various other official pretexts for invasion and occupation.
“Most Americans think President Bush invaded Iraq at least partly because of its oil -- a war more than half rate him as ‘poor’ in handling and nearly all say has affected the price of gas at the pump,” wrote UPI in a summary of the poll.

Taken Jan. 16-18, the poll “found 32.7 percent considered Iraq's oil supply a ‘major factor’ and 23.7 percent ‘not a factor’ in the decision to invade the country. Another 40.7 percent were split somewhere in between.”

This means that 73 percent of Americans are either convinced that Iraq’s oil was a driving force behind the invasion, or at least suspect as much. That is an amazingly high number, particularly in light of the propaganda that has been emanating from Washington and the corporate media from the run up to the war to this very day -- propaganda professing that Iraq was invaded because the US government earnestly believed it possessed weapons of mass destruction, was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and was a threat to America.

So it is promising that Americans are not as gullible as many across the globe (and apparently in the seats of power in Washington) believed. This means that despite the politicians’ efforts to invent and sell phony rationales for war on behalf of the military-industrial complex and wealthy special interest constituencies that purchase government policy through campaign contributions, sooner or later the American public will catch on to elements of the truth.

This also means that as Americans become more conscious of the global environment and the factors contributing to greenhouse gasses, they will be less tolerant not only of needless war making (which in and of itself is catastrophic to the environment and contributor to the greenhouse effect) but doubly intolerant if they suspect the war is being carried out on behalf of procuring cheaply extracted fossil fuels for multinational oil companies. Compared to combating global climate catastrophe, securing oil company profits -- which rise in proportion with their access to plentiful high grade Middle Eastern crude that can be quickly and inexpensively extracted from the earth -- is hardly a national priority.

Indeed, in light of the fact that unfettered access to such oil means more and more consumers across the world will be burning global warming greenhouse gasses at an ever faster clip, war for Middle East oil not only becomes undesirable, but an existential threat to us all.

The process of global warming may not be the dramatically imminent, world-unifying threat that Reagan once pondered, but the new report makes clear that, at the very least, it is going to force a wholesale reevaluation of our values and priorities -- whether we like it or not.

Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

2007-01-05T18:05:00.000-08:00

Why won’t the two-party monopoly bring the troops home? Thirty pieces of silver

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Just as the Democrats take control of Congress following their November victory, outrage is growing among progressives and independents over that party’s stubborn refusal to implement the electorate’s mandate of troop drawdown from Iraq. In fact, even more insulting to the party’s base and the moderate swing voters that provided it’s win, Democrat party leaders have actually embraced president Bush’s impending decision to increase the number of troops being shipped off to the war.

“The message on November 7 was clear. Voters threw out pro-war politicians and sent Democrats to Congress demanding an end to the Iraq war,” write Linda Schade and Kevin Zeese in Counter Punch. “Yet, it took only a few weeks for the Democratic leadership to betray the majority of Americans by quickly pledging to keep the war money flowing.”

Support for Bush’s planned “troop surge” is only 11%, note Schade and Zeese. Yet this option “is supported by Sen. John McCain, the leading likely Republican candidate for President; it is also supported by Sen. Hillary Clinton, the leading likely Democratic candidate, ‘if it has a purpose.’”

But that is really no surprise, notes John Walsh, in another Counter Punch missive. As far as the Washington elite are concerned, the GOP defeat “amounted only to a registration of national disgust over the war in Iraq but not one which would result in policy changes since the establishment Dems are solidly neocon in their foreign policy especially when it comes to the Middle East and Israel.”

Back to Schade and Zeese: “If an overwhelming referendum by voters against the war is not enough to force a change in policy, what is left to voters in this democracy? If Americans marshal time, money and votes in support of winning candidates come away empty handed, what utility remains in the ballot box? If candidates, once elected, take office and spend vast sums of money against the explicit wishes of the voting public, what does that say of our democracy?”

The short answer is that our government is no longer a democracy at all, but rather an oligarchy being run for the benefit of a ruling coalition of wealthy Jewish nationalists, Christian Zionists and corporate interests whose agendas stand to benefit by defying the will of the American voters and keeping the troops in Iraq. Because these interests have bought and paid for most of the politicians in the two-party monopoly through ongoing campaign donations, future job and networking promises or other financial rewards, they are the ones that receive representation, average voters be damned.

When Schade and Zeese express shock that once elected, politicians use “vast sums of money against the explicit wishes of the voting public,” they forget that that is exactly what they were paid by their wealthy campaign contributors to do once in office.

Opposition to the Iraq war among Americans may be broad, but support for escalation of the war in Iraq, and perhaps even pushing the troops on into Iran, is deep--deep pocketed, that is.

This entire perverse phenomenon of policy-for-sale is nicely illustrated by going through several paragraphs of an article that recently appeared in the Jewish daily Forward about fundraising for GOP Senator John McCain’s fledgling presidential bid.

‘Arizona Senator John McCain has scored an early victory in the battle between GOP presidential frontrunners by locking up support from several New York-area Republican moneymen also coveted by his northeastern rival, former Big Apple mayor Rudy Giuliani,” the article says. “McCain’s stable of national finance co-chairs includes Lewis Eisenberg, a multimillionaire financier from Rumson, N.J. who previously served as finance chairman for the Republican National Committee and was a key fundraiser for former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.’

The article continues: ‘McCain’s heavily Jewish finance committee includes [junk bond billionaire Henry] Kravis; Mark Broxmeyer, a Long Island real estate magnate; Dr. Ben Chouake, president of the New Jersey-based pro-Israel political action committee Norpac, and Barbara Sobel, whose husband, entrepreneur Clifford Sobel, is a major GOP fundraiser who was appointed by President Bush as ambassador to the Netherlands and later Brazil.’

So we know McCain has locked up the support of a network of very wealthy Jewish nationalists, all of who will be in a position to tap into their own deep pockets and those of their rich and well connected associates to aid McCain. But just how much money can they secure for his campaign, and what, exactly, do they expect in return for their services? The Forward article continues:

‘According to Chouake, members of the New York-area finance committee have pledged to raise a minimum of $50,000 each. He said that he personally had approached the campaign with an offer of support, based on his concern about the situation in the Middle East. “The 800-pound gorilla in the room right now is Iran,” Chouake told the Forward.’

That’s several hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions right there--and at least some of it explicitly connected to McCain’s willingness to confront Iran in the future. But there are other Republicans (like Giuliani) who are also willing to confront Iran; what in McCain’s background might have attracted this particular group of Jewish nationalists to his campaign?

‘For years, McCain, who has been calling for more American troops to be sent to Iraq, has developed strong ties with neoconservatives in Washington, sharing their hawkish voices on several key fronts. In recent weeks, McCain has been signaling that an attention to Jewish issues will remain on his agenda as his campaign moves forward.’

So McCain was instrumental in partnering with the neocons to embroil America in the disastrous Iraq war, and he has signaled he’s willing to continue the pursuit of “Jewish issues” at the expense of American ones. But just what does this entail?

‘In a December 10 address at Yeshiva University, McCain said that withdrawing American troops from Iraq precipitously “is to risk catastrophe,” leading to the possibility of a failed state in a strategic region. He also defended America’s larger strategy of promoting democracy in the Middle East.’

And so there, in a nutshell, you have it. The chain of events couldn’t be more obvious: McCain taps into wealthy Jewish nationalists for campaign support and contributions and in return agrees to continue sacrificing the lives of American soldiers in Iraq on behalf of Greater Israel; if he gets elected president, he will be expected to do the same in Iran--again at the behest of Israel, and again under the guise of promoting Mideast democracy.

And after that, Syria? Lebanon? Palestine? It all depends on where the latest “Jewish issues” lead him.

Now multiply McCain’s experience by hundreds of members of Congress, including Hillary Clinton, throw in campaign contributions from oil companies and military contractors who also profit from dead American soldiers in the Middle East, and in the end you get the real reasons the Democrats and Republicans refuse bring the troops home from Iraq.

As far as “moneymen” go, it’s not a bad bargain for 30 pieces of silver.

Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

2006-12-23T16:49:00.000-08:00

Is Iraq war being fought for imperialism or Israel?

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Now that it is conventional wisdom in America (at least outside of politically correct Washington Beltway and mainstream media circles) that the U.S. was misled into the Iraq war by the Bush administration--quite possibly with the acquiescence of members of Congress from both the Republican and Democratic parties--the fight is on among patriotic Americans to determine the motives for the deception.

Rather than merely academic, a determination of motive may well be the first step in holding the perpetrators accountable, and may also be instrumental in determining America’s timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.

One theory is that the war was orchestrated by Jewish nationalists (Zionist Jews who support Israel’s current incarnation as an explicitly Jewish state) and Christian Zionists (adherents to a racialist interpretation of Christianity that mandates recognition of the Jews as God’s chosen people, and that wants to secure Greater Israel as their capital to the exclusion of other native peoples). Operating within and without the administration, this coalition arranged the war on behalf of Jewish security and other Israel-centered initiatives. Call this the War for Israel theory.

The Christian Zionist camp was represented by President Bush himself, who has reportedly hosted secret Middle East policy meetings with dispensationalist evangelicals, and figures such as former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who has a long history of philo-Semitism and pro-Israel activism. (He routinely brags of being the principal architect behind the initiative that strong-armed the United Nations General Assembly to repeal the resolution that equated Zionism with racism).

The Jewish nationalist camp was represented by figures such as former Undersecretaries of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and former chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory Board Richard Perle--all of whom have at various times over the course of their careers been investigated by federal agencies for misuse of American defense and intelligence information to benefit Israel, and all of whom were instrumental in propagating the false intelligence used to deceive Americans into war.

The other school of thought, often embraced by left-liberals squeamish about the implications of acknowledging that Jewish factions within government might be abusing their power (mainly because Jewish nationalists are prominent in the left-liberal governing coalition), is that the pro-war deception was motivated primarily by imperial and economic agendas, including U.S. control of the oil in Iraq, to feed the U.S. military-industrial complex, and to set up Middle East markets for U.S. goods and services. Call this the Imperial War theory.

Those with an open mind who currently subscribe to the Imperial War theory and are inclined to dismiss the War for Israel theory as the province of conspiracy theorists might want to read an interview that recently appeared in the popular Israeli news web site YNetNews.com. The interviewee was Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli citizen, neocon ideologue, and the wife of David Wurmser, a current White House advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney on Middle Eastern affairs who was also John Bolton’s assistant.

David and Meyrav Wurmser, along with Perle, Feith and several others, were the authors of a 1996 report submitted to then-incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Among other initiatives, the report recommended that in order to “secure the realm” for Israel, Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power in Iraq.

In her interview with YNet, Meyrav Wurmser at first feigned shock at being accused of doing Israel’s bidding in the aftermath of America’s Iraq invasion by those who noted her connection to A Clean Break.

"Since I'm an Israeli in the gang, you wouldn't believe what's been written about me," she said. "That I'm proof of the covert neoconservative connection with Israel and the Mossad."

But amazingly, in the next breath she goes on to nearly admit that her neocon clique wrote the script for the White House that led to the removal of Saddam by utilizing the same template that they’d laid out for Netanyahu in Israel in 1996.

According to Meyrav, following the 9/11 attacks, the case made by the neocons (many of whom “are Jews who share a love for Israel,” notes YNet) went something like this: “The idea was that America has a war on terror and that the only actual place for coping with it is in the Middle East and that a fundamental change would come through a change in leadership. We had to start somewhere. The objective was to change the face of the Middle East.”

Note her last sentence: “The objective was to change the face of the Middle East.”

An astounding admission. She is essentially saying that within the White House, the argument being made by neocons (presumably to upper-level administration officials), was not that America should attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein possessed dangerous weapons of mass destruction and was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S, and thus presented a major terrorist threat to Americans (the story later retailed by the administration to the American public).

Rather, the real objective among neocons was to pitch the narrative to Bush insiders “that America has a war on terror and that the only actual place for coping with it is in the Middle East;” to advance the notion within the administration “that a fundamental change would come through a change in leadership;” and finally to convince the administration that the leadership that should be changed was Saddam Hussein’s.

In other words, in order to “change the face of the Middle East,” America needed to begin by getting rid of Saddam Hussein. After all, “we had to start somewhere.”

What a coincidence. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was exactly what David and Meyrav Wurmser, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith told Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 that Israel needed to in order to secure its realm. So just whose realm were these neocons trying to secure?

Could this group’s ongoing connection to Israeli strategic planning possibly have been missed by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush brain trust? Highly doubtful.

For example, despite Feith’s checkered background, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hand selected him to head up the Office of Special Plans, essentially a custom-made Pentagon intelligence unit that was necessitated by the Central Intelligence Agency’s refusal to endorse specious Bush administration accusations against Iraq. Feith is suspected of using the unit to inject the retail “evidence”--that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and that Iraq was connected to 9/11--into the U.S government intelligence stream, thus creating plausible public rationales for the war.

Larry Franklin, a committed Christian Zionist in Feith’s unit, has already been charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with espionage for his role in allegedly trying to deliver a classified draft of a presidential memo to AIPAC and an Israeli Embassy diplomat. (AIPAC--the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee--is a powerful Israel lobby operated primarily by Jewish nationalists who are U.S. citizens.) The FBI charges have raised the question of whether there was a channel between Feith’s office and Israeli intelligence units using AIPAC as the go-between that provided the false evidence used to manipulate the U.S. into war.

If there was, is it really possible that the Bush brain trust didn’t know about it?

And if Dick Cheney believed that the Jewish wing of the neoconservative movement had pulled a “fast one” on Iraq to secure the Israeli realm based on a game plan laid out in A Clean Break, would he really have retained one of its authors, David Wurmser, as his assistant on Middle Eastern affairs to this day?

No, the entire Bush administration knew exactly what the Israeli-loyalists in their midst were up to--and happily enabled the entire enterprise.

But the Bush administration may not have been the only branch of government that actively betrayed its moral, ethical and fiduciary duty to the American people.

The Congressional Role

That the Bush administration was riddled with fanatical Christian Zionists and Jewish nationalists with an ax to grind against Iraq was an open secret in Washington in the run-up to the Iraq war. In fact, Congress itself is comprised of politicians and aides who are either of the Zionist persuasion or who are willing to look the other way as the Israeli lobby basically dictates most aspects of U.S. Middle East policy because they fear the lobby’s power.

For example, in a letter to journalist Jeff Blankfort after he wrote an essay debunking left-liberal Noam Chomsky’s claims that imperial interests dictate U.S. Middle East policy and Israel is the country being used and manipulated in the relationship, Jim Abourezk, a former U.S. Senator from South Dakota, said his experience in Congress dovetails with Blankfort’s critique of Chomsky’s position.

“I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear--fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress--at least when I served there--have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel,” wrote Abourezk.

“Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.”

But members of Congress may have more affection for the Israeli lobby than even Democrat Abourezk (the first Arab-American to serve in the U.S. Senate) is prepared to admit. In his essay on Chomsky, Jeff Blankfort noted:

“What gives the lobby its strength, besides its significant organizational skills, is that its members are intimately tied to Jewish organizations, federations, and community relations councils across the country, as well as to labor union officials and, in recent years, to the growing Christian evangelical movement, which provides Israel with unprecedented support in what is generally right-wing Republican territory.”

The lobby is intimately tied to both labor union officials and right-wing Christian evangelicals? That means it is intimately tied to key special interests of both the Democratic and Republican parties.

It is likely those very ties (and a desire for the money the lobby routinely spreads around to Washington politicians) were the unspoken reason members from both parties overwhelmingly voted to authorize the Iraq War Resolution on such weak evidence against Iraq.

That assessment seems to be backed by stricken comments made by Virginia Rep. James P. Moran on March 3, 2003, a few days before the beginning of the invasion: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," Moran told an antiwar forum in Reston, Va.

Of course, most members of Congress would never admit this. Congress clearly realizes that the idea of sending Americans to fight for a country as belligerent as Israel is loathsome to the vast majority Americans, who rate the Jewish state just a notch above Communist China in terms of conduct in areas of international peace and security, according to a recent survey.

Washington knows, as scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt quote Philip Zelikow in their paper on the Israel lobby, that sacrificing American troops and treasure on behalf of Zionism “is not a popular sell.”

“Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim,” write Walt and Mearsheimer. “Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’”

All of this raises the specter that everyone from the Congressional supporters of the war to the president himself have knowingly subordinated the best interests of the American people and U.S. military personnel to their own narrow religious agendas or because they are too cowardly to take on the Christian Zionists or the Israeli lobby with which they are partnering.

The fact that the Israeli lobby may be coercing and intimidating certain members Congress is irrelevant to the central fact of their betrayal and negligence; they are sent to Washington to represent American interests, not Israeli ones. If they don’t have the backbone to speak out against American soldiers being sent off to die in foreign lands for the sake of foreign interests, or worse yet, if they collaborate with those interests to knowingly sacrifice Americans on behalf of a foreign cause, they shouldn’t even be setting foot in the U.S. Congress, let alone “serving.” In fact, a strong case can be made that they should be impeached and tried for treason.

So was it primarily imperial interests, or Israeli interests that got America tangled in Iraq?
The only way Americans will ever know for sure is if there is a federal investigation of both the Bush administration and Congress in which the key players who were responsible for putting us there are hauled before a judge and forced to testify under oath.

In addition to holding the perpetrators of the Iraq quagmire accountable, such an investigation could also be instrumental in helping Americans make a determination on how quickly they should withdraw from Iraqi occupation. After all, if we are indeed fighting a war primarily for Israeli interests instead of American ones, should we really be paralyzed in fear over the supposed cataclysmic consequences of a withdrawal that certain self-serving apocalyptic political voices in Washington and in the media are painting?

Beyond that, such an investigation will help Americans determine whether or not it is really in U.S. interests to go to war with Iran, which seems to be the latest pro-war cause being pushed on Americans (or at least on their “representatives” in Washington) by the energetic and apparently eternally shameless Israeli lobby.

Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

Bush and the twopart

2006-12-16T14:25:00.000-08:00

Bush and the two-party system’s outrageous insult to the will of the voters on Iraq

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- “President George W Bush is poised to increase troop numbers in Iraq as part of a dramatic new strategy designed to regain control of Baghdad and suffocate the Sunni insurgency,” reports the British Telegraph.

"My gut tells me big – 30,000 to 50,000 or more troops,” said Stephen Biddle, a member of the neocon Council on Foreign Relations, following a meeting with Bush at the White House on Wednesday.

The latest Bush/neocon scheme to exploit yet more American troops on behalf of their three favorite causes--Empire, oil and Israel--is an outrageous insult to American voters who thought they had just purged the most treacherous warmongering factions from Congress in the November elections by eliminating the GOP majority that has written Bush a blank check on the Iraq war fiasco for the last three years.

Had the American people also been voting on the presidency, there is little doubt that Bush would have been shown the door as well. Unfortunately, they were not. And as it has in the past, having a Christian Zionist as Commander-in-Chief is again proving useful to those whose primary loyalties lie not with the American people, but with their own monetary and tribal religious ambitions.

Given the supine Democrats, who like so many of their two-party Washington GOP brethren have been bought of or intimidated by the Israel lobby and various other crass interests that couldn’t care less about the ultimate fate of the American people, it is little surprise that Bush and his coterie are so supremely confident that they can get away with yet another insulting act of warmongering chutzpah. In a sane political system, a Commander-in-Chief escalating a war by over 50,000 troops when the voters had just instructed their politicians to begin a drawdown would result in swift impeachment. Not so under America’s two-party political charade.

“Senior Democrats, who take control of both houses of Congress next year, have indicated they would support additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though many want a phased withdrawal to begin in 2007,” reported Reuters recently in a story about Bush’s upcoming request for $100 billion more in war-making funds.

Democrats may have said they wanted a phased withdrawal beginning in 2007 in order to get elected, but given the huge influence of Jewish nationalist Zionists on the party (such figures as Rahm Emanuel, Joe Lieberman, and Chuck Schumer, to name just three), it is highly unlikely that such a withdrawal will ever take place on their watch. In fact, as a result of November elections, the number of Jews in the Senate rose from 11 to 13, and in the House of Representatives rose from 26 to 30; nearly all of the Jews elected from both parties are staunch Jewish nationalists financed with Zionist money.

Today we know that the entire invasion and occupation of Iraq was orchestrated not because of WMD or Iraq connections to 9/11 claimed by the Bush administration and members of Congress, but largely for the benefit of Israeli expansionism. So how likely is the new Congress, now even more under the sway of Jewish nationalist Zionists, to throw that spurious “achievement” away by withdrawing U.S. forces? Not likely at all, which explains Bush’s upcoming Iraq escalation--to be financed by “yes” votes on war spending from the new Democrat majority.

The only way Americans will ever achieve peace in their time is eliminate the two parties that host the agents of war for Empire, oil and Israel. America was attacked on 9/11 not because of its love of freedom and democracy, but because its politicians are controlled by special interests that pursue policies detrimental to the American people.

Is it really in the American people’s interests for their government to underwrite Israeli racism and expansionism in Palestine, the maintenance of authoritarian Arab regimes in surrounding countries, and guaranteed access to cheap oil by hugely profitable multinational conglomerates across the Middle East?

Of course not. But those initiatives, along with the military-industrial complex that hopes to profit from U.S. empire, are the true forces behind U.S. foreign policy that is destroying the very people it purports to represent.

So long as the U.S. operates under a political system wherein big money can be used to buy big government policy and political representation for foreign governments, the American people will not be in control of their own destiny--nor the destinies of their sons and daughters sent to fight and die for reasons other than what their professed “representatives” publicly proclaim.

*Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

Democrats illegitima

2006-11-11T10:43:00.000-08:00

Democrats illegitimate beneficiaries of voter anger at US pro-war policy

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Those Americans who believe that the new Democratic control of the US Senate and House of Representatives signals a watershed moment of change in American foreign and domestic policy related to the Iraq war are likely to be gravely disappointed in the probable course of events over the next two years. There is a huge disconnect between the expectations of the wave of voters who turned out to register their disapproval of both the Iraq war and the authoritarian “war on terror” with its accompanying erosion of domestic civil liberties and the intentions of the narrow elite that sets the Democratic policy agenda.

The Democrats were big winners on November 7 not because they have any intention of responding to voters clamoring for foreign policy change in any meaningful way, but rather because they have shrewd political operatives who were adept at exploiting political winds in the months leading up to the election.

A plurality of Americans had turned against the Iraq war as far back as March, 2004 when an Annenberg Public Policy Center poll found that 49% of Americans thought the Iraq war was “not worth it” as compared to 46% who thought it was. Yet even as it became clear that the very presence of US troops in Iraq was fostering the terrorism they were purportedly put there to combat, the party never undertook a serious legislative bid to remove US troops from the region and allow the Iraqi people to begin the arduous process of political self-determination free from Washington’s attempts at coercive social-engineering. After voting to authorize the Iraq War in 2002, flip-flop Democratic Senator John Kerry’s resolution last summer calling for US withdrawal from Iraq by July 2007 was almost completely ignored by his own party and garnered only 12 Democratic votes. Instead, the Democrats engaged in empty rhetoric about “troop redeployment” without ever bothering to define what, exactly, that term meant and beginning the public and legislative process of making it happen.

Around the same time that Kerry was tepidly formulating a plan for withdrawal, likely 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech “I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment…nor do I think it is a smart policy to set a date certain” for US troops to leave.

Such fence-sitting and issue-straddling became the Democrats’ campaign strategy leading up to the election. They wanted (and ended up getting) credit from the voters for being nominally “against” the war, but they never detailed the manifestations of such a position--and still haven’t. Once it became politically expedient (and well after the vast majority of Americans had turned against the Iraq war) Democrats began registering regular public criticism of the Bush regime’s execution of the Iraq undertaking--but never its violent interventionist principles.

Its initial support for the Iraq war (recall that the Democrats controlled the Senate when the Iraq War Resolution was passed), its ongoing consensus support for the war in the years that followed, its tacking towards the anti-war position in the months leading up to the election in order to benefit from the anti-war surge--but without an accompanying willingness to act in any concrete way to stop the war--all show that the party hierarchy is more interested in attaining power than maintaining any kind of intellectual honesty and political integrity.

Nonetheless, as the nominal “opposition” party in the gerrymandered, government-enforced two-party system, the Democrats became the beneficiaries of the American public’s election day wrath against the war and its GOP sponsors. Their victory was by way of default and deception--and most certainly wasn’t a result of the party’s earnest desire to carry out the American public’s level-headed yearning to extract itself from the Iraq mess and other foolish, expensive and immoral interventionist initiatives that tax us at home and stretch us abroad.

Perhaps indicative of the status-quo direction the government is likely to take under the “new” Congressional leadership was the post-election call for bipartisan agreement to continue the two-party war against Islamofascism. Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, was quoted as telling Fox News that the "threat of Islamic fascism" was neither "a Republican threat nor a Democratic threat" and that there was "no reason we can't work on a bipartisan basis on an issue like that."

Echoing that sentiment was the putative Madame Speaker. From McClatchy Newspapers: ‘Nancy Pelosi, who's expected to be the next speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, signaled Wednesday that she intends to steer a centrist course and work across party lines with President Bush to shape policy on Iraq, energy, Social Security and immigration…"Impeachment is off the table," she declared, spiking one dream that many liberal activists cherished…’

So "impeachment is off the table” but the open-ended war against the "threat of Islamic fascism" will go on. That’s the kind of “change” that the two-party system likes: cosmetic.

Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

US Troops Trapped in

2006-09-15T12:59:00.000-07:00

US Troops Trapped in Washington-made Catch-22

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- In Joseph Heller’s novel Catch-22, the author constructs a famous bind for one of his protagonists, a U.S. Air Force bombardier by the name of Yossarian, whose conscience has violently revolted against his continuing participation in the war. In order to be dismissed from combat flight duty on medical grounds, however, Yossarian must first prove he is insane. The problem is, no sane person would want combat flight duty, hence Yossarian’s efforts to escape service prove he is not insane and is therefore fit to fly.

Yossarian’s dilemma is not unlike the quandary into which American troops serving in Iraq have been forced by the Bush administration and its Washington enablers, whose self-contradicting Middle East policies have put US forces in ongoing jeopardy and an unwinnable situation.

The latest chapter of Washington negligence finds the Bush administration angling for yet another US-instigated war, this time against Iran. The White House recently issued a new “National Strategy for Combating Terrorism” which declared that “Iran remains the most active state sponsor of international terrorism,” and continues to “harbor terrorists at home and sponsor terrorist activity abroad.”

“Most troubling is the potential WMD-terrorism nexus that emanates from Tehran,” the report cryptically adds, perversely invoking the pretext that the Bush administration used to take America to war with Iraq.

The report follows months of demonization from US government and neocon media opinion-makers of Muslims in general and Iranians in particular as “fascists” and “totalitarians.”

The problem for US troops on the ground in Iraq now is that in order to subdue the sectarian violence between Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite Muslims (and save themselves in the process), they need the cooperation of the country that Bush and the neocons are currently agitating for war against.

Why? Because Iraq’s Shiite Muslim majority has strong religious and ethnic ties to Shiite-majority Iran. In fact, many of Iraq’s current Shiite leaders were deposed by Saddam Hussein and spent their exile in Iran plotting and agitating against the tyrant, finally returning when US troops had purged him from power. Yet with all their rhetoric aimed at one of the only countries to give the Shiite people hope and safe-harbor from Saddam during his long and tyrannical rule, Bush and the neocons have methodically driven a wedge between US troops and the majority sect of the country to which they were deployed on a mission of “liberation.”

The repercussions have been drastic:

“The future of Iraq as a sovereign nation was thrown into jeopardy yesterday after a new law was introduced to parliament that would enable the break up of the country into semi-autonomous regions,” said a September 7 report in the Telegraph.

“If passed, a self-ruling Shia state is likely to emerge in the south, based on the autonomous region Kurds have already established in the north. It would not only be able to levy its own taxes and govern itself but, Shia politicians say, would have its own armed guards posted along its borders.”

"This is a guarantee to our sons and grandsons that injustice will not be revived," Abdel Aziz Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (the Iranian-tied party that drafted the proposal), told the Telegraph.

“Iraq's Sunni community, which is bitterly opposed to the prospect, has warned it will mark the first step in the break up of the country and could lead to the south of Iraq becoming a satellite of Iran,” the Telegraph added.

So as Iraq’s long-beleaguered Shiite population moves closer to its religious and ethnic cousins in Iran for the sake of its own safety, Washington (which for years aided and abetted Saddam’s repression of the Shiites) is sending signals that it is likely to either invade or bomb Iran in the near future—which could well leave Iraqi Shiites again at the mercy of Washington’s former partners in persecution, the Sunnis.

This is hardly a recipe for encouraging Shiite cooperation with Sunnis in Iraq. After all, why would the Shiites want to take the pressure today off of a group with which they might be at all-out war tomorrow?

Meanwhile, US policy has also given Sunni militants, who are apparently behind the majority of attacks against US forces in Iraq, incentive to continue the sectarian violence as well.

They appear to be deliberately sowing chaos in order to either drive the US from the region altogether (which would increase their odds against the Shiites), or to encourage an American attack against Iran by forcing Washington into an escalation. From the Sunni perspective, such an attack would take the US heat off of their own sect and prevent southern Iraq from becoming the “Iranian satellite” they so desperately fear.

In both cases, the pivot is the prospect that the US might attack Iran. Each group is accounting for that scenario in its calculated strategy of rallying around its own sect and attacking the other, and in some instances attacking US forces as well.

Caught in the middle of all of this and being slowly picked off are US troops, who were originally sent to the region (supposedly) to de-fang Saddam Hussein —a mission they accomplished three years ago.

Of course, they were betrayed by the Bush administration once, when it turned out Saddam had neither the WMD nor the ties to the 9/11 terrorists that administration neocons claimed he did, but forced the troops into an untenable occupation anyway.

And today they are being betrayed yet again, the latest set of victims in the grand chess match that Washington has been playing in the Middle East for decades. This time it’s the US troops who have become pawns, and their chances of survival (let alone success) are being undermined by the contradictory and conflicting policies emanating from the very imperial leviathan that sent them overseas in the first place.

Little wonder, then, that even the Pentagon (which, despite everything, apparently still feels an iota of culpability for the fate of its soldiers) is openly contradicting the White House in its assessment of the situation in Iraq, albeit discreetly.

From a September 3 report in The Observer: “In his weekly radio address to the nation, Bush lashed out at critics of the war and portrayed the conflict in Iraq as an integral part of the war on terror. He said the country was not sliding into civil war…

“That may be true, but the tone of Bush's speech was deeply at odds with a Pentagon report released late on Friday, which showed Iraqi casualties had soared by more than 50 per cent in recent months. The Pentagon often releases bad news late in the week in order to minimise press coverage and the study certainly made for grim reading.

'Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife,' it noted. The report added that civil war was a possibility in Iraq, which seemed to jar with the message from the White House and top Republican politicians.”

The problem with Washington’s ongoing policy of Middle East machiavellianism is that despite its rhetoric, the US government simply does not want self-determination and democracy for Muslims. It will form mutually beneficial alliances with Sunni or Shiite autocrats, so long as they remain docile and compliant to American imperial and Israel-first policies. But as soon as one group or the other starts gaining traction en masse and becomes a viable, self-functioning entity, the US will cynically partner with its opposition to slap it back into subservience. This cycle has repeated itself ad nauseam for years.

The difference this time around is that the Bush administration is trying to use the US military to slap all of the players into subservience simultaneously (an impossible task no matter how many troops are deployed), and it is lying to both the military and the American people about its reasons for doing so. In effect, the US military has become just another savage force to be manipulated and coerced into doing imperial Washington’s bidding.

Our ruling elites may have been able to get away with this pompous indifference to human life when they were pitting “mere” Middle Easterners against one another, but now that they are haphazardly throwing American troops into their cynical machinations, their schemes appear to have finally caught up with them.

A recent Pew poll found that “By a 45% to 32% margin, more Americans believe that the best way to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks on the U.S. is to decrease, not increase, America's military presence overseas.” Another poll, by Harris Interactive, found that a plurality of Europeans view the United States as “the greatest threat to global stability.” And yet a third poll, this one by Ipsos-Public Affairs, showed that 60 per cent of Americans think there will be “more terrorism in the United States because the country went to war in Iraq.”

Such finding can only be read as a major rebuke to America’s political class, and a lack of confidence in both its integrity and its ability to conduct foreign policy in a manner consistent with the best interests and values of the people it professes to represent.

In Catch-22, Yossarian believes that because he is the only one sane enough to revolt against the war, his comrades are the ones who have lost their minds. If Americans don’t follow through and revolt against Washington’s insane policies in the upcoming elections, our troops trapped in Iraq may reach the same conclusion about the country that has forced them into this fool’s errand.

It’s too bad it took several thousand US casualties and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Islamic ones for Americans to begin realizing there is something deeply dysfunctional about their government’s Middle East policies. But better late than never, so long as they punish the guilty in both parties by eliminating those who still support the war at the ballot box.

2006-08-24T12:45:00.000-07:00

A religious motive for the Iraq war deception?

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Shockwaves from what more and more critics are saying was a Bush administration program to entangle the United States ever deeper into Middle East politics by deceiving the country into the Iraq war continue to reverberate through American society.

Testimony in the recent court-martial hearing of Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who has been charged with refusing to join his brigade's deployment to Iraq, speaking contemptuously of the president and committing acts unbecoming an officer, has shone yet another spotlight on the possibly illegal means by which the administration secured the introduction of thousands of American troops into the Mideast under the pretext of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction from the hands of terrorists.

‘Most of the hearing was consumed by defense testimony, with three witnesses attacking the Bush administration's approach to the war and asserting that an officer could justifiably refuse to participate,’ said a Seattle Times account of the court-martial hearing.

“There was no authorization from the U.N. Security Council ... and that made it a crime against the peace,” said Francis Boyle, a University of Illinois professor of international law, who said the Army's own field manual required such authorization for an offensive war.

Boyle, an outspoken critic of the administration policy in Iraq, went into considerable detail about the rules for war as detailed in the Army Field Manual. He accused the administration of using fraudulent means to persuade Congress to authorize the war, twice-failing to get U.N. Security Council authorization for the war and then allowing war crimes to occur.’

Watada’s case may be bolstered by a new book by Thomas E. Ricks, a military reporter for the Washington Post. Titled ‘Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq,’ Ricks’ book says the Bush administration deceived the American public about the existence Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that the administration claimed could one day be used against America--weapons that an exhaustive post-invasion search failed to turn up.

‘It already is abundantly apparent in mid-2006 that the U.S. government went to war with Iraq with scant solid international support and on the basis of incorrect information - about weapons of mass destruction and a supposed nexus between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda's terrorism - and then occupied the country negligently,’ Ricks writes.

In a review of ‘Fiasco’ for the Seattle Times, Bruce Ramsey takes note of Ricks’ venture into fleshing out the psychological motives that might have animated Bush and his Iraq war policy makers: ‘Ricks profiles Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz, an early champion of belligerency, and reveals how Wolfowitz's family's losses in the Holocaust shaped the way he thinks…Ricks argues that Bush and his senior advisers wanted a fight, and deceived themselves as well as the public about Iraq's ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ ’

This isn’t the first time Wolfowitz’s name has come up in relation to the allegedly deceitful use of his government employment on behalf of the pursuit of a personal vendetta or agenda. According to a 2004 report in Asia Times by Jim Lobe, ‘Wolfowitz was investigated in 1978 for providing a classified document on the proposed sale of a US weapons system to an Arab government to an Israeli official via an [Israel lobby] AIPAC staffer.

‘In 1992, when he was serving as under secretary of defense for policy, Pentagon officials looking into the unauthorized export of classified technology to China found that Wolfowitz's office was promoting Israel's export of advanced air-to-air missiles to Beijing in violation of a written agreement with Washington on arms re-sales.’

Douglas Feith, who served under Wolfowitz in the run up to the Iraq war, also has a checkered past of covert dealings on behalf of Israel. He was removed from his position as a Middle East analyst in the National Security Council in 1982 when he came under suspicion by the FBI for passing classified material to Israeli embassy officials, reports say.

In 2004 respected scholar James Petras took critical note of the large number of committed Jewish nationalists working in the Pentagon under Wolfowitz and elsewhere within the Bush administration and found that they were the driving force behind the Iraq war:

‘Wolfowitz, Feith, [Elliot] Abrams, [Richard] Perle, [Michael] Rubin et al were the most zealous promoters of the war against Iraq. They worked closely with other Zionist ideologues like Bush speechwriter David Frum to promote the notion of ‘axes of evil,’ to engage in a sequence of wars against Muslim regimes hostile to Israeli colonial policy in Palestine and beyond. Wolfowitz, Feith set up the parallel ‘intelligence’ agency (the Office of Special Planning) run by fellow Zionist Abram Shulsky using [Ahmed] Chalabi to provide phony data on Iraq to precipitate that war. An army of ‘Israel First’ academic and journalist ideologues wrote, spoke and acted to justify the US attack on Iraq as the first part of a regional war to destroy any and all regimes critical of Israeli expansionism.’

Certainly President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were well-aware of the record of shady dealings on behalf of Israel by Wolfowitz, Feith and other Jewish nationalists eventually hired by the administration. Federal agencies perform exhaustive security clearance checks on all recruits to national security-sensitive areas of the government prior to their employment, which means that the administration knew exactly what it was getting when it brought them into service--and likely waived any national security concerns raised.

In fact, given Bush’s apparent Christian Zionists religious beliefs (a recent Nation magazine report says that the White House holds secret Middle East policy meetings with dispensationalist Christians who believe that “supporting Israel's expansionist policies is ‘a biblical imperative’”), Wolfowitz and Feith’s staunch Jewish nationalist credentials and their reported history of attempting to advance that country’s interests through the co-opting of U.S. government resources on behalf of the Israeli agenda may well have been the exact characteristics the administration was looking for in those to whom it planned to entrust the formulation of America’s foreign policy.

In his testimony before the court-martial hearing, Lt. Watada’s expert witness Francis Boyle didn’t go into details about the motives of the Bush administration’s deceitful Iraq war initiative, only that the administration used fraudulent means to persuade Congress to authorize the war. To be fully effective, future critics may need to establish the administration’s motives as well. The Christian Zionist/Jewish nationalist religious/ethnic loyalties to Israel held by top administration officials may well be a good place to start.

2006-08-04T12:19:00.000-07:00

If you support Israel, you support World War III

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Writing for Salon.com, Sydney Blumenthal documents how Bush administration neocons and their apparatchik private-sector allies are trying to use the current Israeli conflict to widen the “war on terror” into World War III:

“Inside the administration, neoconservatives on Vice President Dick Cheney's national security staff and Elliott Abrams, the neoconservative senior director for the Near East on the National Security Council, are prime movers behind sharing NSA intelligence with Israel, and they have discussed Syrian and Iranian supply activities as a potential pretext for Israeli bombing of both countries, the source privy to conversations about the program says. (Intelligence, including that gathered by the NSA, has been provided to Israel in the past for various purposes.) The neoconservatives are described as enthusiastic about the possibility of using NSA intelligence as a lever to widen the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and Israel and Hamas into a four-front war.”

Blumenthal says that because Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have qualms about widening the war (“recently she has come under fire from prominent neoconservatives who oppose her support for diplomatic negotiations with Iran to prevent its development of nuclear weaponry”) she has come to be seen as a thorn in the side of neocon plans for escalation.

"‘Dump Condi,’ read the headline in the right-wing Insight Magazine on July 25. ‘Conservative national security allies of President Bush are in revolt against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, saying that she is incompetent and has reversed the administration's national security and foreign policy agenda,’ the article reported.”

Blumenthal continues: “A month earlier, [neocon guru Richard] Perle, in a June 25 Op-Ed in the Washington Post, revived an old trope from the height of the Cold War, accusing those who propose diplomacy of being like Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who tried to appease Hitler…Rice, agent of the nefarious State Department, is supposedly the enemy within.
‘We are in the early stages of World War III,’ [Newt] Gingrich told Insight. ‘Our bureaucracies are not responding fast enough. We don't have the right attitude.’”

So now it is clear: first the neocons tried to spark World War III by lying America into a war in Iraq, which because so many neocons are also Jewish nationalists, was to be fought primarily by Americans on behalf of Israel. It didn’t work. Americans don’t want World War III because they know it would have to be conducted against all of Islam, which would be a war that neither side could possibly ever win on any decisive level; much of the world would simply become the new battle ground in a never-ending, Israeli vs. Palestinian style conflict which would accomplish exactly nothing except the devastation of lives, economies and infrastructures.

Because World War III via invasion of Iraq didn’t work, the neocons are trying a second, more direct route--through support of Israel: either America continues to support Israel, and follows wherever that path leads (and the neocons know it will lead to confrontation with Syria and Iran and eventually all of Islam) or it withdraws its support for the Jewish state altogether.

Brinkmanship junkies that they are, the neocons are betting America is dumb enough to continue to support Israel. And because they are also insane, the neocons think the resulting conflict with Islam can be won.

But look at what their previous thinking has wrought their favorite country: year after year of ongoing war--and this despite overwhelming military power by Israel, which has been thrown billions in aid and armaments by dimwitted American politicians and Jewish and Judeo-Christian supporters of Jewish nationalism for decades. If America invades the entire Middle East, it will be the exact same thing on a larger scale, as we have already seen in Iraq--yet another example of the destructive results of neocon ignorance and bigotry.

“Ideas have consequences” used to be a favorite conservative slogan. And it is true, they do. In the case of the neocons, stupid ideas have disastrous consequence, as their warped schemes have proven time and again.

So where are the Democrats on all of this? Like neocon Republicans, still staunch supporters of Israel--which makes them supporters of World War III by default.

As AntiWar.com’s Justin Raimondo writes:
“The left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which is making political capital out of the Iraqi quagmire, has nothing to say about Israel's Lebanese quagmire – and especially not about our part in subsidizing and egging them on. The Democrats pushed to have Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki barred from speaking to a joint session of Congress because he had dared describe the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as ‘aggression’ – a faux pas in Washington no matter what party you belong to. Congress voted to endorse the murderous Israeli assault, without mentioning any need for restraint or deploring the targeting of civilians and Lebanon's infrastructure: there were only eight dissenting votes.”

The foot-in-both-camps Democrats, just like the hand-wringing Republicans who are too smart to want to conduct World War III, have tried to have it both ways for too long. They want to support Israel, but they don’t really want to wage a global war.

Sorry, but it is simply no longer feasible to have it both ways. Either you are a supporter of Israel, Jewish nationalism and World War III--and all that waging such a war on behalf of Jewish nationalism implies--or you are opposed to Israel, Jewish nationalism and World War III.

If you are in opposition, you must support the immediate suspension of all aid to Israel, military and otherwise, until it reforms its system into a democracy that ensures equal rights under the law for all instead of special rights for Jews over gentiles, which has resulted in its current quasi-fascist incarnation, and a big headache for America. This should be followed by a suspension of aid to all other Middle Eastern countries and regimes that do not meet the same equal rights standards. If this results in the temporary ascension of Islam, so be it. The free markets will deal with Islam in their own way and in their own time. The West may even learn a little something about maintaining higher moral principles from the Muslims in the process.

The alternative is World War III. The Jewish nationalists and their supporters in America won’t have it any other way.

Chris Moore is publisher of www.LibertarianToday.com

2006-07-30T10:03:00.000-07:00

What will it be: Containment of Israel or World War III?

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Worldwide, the religion of Islam has about 1.3 billion adherents; Judaism has about 15 million.

The neocons, Judeo-Christian Zionists and Jewish nationalist Zionists (the three groups that make up Judeofascism in America) have always known that without American intervention, the long-term prospects for Israel in its current racialist incarnation are bleak. It is Jim Crow state of 7 million people, 77% of whom are Jews, who’s “democratic” government grants them privileged-class status over gentiles. And they reside amidst a sea of millions of gentile Muslims.

Additionally, the majority of Jewish Israelis (for a number of reasons, most of which have to do with sheer bigotry) despise those Muslims and have sought to root them out of their midst using government-organized terror and violence since Israel’s inception. (Occasionally, the Muslims have responded in kind.)

What, then, has become the phenomenon of a few million Jews (not including their fanatical Judeo-Christian allies) trying to take on an Islamic population many times their size is not unlike the early decades of the Soviet Union wherein a small minority of Jewish Communists joined with fanatical Marxist ideologues and used a powerful State to terrorize and murder millions of Christians, whom they also regarded as backward and inferior.

Because there were so many crypto Jewish nationalist in the upper echelons of the Communist Party in those days, critics of the Soviet Union, like critics of Israel today, were said to be “anti-Semitic” and opposed to the fair treatment for Jews that the Soviet state supposedly ensured. Not irrelevant to its current incarnation as a violently bigoted (national) socialist state, many Communist Jews later sought refuge from retaliation for their Soviet crimes against humanity in Israel, which welcomed them with open arms.

Like their statist Soviet pre-cursors, American Judeofascists have also operated by using a powerful central state and appropriating money and arms from its government to further their murderous cause. Only in this case, it’s the U.S. government; and Washington has been subsidizing Judeofascism for years at the behest of that movement’s various lobbies and lackey politicians in the form of aid to Israel. Most Muslims know this, as do most politically astute Americans.

And this is why America was attacked on 9/11.

On that fateful day, a group of Muslims, who believed they were acting on behalf of the dirt-poor Islamic masses, hit back against the country whose government has long supplied the resources used by Israeli Judeofascists to subjugate and murder them. They also hit back against the country whose government for years backed anti-Islamic Arab dictators like Saddam Hussein, who only after his invasion of Kuwait became an enemy of the U.S., mainly because it was feared he might one day also represent a threat to Jewish Israel and to oil-rich, U.S.-allied Arab tyrants. Today, our government still backs dictatorial Arab regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan because like Saddam, they too are willing to pit their Muslim sects against one another in order to rule over the entire internecine mess with an iron fist--for the right price.

The only surprise about 9/11 was the fact is that it took Islamic militants so long to strike back domestically at the U.S. government for financing Jewish and Arab-authoritarian terror for so many decades.

It is unfortunate that innocent Americans paid the price for this instead of the Judeofascists themselves. After all, the average American is only culpable for Washington’s inhumane policies against Muslims to the extent that he or she has allowed the tenacious Judeofascist lobby to coerce the U.S. government into financing this ugly state of affairs.

But then, as a tiny minority here (just as it was in the Soviet Union), that is part of the Judeofascist strategy: burrow deep into the general population that it hopes to one day leverage against its enemies, attain positions of power and influence and then act in its name so that when that population is retaliated against, the Judeofascist-instigators can paint the hit as an attack on the entire society itself.

In the Soviet Union, Judeofascist Communists routinely and arbitrarily singled out Christians for persecution. When Christians sometimes violently defended themselves, the Judeofascist called this a “counterrevolutionary” or “terrorist” attack on the entire State and used it as an excuse to bring the wrath of the Soviet system down upon all “bourgeoisie” Christians, whose main trespass was subscribing to Christianity. (“Anti-Semitism,” by the way, was declared a crime in the Soviet Union.)

Former Israeli prime minister and ongoing neocon darling Benjamin Netanyahu unwittingly hinted at this strategy at play in contemporary America when, after hearing about the 9/11 attacks, he blurted out that they were “a good thing for Israel.” He said this because he knew that they would provide an opportunity for Zionist Fifth Columnists in America to begin the process of co-opting the U.S. military on Israel’s behalf to bring its wrath down upon Islam.

Of course, today we know that the U.S. government has been riddled with Zionists for years, mostly of the Jewish nationalist stripe, who are inextricably intertwined with Israel. Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and Scooter Libby are but three examples of open Jewish nationalists then working in the upper echelons of the Bush administration who were instrumental in manufacturing the “evidence” that led to the Iraq war from their positions within the government. And openly Jewish nationalist media figures such as William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Mort Zuckerman (who has owned the New York Daily News, US News & World Report, and Atlantic Monthly), are but three examples of Zionists who were crucial elements in the lie-America-into-war operation from the mass media end.

They and hundreds of other Jewish nationalist Fifth Columnists all used their positions of influence and power to disseminate false evidence against Saddam, and then relied upon the countless Judeo-Christian Zionists residing across middle America to provide the localized “grassroots” Fifth Column necessary to perpetrate the fraudulent Iraq war upon the American people and the Iraqis themselves.

Some of these Fifth Columnists are traitors to America, others are merely useful idiots being manipulated on behalf of Judeofascism. But recall what nearly all of them were shouting from the rooftops in the run-up to war: Saddam Hussein is connected to 9/11; Saddam Hussein has WMD; Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. And so we invaded.

Unfortunately for them, like most fundamentally deceitful enterprises tend to, the war has gone poorly. And even their numbers haven’t been enough to prevent more earnest representatives of the government, the media and the general public from getting to the truth: all their claims were lies.

After the invasion, even George W. Bush was forced to admit that Saddam had no connection to 9/11. And the WMD hunters his own administration sent to Iraq concluded that none were there to be found.

What does this tell you? Are these honest people? Were their pre-Iraq war certitudes honest mistakes? Or did they knowingly send American troops to Iraq under false pretenses? Given that the false evidence against Saddam was manufactured and disseminated mostly by Zionists, the answer should be self-evident: many of them knowingly betrayed America. So the question becomes…why?

Some say to monopolize oil, some say to perpetuate the Keynesian military-industrial-complex. I believe there are elements of truth to both of those theories. But I also believe the primary motive--the only one driven by a powerful combination of religion, ambition, emotion and ideology--was Israel. And it would take such fundamental forces to inspire these elements to perpetrate the diabolical betrayals that they have.

The Judeofascists were (and still are) eager to get even more Americans killed than died on 9/11 by sending our troops to Iraq in order to escalate the battle against Israel’s Islamic enemies to ever-greater heights. I believe Israel and its Judeofascist emissaries want to force America and eventually the entire West into a world war against all of Islam. They want this “clash of civilizations” so that American troops will die in the battle instead of Israeli ones, and they want it in order to increase the power of the capital of Judeofascism, Israel, so it can spread its megalomaniacal racialist beliefs across the Middle East and perhaps to the corners of the globe.

They are willing to use the U.S. military to accomplish this; they are willing to use nuclear weapons to accomplish this; and they are willing to use your children to accomplish this.

Will you let them?

The only way to stop Judeofascism is to root its most tenacious representatives out of the U.S. government; and to root those loyal to the Israeli government, both Christian Zionist and Jewish nationalist, out of American civil society. Of those who were knowingly involved in the operation to lie America into war, some should be arrested for treason, others merely deported to Israel--which is their primary loyalty anyway. That way they can be contained there the same way Ronald Reagan contained Communist ideologues in the Soviet Union: through the use of carrots and sticks.

Recall that Reagan frightened the Marxists with strength, but gave them incentive to reform. The combination, applied over a number of years, was enough to defeat them before the confrontation escalated to an all-out nuclear exchange. The Judeofascists should be similarly contained through limited American carrots (drastically-reduced aid to what will become a skeleton Israeli state) in conjunction and partnership with the stick of Islam, which will continue to intimidate and frustrate their diabolical ambitions through constant, steady pressure. That way Israel’s continuing existence will be a function of its ability to get along with its Islamic neighbors instead of a function of its ability to murder and subjugate them.

The alternative is a war with Islam instigated by Judeofascism’s American Fifth Column, which has already proven itself capable of epic acts of deceit and betrayal. And there is no reason to believe that if left unchallenged, the Judeofascists will stop at anything less than world war.

In response to Hezbollah’s defense of Islam and Lebanon against Judeofascism’s latest onslaught, neocon Judeofascist Newt Gingrich has already called upon the Bush administration to declare World War III. And such calls will only continue, either until Judeofascism is contained, or until it gets its way and achieves a mass conflagration in the service of its sinister, racialist vision carried out under the guise of attaining Israeli “security.”

Chris Moore is publisher of www.LibertarianToday.com

2006-07-19T13:27:00.000-07:00

Defeating Judeofascism in America
(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- For years, spineless and cynical left liberals have ignored the growing Judeofascist threat and sat idly by while the Israel lobby solidified its stranglehold over Washington. In fact, in many cases the left-liberals collaborated with the Jewish nationalist wing of the Judeofascist movement because so many of its members were Zionist Democrats and wealthy donors to the party. They still are.
Only recently, as the Judeofascists have grown ever more bold, lying America into a "preemptive" war of conquest and imperialism motivated by greed and the Zionist vision of a religious-based Middle Eastern hierarchy wherein Jews and Judeo-Christians are officially recognized as supreme, perpetual rulers (a state of affairs to be enforced by American troops), have the left-liberals started to make a few hesitant squeaks about the axis of Israel and fascism. The assault on Lebanon has served to highlight the extent of this axis, and so the squeaks have turned to whimpers.
Yet while they never hold their tongues in violently condemning the Christian Right for pursuing this vision, many on the left-liberal side continue to defend and make excuses for the Jewish nationalist wing of Judeofascism. This is because they want their cake and to eat it too: They want all that Zionist money that comes from Jewish Democrats who are staunch advocates of secularism in America (where Jews are in the minority) but fanatically Jewish-nationalist when it comes to Israel, where Jews are in the majority.
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Howard Dean (and the mentality they represent) think the Democrats can continue to blindly support Israel, take in loads of Jewish nationalist money from lefty American Zionists, condemn the Christian Right (which is made up mostly of Christian Zionists) and squeak through to victory in the midterm and 2008 elections without ever bothering to address the internal contradictions central to their entire campaign--namely, why is Jewish nationalism acceptable in Israel, but Islamic nationalism and Christian nationalism forbidden in the Middle East and America?
For that matter, why is persecuting religious minorities acceptable in Israel but wrong in America? Why is persecuting racial minorities, which Jim Crow Israel also does with impunity, forbidden here as well?
In summary, why in the Democrats’ view is the American government subsidization of religious nationalism, the persecution of racial and religious minorities, and the fascist bombing of Palestinian and Lebanese civilian “others” acceptable for Israel, but not acceptable for America?
I’ll tell you why: Because the Democrats are themselves latent Judeofascists. The Party has internalized the central Judeofascist mentality, namely that the world is divided between the “chosen” elite who do the governing, and what George Orwell in the novel 1984 called “the proles”—the ignorant masses whose government-prescribed function is to do what the government tells them to do. Hypocrisy is part and parcel of that mentality.
So if Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Howard Dean in all their statist wisdom decide that a foreign policy riddled with internal contradictions is the way to go, then by God that’s the policy that the increasingly Orwellian U.S. government will pursue.
Which raises the question: Since that’s already the policy of the federal government under the Republicans, then what do we need the Democrats for? The GOP has shown that it can pursue the Judeofascist agenda far more effectively and with a lot less hand-wringing than the Democrats, so why bother with the Dems at all?
Because the Dems want to limit the Judeofascist agenda to the Middle East and won’t let it spill over into America? Wrong. In fact the pseudo-liberal, big-government Dems, who were always a little bit soft on Judeofascism when it operated under its Communist guise, are probably more likely to unleash the full fury of Judeofascism on America because the Party’s upper ranks are riddled with Jewish nationalists, even more so than the GOP.
And the Democrats have already demonstrated they will basically roll over for whatever policy the Judeofascists propose the second one of them starts accusing dissidents of “anti-Semitism”--and Americans who oppose the ongoing supremacist project in the Middle East will be accused of exactly that under the Dems, just as they have been under the Republicans. The only difference is that the politically correct Democrats, who have never met a big government Thought Police program they didn’t like, will probably take the already Orwellian federal bureaucracy to the next level domestically and let the Inner Party Judeofascists use it against “anti-Semitic” enemies of the state and “domestic terrorists” here just as they did in the Soviet Union.
You see, it has long been the authoritarian Judeofascist modus-operandi to infiltrate and use a powerful central State to bash in the skulls of its “enemies” (those who object to the innately bigoted Judeofascist agenda). It did so to the Christians, Ukrainians, Cossacks and dissidents in the Soviet Union and behind the iron curtain under Communism (until collaborator Stalin later turned on “the Jews,” which converted the formerly Trotskyite Jewish neocons to “liberalism” and later neoconservatism); its doing so to the Palestinians, and now the Lebanese in the Middle East under Zionism; its doing so to the Iraqis by proxy using the American military under neoconservatism; and it will do so to Americans domestically under neoconservatism or neoliberalism using the federal government through the Republicans or Democrats, as the case may be.
America may not be a tyranny yet, but make no mistake--if left unchecked, Judeofascism will take the federal government there sooner or later. That’s what it does; that’s what it is; that’s its nature. Most Judeofascists know this and accept it. All of the clever neocon, neoliberal rhetoric about valuing democracy, liberty and liberalism is designed to disguise this fact. Those who have closely studied Israel understand that the Judeofascists simply don't want equal rights for all, and never have. In fact, they are staunchly opposed the concept.
In the end there is no getting around the iron law of reality: Judeofascism is real, it is murderous and it is totalitarian. It existed in the Soviet Union and it exists today in Israel and as a fifth column in America. Pretending it is the figment of “anti-Semitic” imaginations will not make it go away. The longer it is ignored, the worse it gets, as Israel’s latest assault on Middle Eastern civilization demonstrates.
There is only one solution to Judeofascism in America, and that is to replace the pseudo-liberal Democrats with the classically liberal libertarians, who are in the same intellectual tradition as America’s Founding Fathers and, similarly, advocate its liberation from tyrannical rule.
That will give Americans a real choice between authentic liberalism and big government authoritarianism instead the false choice between the authoritarian-Left Democrats and the authoritarian-Right Republicans forced upon us today.

And if Americans choose classical liberalism (and if they know what’s good for them, they will) the Judeofascist threat will be removed by hamstringing the instrument of its evil designs: the State.

Chris Moore is publisher of www.LibertarianToday.com

2006-06-07T18:59:00.000-07:00

Zionist fanatics and the threat to America’s future

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by respective University of Chicago and Harvard University scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt is a groundbreaking study cataloguing Zionist influence over the federal government’s Middle East policy. It has unleashed a torrent of pent up frustration over the American Establishment’s failure to address (let alone redress) a root cause of the dysfunctional policy-making process that triggered the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the disastrous Iraq war that followed.

Unfortunately, the most intelligent analyses of the study have been limited to internet publication, and have yet to see the light of day in the mainstream media.

In his article on the tepid mainstream response to the study (published on Thornwalker.com), Stephen Sniegoski aptly summarized its findings:

"Mearsheimer and Walt maintain that the pro-Israel lobby, made up of an extensive network of journalists, think-tankers, lobbyists, and officials of the Bush regime — largely but not solely of Jewish ethnicity — has played a fundamental role in shaping American Middle East policy. The lobby's goal has been to enhance Israeli security, which could very well be at the expense of U.S. interests. The risk of that has become especially apparent with the war on Iraq, for which the pro-Israeli neoconservatives served as the ‘driving force.’"

Sniegoski assesses that many non-Jewish Americans would prefer to remain in denial about the extent of Zionist power in this country than face up to the facts and confront the problem head on. This is largely the result, he implies, of a sort of Soviet-like psychological conditioning carried out by Zionist opinion makers.

"To a certain degree, [white gentiles] have internalized the moral compass of the Israel lobby: that offending what seems to be a Jewish interest is worse than lying; that propitiating officially recognized victims is more important than truth."

Sadly, this is largely true—even to the point that today, many "respectable" gentiles would rather acquiesce to another foolish and unnecessary war detrimental to American interests (this time against Iran) than confront the truth staring them straight in the face: namely that Zionist operatives, both Christian Zionist and Jewish nationalist, are largely dictating American foreign policy on behalf of Israeli interests and at the expense of America’s future.

The psychological reasons behind the fact that many white gentiles today are too cowed to fight back against a major threat to their own children’s future are many and complex. Sniegoski touches on a couple of important ones, though.

Mindlessly obeying politically correct taboos, he says, is "the ultimate survival trait in modern American society…it is far easier and safer simply to conform to the prescribed opinion." Most people, he adds, "so that they may reach and remain in the ranks of profitable respectability, take care to hold no strong views."

Those two societally and self-imposed mandates—the maintenance of "political correctness" and "profitable respectability"—working in tandem, are key to understanding the grip that the Israel lobby has over Washington, and in many respects the rest of the country as well. It is no coincidence that one (political correctness) is considered a function of the Left, while the other (the pursuit of profitable respectability) a function of the Right, because that is how the lobby has attained its tremendous power—through a policy of triangulation.

To force the Left into acquiescence, the lobby has made support for Jewish Israel a politically correct litmus test. Anyone who consistently opposes Israel or its policies is sooner or later subjected to accusations of racist "anti-Semitism." This is ironic, and highly disingenuous given that Israel is an officially segregationist state granting special rights and privileges to Jews over non-Jews. But under the current American zeitgeist, faux anti-Semitism at home trumps institutional Jewish racism in Israel every time.

In fact, in America, anti-Semitism—even more so than racism—has come to be seen as the ultimate thought crime. The U.S. State Department recently swore in a special envoy whose entire job consists of monitoring and combating anti-Semitism. (This too is ironic given that besides Jews, many Arabs are a also a Semitic people, which should put most neocons, who are constantly haranguing against Arab "Islamofascism," on the special envoy’s watch list—but won’t.)

Imagine if a special federal envoy was created to combat anti-Catholicism or anti-Russian-Orthodoxism or anti-Islamicism, all of which also have histories of mass persecution. Every group would want their own special federal protector. But only anti-Semitism is entitled to a special envoy, which is a deliberate message being sent by the federal government.

While not necessarily incontrovertible evidence that all Americans have internalized the Israel lobby’s moral compass, it does suggest that large factions of the U.S. government have. (So much for the separation of Synagogue and State.)

This is due in no small part to Zionists and their sympathizers working not only through the government, but through mass media and other cultural institutions to imprint on the American psyche the notion that few faux pas are greater than criticizing Jewish group behavior, or even Jewish initiatives such as Zionism and Israel, because such criticism can ultimately lead to "another Holocaust".

Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List immediately comes to mind as the best-known example of this kind of imprinting, but thousands of ethnic Jews and Leftists working through every mass medium from film and television to newspapers and books have labored over the years to advance this neurotic mindset. Taken individually, their work is innocuous enough, but collectively, the sheer volume of "Jewish victim" scholarship, agitprop, investigation, reporting, and general canon has forced America, ostensibly a multi-cultural society, to focus and fixate on the tragic historical experience of a tiny minority.

Is it any wonder then that even though Israel makes up only .002% of the world's total population, and has the highest average living standards in the Middle East with a per capita GDP of almost $25,000, it is granted nearly 33% of the American foreign-aid budget? Selfishness doesn’t even begin to describe the injustice of this ridiculously disproportionate state of affairs.

***

There were many different motives behind the concerted effort to transform the Holocaust from just another example of statist mass murder (which, unfortunately is all too historically banal, starting with the mass killings carried out by Soviet Communists, through World War II Nazi atrocities, Maoist China and Africa today) to a "unique" and now universally known cautionary tale of almost holy import.

For ideological American Jews, the motivations were several: 1)an earnest (if not rational) fear of the American Christian majority; 2) to glorify their own ethnicity (and by extension, themselves) as both righteous victims and morally superior survivors vis a vis their philistine neighbors; 3) to promote the notion of Jewish exceptionalism, which is merely a modern update on their biblical claims of "choseness"; 4) to aid in the maintenance and prosperity of Israel as a sanctuary for this deified group; and 5) to use as an ecumenical blunt instrument against Christianity, which shrewd Jewish leaders designated as a convenient scapegoat for the Holocaust. (This last had the incidental effect of drastically eroding Western Christianity, which opportunistic Jewish Zionists, joined by their Christian neocon brethren, have managed to help reinvent in the U.S. as the more Israel-friendly, post-World War II coined Judeo-Christianity practiced by many evangelicals today.)

Shrewd non-Jewish Leftist leaders also used the Holocaust as a political tool. Like their manipulative Jewish contemporaries, they were also motivated by a hatred of Christianity, but less for its supposed anti-Semitism and more because Christianity has historically acted as a natural check against Communism. Leftists were additionally motivated by the fact that elevating the importance of the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust diminished the focus on the Communist-perpetrated ones, which they have long labored to sweep under the historical carpet (for self-evident reasons).

Of course, many earnest Jews and liberals are today horrified that Israel, the neocons, Jewish nationalists and Christian Zionists are using the moral capital that they diligently helped to assemble on behalf of a "historically oppressed group" to impose and justify Israel’s apartheid system, which (if the emerging Judeo-Christian coalition gets its way) will be made the model for all future Middle East invasions and occupations instigated and enforced by American troops.

Worse yet, the Israeli model may ultimately be forced by the Judeo-Christians on America as well, which would threaten 2,000 years of intellectual progress under Christianity and Classical Greco-Roman thought in order to replace it with a new civilization patterned on an immature Jewish state that uses its police powers to mandate racial and religious barriers and legally impose second and third class status on gentiles. Who will be the gentiles of America’s future? Why the non-Judeo-Christians, of course.

That Israel has been in a state of perpetual war since its founding as a result of this political model in no way seems to deter the Judeo-Christians so enamored by the Israeli system. In fact, it seems to invigorate them. And perpetual war is what the rest of us can expect if they are allowed to have their way.

The old adage "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" seems to apply to both Jewish liberals and Leftists to a greater extent today than at any time since they got their death-dealing Communist dream state in the Soviet Union: Wish for the decimation of Christianity, get the far worse and more intolerant Judeo-Christianity in its place.

***

The second part of Sniegoski’s explanation for white gentile trembling in the face of the Israel lobby, "respectable profitability," as noted, is largely a function of the American Right.

If the average white American liberal lives in fear of being designated a heretic for violating stringent politically correct speech codes by telling the truth about Israel and its lobby, the average U.S. conservative who might be inclined to broach the subject lives in fear that doing so might cost him some money—and so doesn’t.

After all, the business of America is business, and why should Main Street Joe capitalist risk even one thin dime for something as abstract and intangible as truth and justice, neither of which hold any currency in post-Christian, politically correct, Judeo-Christian America?

And if Joe capitalist isn’t interested in the subject, the short-sighted Big Business hyper capitalists who own the American Right today are positively hostile. Like the historical materialist Marxists who reside on the flip side of their intellectual coin, the international profiteers believe everything essential in life comes down to access to money and material goods. And they are willing—indeed, eager—to abandon all principles, loyalties and pedestrian notions of patriotism that might get in the way of their multi-national bottom line.

Perhaps because it is blinded by greed, American business can’t see that in the long run, allowing the Israel lobby to continue to run rampant is going to cost it, and cost it dearly.

How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the 9/11 attacks cost the American economy? How much has the Israel-lobby instigated Iraq war cost American business through high oil prices, unstable stock markets, a strained U.S. budget and economically beleaguered American consumers? How many billions more will another terrorist attack or another war cost U.S. businesses and taxpayers?

Virtually all of the Islamic terrorists who have issued statements addressing their reasons for attacking America, both before and after 9/11 (including bin Laden) have listed the U.S. government’s blind loyalty to Israel as a primary motive for their aggression. In fact, virtually all Islamic terrorist who have attacked America or American positions anywhere in the world in the last 10-15 years cite our one-sided support of Israel as a major source of their rage.

It is likely that had the U.S. government not been so one-sided in its support of Israel, America would never have been attacked on 9/11, and the neocons would thus have never gotten the opportunity to lie us into a war with Iraq.

Yet rarely is this reported in the mainstream media, let alone in the business journals, and so American business blunders on under the false impression that because Israel is a favorite Jewish American and Christian Zionist cause, it is financially better off either openly siding with the Israel lobby or keeping its mouth shut about its power altogether.

Not unlike the selfish, dim-witted Leftists who refused to look more than a couple of years down the road and so suckled, cradled, sheltered and help raise up the Zionist infant out of political expediency, the equally dense, greed-driven Big Business capitalists can’t see beyond next quarter’s financial results and so ignore today’s full grown Zionist monster who is straddling America, Israel, and now Iraq, baiting the increasingly angry Islamic masses to attack in order to force American retaliation.

But Big Business isn’t alone on the Right in its see no evil, hear no evil approach to the Israel lobby. As mentioned earlier, the Judeo-Christians—the primarily evangelical group of Christian Zionists so in love with the racialist Israeli model—are also to blame for giving Israel a free ride at America’s expense these many years.

Certainly, this group has been used and manipulated by Jewish nationalist Zionists, who have systematically gone about constructing a Christ-minimizing, Old Testament-emphasizing, Judeo-centric reading of the bible that highlights the importance of the Jewish people as the group "chosen" by God to deliver His word. But the Judeo-Christians have allowed themselves to be used; in fact, their leaders have encouraged and contributed to their exploitation by painting the "success" of Israel (meaning its ability to carry on as a Jewish supremacist state) as a validation of their entire religion.

Endless biblical passages are cited by the Judeo-Christian leadership as "proof" that Israel is fulfilling biblical prophecy, and the partnership between Jewish and Christian Zionists has proven a fruitful money-making enterprise for both camps. After all, what better way for these new Pharisees to separate believers from their money than to convince them that that they are an essential component to the realization of the predictions outlined in the holy book and now playing themselves out in real time today?

One of their favorite, constantly cited biblical passages in justification of shoveling ever more money and weaponry toward Israel is Genesis (12:3), in which God promises Abraham and his offspring that "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee."

Of course, this citation conveniently ignores Jesus’ later, eternal curse upon the corrupt and calculating Jewish Pharisees (the group that brought racism to Israel) articulated in John 8: "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham…You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire."

A strong case can be made that the neocons and Zionists who painstakingly provoked the Islamic attack on 9/11 and then opportunistically used the resulting atmosphere of anger and hysteria to lie America into war are the Pharisees of our day—as are the many members of the White House, Congress and the Washington Establishment catering to their agenda at the cost of America’s integrity, and possibly its very future.

(Chris Moore is publisher of www.LibertarianToday.com)

2006-02-21T16:35:00.000-08:00

"Secular" Provocateurs Deliberately Inciting Islam

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) Two recent events have inspired the anti-Islamic, "clash of civilizations" cheerleaders to step up their ongoing cause of triggering a world war -level conflagration against "Islamofascism," (a code word for Islam increasing embraced by the "secular" Western Establishment, including President Bush). The first was the overwhelming Palestinian vote for Hamas candidates in democratic elections in the occupied territories; the second is the so-called "cartoon riots" that have ensued after publication of Muhammad caricatures first in Denmark, and later in other parts of Europe.

Predictably, warmongers in the mainstream media and elsewhere have cited both as evidence that the religion of Islam is congenitally flawed, and hence innately incompatible with Western values—indeed, with human values: When given the vote, it elects militantly violent Islamic representation; when exposed to freedom of the press, it riots if that press prints something offensive to Islamic law—or so the media campaign goes.

Here are some examples of how opportunistic mainstream media demagogues have attempted to use the two events to either negatively stereotype the entire religion of Islam, or indict components of it, and then infer its general loathsomeness through innuendo and linkage.

"The current uproar over cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper illustrates yet again the fascist intolerance that is at the heart of radical Islam.…That anything so mild could trigger a reaction so crazed — riots, death threats, kidnappings, flag-burnings — speaks volumes about the chasm that separates the values of the civilized world from those in too much of the Islamic world…Make no mistake: This story is not going away, and neither is the Islamofascist threat." —Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe syndicated columnist

"There are serious differences between German or Italian fascism and Hamas' Islamism. But these are largely intellectual and academic distinctions…[Hamas is] dedicated to restoring national pride at the expense of exterminating millions of people, who just happen to be Jews…If the new government had the means, it would be Palestine's willing executioners." –Jonah Goldberg, Los Angeles Times syndicated columnist

"What passes for moderation in the Islamic community — ‘I share your rage but don't torch that embassy’ — is nothing of the sort. It is simply a cynical way to endorse the goals of the mob without endorsing its means…These are not defenders of religion, but Muslim supremacists trying to force their dictates upon the liberal West," Charles Krauthammer— Washington Post syndicated columnist

"Like the earlier Nazis, our generation's fascists hate anything good, not merely Jews and Americans…Nowhere in the world is there anywhere near the religious bigotry and sheer hatred of other religions that exists in the Muslim world…"-- Dennis Prager , national radio talk show host, Jewish World Review columnist

The rhetoric echoes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s generations-spanning, "long war" assessment of the threat posed by Islamic militants: "They will either succeed in changing our way of life, or we will succeed in changing theirs," he gravely declared in early February.

In other words, it’s us or them. And so by now, as the West can clearly see (through means of repetition alone) Islam = fascism, Muslims = Nazis, and Americans and Europeans must either wage World War III against the gathering "Islamofascist" threat, or prepare to abandon our very way of life.

But a closer look at the two events that triggered such gnashing of teeth and fits of enmity suggests something else: that the Muslims were baited, even encouraged into rioting in response to the Muhammad caricatures printed in Europe; and that in electing Hamas, the Palestinians were merely voting in an Islamic counter-balance to the Jewish nationalist racialism of Israel, the state on who’s behalf so many Western opinion makers and political leaders are bent on waging a third world war.

Indeed, that Israel is an institutionally racist entity is more or less a settled question. Some in America still go through the motions of declaring it a "democracy" in order to justify the billions in welfare subsidies Washington still provides it annually, but those objective parties who have studied Israeli law long ago concluded that its many layers of segregationist restrictions favorable to Jews and punitive toward non-Jews qualify it for apartheid status. Instead of dividing black and white, however, Israel’s laws essentially codify first class citizenship for Jews and second class citizenship for Gentiles in general and Palestinians in particular. It’s a different kind of bigotry, but Israeli parallels to the Jim Crow south are striking.

In fact, in a secretly recorded speech, Yuval Diskin, the head of Israel’s domestic security bureau Shin Bet, recently confessed that the Israeli security services and judiciary have two standards of justice—one for Arab suspects and another (more lenient) for Jewish ones.

But Palestinians living under Israeli rule in the occupied territories have it even worse than their brethren in Israel. Their day to day existence, at the mercy and whim of heavily-armed Israeli soldiers and militant Jewish settlers, is a nearly Gulag-like experience. In fact, conditions there are so brutal, the Church of England recently voted to end financial investments in companies supporting Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Given that American support of Israel is a throwback to the Cold War era, when its racialist transgression could be overlooked because it was supposedly our ally against the Soviet Union (although even that assessment is debatable) by rights, Americans should by now have demanded a reassessment of our country’s "special" relationship with such a stubbornly segregationist enterprise.

This is one of the reasons why "Christian" Zionists, Jewish nationalists and their friends in the media are so eager to magnify and exaggerate the threat the Islamic world supposedly poses to the West: A war against Islam would reaffirm the cover of "ally" that Israel exploits to escape Western scrutiny and uses to maintain a blanket of secrecy over its ongoing, state-sanctioned bigotry.

(Sidebar: Such a war would also affirm the 21st Century reinvention of Christianity by advocates of the "Judeo-Christian" school of history as a philo-Semitic, Israel-centered bodyguard for Zionism. Theologically speaking, of course, Christianity has very little in common with Judaism—Jesus was in fact rebelling against what he came to regard as a corrupt and hypocritical belief system. His break was so complete that an entire new religion grew up around his dissidence. But few will ever accuse the opportunistic retailers of the myth of "Judeo-Christian civilization"—a phrase that only came into widespread usage after World War II—of intellectual coherence.)

A current example of the commonplace dissembling by Israeli loyalists is their claim that Hamas is "fascist" and bent on Jewish "extermination." Of course, they leave out of their tirades the fact that, for many years, Israel’s Mossad helped finance that Islamic party. (It seems the Israeli government wanted to keep the Palestinian people hopelessly divided between Hamas and the ineffectual, secular and socialistic Palestine Liberation Organization so that they would be easier to subjugate.) If the Isrealis really regarded Hamas as an existential threat, they would never have given it even one thin dime.

But hurling false "fascist" epithets at Muslims isn’t always enough. It takes more than that to spark a "clash of civilizations" level riot, and that’s where friends in the media, and caricatures of Muhammad come in handy.

Blogger xymphora provides us a sketch of how the plot to incite Muslims to riot by ridiculing their prophet in print progressed:

"The initial European salvo was to solicit the material and publish it in a Danish newspaper. It didn't work. In fact, there were peaceful Muslim protests… Danish Muslims behaved in exactly the responsible way that the current critics of the violence say they should have behaved. In response, they got nowhere with the legal system -- apparently it is only illegal [in Europe] to make fun of Jews…"

"Since the cabal of Europeans did not get the response they wanted from publication in Denmark, they decided to escalate, first by publishing in Norway, and then by publishing throughout Europe. This re-publication was all based on the completely bogus explanation of expressing solidarity with the free speech rights of their beleaguered Danish colleagues. Of course, free speech was never the issue. The cabal wanted to provoke the kind of violent protests in the Middle East that it felt would be useful in promoting ant-immigration policies in Europe, and defending the Israeli violence against the Palestinians."

As Washington DC-based investigative journalist Wayne Madsen reported on February 5th, other neocon collaborators around the globe then took the baton:

"Neo-con media outlets such as The New York Sun, Fox News, and others are having a field day with the Muslim riots that have spread around the world in protest over the cartoons just as they had with the French "Muslim" arson attacks. Two New Zealand papers -- The Dominion Post in Wellington and The Press in Christchurch, have published their own controversial cartoons of Mohammed."

"The papers are owned by Australia's Fairfax Group, which also owns Melbourne's Age, and which was once financially connected to indicted neo-con Lord Conrad Black's scandal-ridden Hollinger publishing empire, which also includes arch neo-con Richard Perle. The Fairfax Group generally adheres to the neo-con corporatist party line."

But there’s more, because as it turns out, Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper who originally commissioned and published the caricatures of Muhammad that ended up sparking the riots, is apparently sympathetic to the anti-Islamic cause.

Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press notes: "Rose traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who compares ‘militant Islam’ with fascism and communism. In April 2003, President George W. Bush nominated the rabid anti-Muslim Pipes to the board of the United States Institute of Peace, a congressionally sponsored think tank dedicated to ‘the peaceful resolution of international conflicts.’"

Pipes, a fanatical Jewish nationalist, is probably most infamous for the following quip, written in the flagship neocon magazine National Review: "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

And Pipes’ interlocutor Flemming Rose apparently agrees—which is why he so desperately wanted to "prove" to Europe that Muslims couldn’t be assimilated by going well out of his way to orchestrate an Islamic riot.

So it seems what we have is a sort of conspiracy of chauvinistic "secular" provocateurs. Zionists in Israel impose Jim Crow laws and hurl racialist abuse upon the Arab and Islamic minority; sympathetic Jewish nationalists and dimwitted "Christian" Zionist in the diaspora do all they can to provoke Islamic rage and retribution by deliberately printing blasphemous caricatures of Muhammad and then declaring Muslims "fascists," "supremacists" and "Nazis" when they angrily respond; the anti-Islamic forces then all join together to call upon Western civilization to smite the offensive "brown-skinned" Muslims because they are prone to violence.

Wouldn’t it be ironic (or is a better word Satanic) if America and Europe were to wage World War III against "our generation's fascists" on behalf of a religiously chauvinistic, racialist vision of the future modeled after segregationist Israel—and then pass the entire exercise off as a defense of the "secular" West? What a hellish recipe for generations of perpetual war. The Antichrist himself could hardly ask for more.

The whole ungodly enterprise brings to mind an observation, made by author and scholar Norman Finkelstein in his book Beyond Chutzpah: The Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, about how Zionist totalitarians who hurl the "fascist" epithet today are engaging in a similar modus operandi as their Soviet precursors:

"[T]his is a direct throwback to the darkest days of Stalinism, when those criticizing the Soviet regime were, by virtue of this fact alone, branded ‘objective’ abettors of fascism, and dealt with accordingly…One day it’s the uniqueness and universality of theological absolutism; the next day it’s the uniqueness and universality of the Holocaust. The constant is the totalitarian cast of mind, and attendant stigmatizing of dissent as a disease that must be wiped out by the state."

In this case, Islam is the "disease," and our scheming, mentally unbalanced "elite" want to use the U.S. military to wipe it out, or at the very least, subject it to a massive authoritarian program of government control by employing invasions and puppet dictators willing to put their own people in a secular straight jacket to do so.

If Christians and Americans are still capable of utilizing the shrewdness and common sense they have so often employed to solve problems in the past, instead of waiting around for their compromised and co-opted rulers to do the right thing by their own country, the West, and Islam, they will instead cast the entire traitorous U.S. political establishment, including the myriad useful idiots on the Left, into elective purgatory. Only then will progress be made toward a just peace with our Islamic neighbors. Only then will sanity return to our increasingly unhinged country. Only then will well-intentioned people of all faiths and creeds be safe from the bigoted, hate-filled, Zionist fanatics bent on inciting violence and then using the "national security" pretense to control our every thought and deed on behalf of a vision of perpetual war.

2005-12-21T16:19:00.000-08:00

Putting Iranian rhetoric in perspective

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com)

The European establishment is currently in an uproar over a series of undiplomatic remarks made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about Israel, the National Socialist-perpetrated Holocaust, and the plight of the Palestinians.

The increasingly testy back-and-fourth between the new Iranian president and his continental critics started in late November when Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

The speech-sensitive British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who recently had a constituent arrested and convicted for standing outside Downing Street and reading aloud the names of the 97 British soldiers who have died in the Iraq conflict, immediately spoke up.

"To anybody knowing our history, when we hear statements like that made about Israel, it makes us feel very angry, it's just completely wrong," said Blair, apparently alluding to German bombing of Britain and the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust that took place in Europe during World War II.

Possibly picking up on Blair’s Holocaust reference, Ahmadinejad addressed the issue himself.

"Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps ... Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that, is taken to prison or gets condemned," Ahmadinejad said.

"Let's assume what the Europeans say is true ... Let's give some land to the Zionists in Europe or in Germany or Austria," he added. "They faced injustice in Europe, so why do the repercussions fall on the Palestinians?"

This immediately drew a rebuke from Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel who responded by stating that the remarks were "an outrageous gaffe, which I want to repudiate in the sharpest manner" and summoning Iran's Ambassador to Austria to the Foreign Ministry.

The most recent rhetorical escalation between Ahmadinejad and his Israeli and European critics took place December 14.

"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets," said Ahmadinejad, according to an account carried in the Washington Post headlined ‘Iran's President Calls Holocaust 'Myth' in Latest Assault on Jews.’

‘In Western countries, "if someone were to deny the existence of God . . . and deny the existence of prophets and religion, they would not bother him," Ahmadinejad said. "However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can."’

According to an Asian Age account of the same speech, Ahmadinejad added:
"If your civilization consists of aggression, making oppressed people homeless, suffocating the voices of justice and bringing poverty to a majority of the world's people, we say loudly that we hate your hollow civilization."

The Associated Press reported Europe’s response: ‘German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called the remarks "shocking and unacceptable." … "I cannot hide the fact that this weighs on bilateral relations and on the chances for the negotiation process"…The German government said Chancellor Angela Merkel would call on the European Union to press for international condemnation at the U.N…European Commission President Jose Manual Barroso said Iranians "do not have the president, or the regime, they deserve."’

The conflict has finally brought the continental Europeans, heretofore critics of the Bush administration’s war against "Islamo-fascism," into alignment with American hawks.

‘State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called the comments "outrageous" and "certainly reprehensible," reported AP. "This is one more indication that Iran is headed off 180 degrees from the rest of the world"… The White House said Ahmadinejad's words "only underscore why it is so important that the international community continue to work together to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons."’

Despite the escalating war of words, it should be noted that Ahmadinejad’s remarks are consistent with the over-the-top rhetoric often employed in the Middle East, and well within the historical framework of rhetoric the West has tolerated from Israeli politicians, religious leaders and military officials who over the years have regularly incited acts of violence against Palestinians directly, or through a process of dehumanization.

For example, writing at CounterPunch.org, activist M. Junaid Alam notes: ‘One can quote former Israeli PM Menachim Begin, who in 1982 described Palestinians as "beasts walking on two legs." Or one can quote Ehud Barak, another former Israeli PM who in 2000 said, "The Palestinians are like crocodiles." There is also former Chief of Staff of the IDF Rafael Eitan, who said in 1983, "We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Or to take a more recent IDF Chief of Staff, there is Moshe Ya'alon, who described Palestinians as a "cancer" requiring either "amputation" or "chemotherapy" in 2002. And then there is also Rabbi Yaacov Peerin, who, speaking at a ceremony held in the "honor" of Baruch Goldstein, considered a hero among Israeli settlers for mowing down Muslim civilians at a mosque, said, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."’

The last remark, by Rabbi Peerin, is in the vein of certain supremacist interpretations of Jewish theology sometimes taught in Israel and to the settlers in the occupied territories by religious officials. In 2002, for example, the Palestine Chronicle reported that a rabbi in Hebron provided religious sanction to the murder of non-Jews.

‘A prominent Israeli rabbi with thousands of followers said during a Sabbath homily in the settlement in Kiryat Arba'a Saturday that halacha, or Jewish religious law, "essentially supported the annihilation of non-Jews in Israel."The rabbi, Rav Leor, said most rabbinic authorities "of the past and the present accepted the opinion that the lives of non-Jews don't' enjoy the same sanctity as the lives of Jews.""Hashmadat goyem" (the extermination of non-Jews), he said was an established principle in Jewish theology.The rabbi is affiliated with the messianic Jewish movement known as Gush Emunim which is represented in the Israeli Knesset by seven Knesset members.The movement is represented in the Israeli government by Minister without portfolio Ed Eifam of the National Religious Party (NRP).’

Despite extreme views held and often vocalized by many of Israel’s own government officials, Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, assailed Ahmadinejad’s words as "extremist," and cited them as evidence that Iran shouldn’t be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons that might pose a threat to nuclear-armed Israel.

Well aware of America’s "special relationship" with Israel (which has received tens of billions of dollars in financial and military aid over the years from the U.S.) Ahmadinejad likely views the Palestinian crises as a replay of U.S. financial and military support of Iraq and Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980’s. Saddam, who started the war, was also supplied with military technology and components for his Weapons of Mass Destruction by many of the European countries condemning Ahmadinejad’s statements today.

The Iran-Iraq war, and the West’s arming of Saddam, cost Iran dearly. According to Wikipedia: "With more than 100,000 Iranian victims of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons during the eight-year war, Iran is, after Japan, one of the world's top afflicted countries by Weapons of Mass Destruction."

On top of this is the fact that Israel supported the dictatorship of the Shah, the autocratic, pro-western monarch who ruled Iran with an iron fist for decades prior to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which transformed Iran into the populist, theocratic Islamic republic that it is today.

As reported by Saleh Abdel-Jawwad, a professor at Beir Zeit University in the West Bank city of Ramallah:

"The beginning of Israel's relationship with the Shah was formed when the Mossad, acting in accord with British (MI6) and American (CIA) intelligence, worked to bring about the collapse of the democratically elected Iranian leader Mossadeq in 1953. Their role remains a secret to this day. The relationship forged with the Shah enabled Iran to be the primary importer of Israeli products until the rise of Khomeni. Israel also played a role in training the SAVAK, the infamous and brutal intelligence service which protected the Shah."

Wikepedia notes that the SAVAK was founded in 1957 with the assistance of the CIA, and records:

‘SAVAK had virtually unlimited powers of arrest and detention. It operated its own detention centres, like the notorious Evin Prison. It is universally accepted that SAVAK routinely subjected detainees to physical torture.'

As a young activist, Ahmadinejad reportedly kept a printing press at home, which he used to print leaflets denouncing the Shah and his monarchy. Because of this, his family was forced to flee Tehran on the eve of the Iranian revolution for fear of being arrested by the SAVAK secret police.

This personal history, in conjunction with reports that emerged last summer that Israeli operatives have been working in Iraqi prisons advising the U.S. on "interrogation techniques" used on Islamic detainees (just as they had advised the SAVAK during the Shah’s dictatorship), sheds light on the lens through which Ahmadinejad views the Israeli government.

Given the history of enmity between Iran and Israel, and Israel’s partnership with the U.S. government and other Western powers in attacking and undermining both Palestinian human rights and Iranian and Islamic autonomy, it is little wonder that Ahmadinejad regards the Holocaust through a far-less sacrosanct prism than do many of those in the West.