myth

The Myth of Stalin’s Nationalism

http://www.renegadetribune.com/myth-stalins-nationalism/
By Eric Thomson (2002)

The Germans have an erroneous saying that “lies have short legs”. The reality is that lies are like camels, they have exceedingly long legs and survive the hottest, driest, most brilliant light of criticism. A recent newsletter has once again revived the Big Lie that Red Russia, the former Russian Empire of the non-Russian Tsars, had been ‘liberated’ from Khazar (jew) rule by Djugashvili (Jewson) “Stalin”, a Khazar from Tiflis, Georgia, whose mentor, Kaganovich, was of the same nationality: Khazar.

As a matter of definition, a multi-national entity is not “a nation”, therefore when people prate about “nations”, they fall into the jew-Boas’ trap of equating “nation” with territory. Nations are biopolitical entities, not geopolitical, and members of a nation can exist anywhere on earth. On the other hand, no amount of crowding and cramming of nations into a given territory can produce a nation, merely an unstable, multi-national empire, such as Russia and North America.

Who did the Khazar emperor, “Stalin” liberate the disparate Gentiles of the Red Russian Empire from? “The jews!” say the myth-mongers. Not only that, but “Stalin” declared “Communism in one country!” The name, COMINTERN was duly changed to COMINFORM. Wiser scholars know that “Stalin” was merely changing tactical labels, for he was continuing the Khazar imperial policy of expansion which his congener, “Trotsky” (Lev Davidovitch Bronstein from Bronx NY) had failed to carry out previously. Moreover, the jews remained in all important positions in the Soviet state, particularly in the police apparatus. Top-ranking military officers were either Khazar (Ashkenazim) or married to Khazars, like Brezhnev, whose jewish wife I’ve seen a picture of. Even now, I shudder when I recall that gargoyle! I suspect that Brezhnev volunteered to go to the battle of Stalingrad so he didn’t have to look at his Khazar wife, who would have made The Wicked Witch look like a beauty queen.

“Stalin” purged several thousand Khazars and he replaced them with fellow Khazars. He did the same with millions of his Gentile subjects, whom he did not replace, but simply tightened the conditions of terror and enslavement of the survivors. The head of the Cheka/NKVD/KGB, propaganda (Ilya Ehrenberg), and every government department remained Khazar.

“Stalin” continued to expand Khazar imperialism with military might and terror in Spain and Finland, but his main goal was to achieve what his rival, “Trotsky”, had failed to achieve in the 1920s: the conquest of Europe! We need not take into account, the reports I have obtained from German high altitude aerial reconnaissance observers, that Red Russia was completing its preparations for the massive invasion of Europe in 1941, a few weeks too late. One observer told me that the territory of the Khazar Soviet Empire looked like a huge sandtable model from his altitude: “The smoke of endless trains revealed that the Russian (sic) rail system had been converted into a gigantic conveyor belt. Trains brought military equipment from east to west and took farming and factory equipment, along with grain and livestock from west to east.” Former Soviet Military Intelligence officer (GRU) “Suvorov” substantiates this statement in his book, “The Icebreaker”, in which he includes the names and numbers of the Red Army units en route to the west, when the German attack caught them on the hop. “Stalin” apparently believed that Operation Sealion (the touted German invasion of Britain) was genuine, whereas Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of Red Russia) was the ‘real thing’, and the German units which were, according to bogus intercepted radio traffic, standing on the French coast, were really under the large noses of Khazar observers.

“Stalin” changed nothing about jew-bolshevism, except some names and propaganda labels. The Khazar rulers remained and their policy of imperial expansion was intensified. Another indicator that the jews remained in control of Red Russia was in the fact that the jews of Britain and North America continued their staunch and substantial support for the Stalinist regime, before, during and after World War II. The jew-bolshevik policies had made the rich Russian Empire into a financial and agricultural basketcase, so overseas jews made sure their Red Monster was given continual life-support in the form of funding, food and technology, such as the atom bomb. The myth that Red Russia became “jew-free” and “nationalist” under “Stalin” was part of the other hoax called “The Cold War”. The fact that Mr. Posner of Moscow and Mr. Posner of Washington DC report the ‘news’ to each other’s Goyim should provide another clue.

Former KGB/FSB jew, Putin, and his Khazar congeners still rule the remnants of the former Soviet empire, which his fellow jew bandits continue to loot, along with recycled ‘aid’ funds from the jews’ western dominions. The jews still rule Russia, and they do not have Russian interests at heart!

Advertisements

Everything People Believed about Hitler’s Intentions Toward Britain was a Myth Created by Churchill

Hitler didn’t want to invade Britain. He actually admired the British Empire, with its inherent presumption of racial superiority.

It’s good that the UK Government is going to pardon the thousands of Army deserters who enlisted in the British forces during World War Two.

Of course, no army can allow desertion; however, these men were not court-martialled, but were subject to a blanket ban on state employment that deprived them of their constitutional right to due process.

The vast majority of them deserted from June 1941 onward, when the theoretical possibility of a German invasion had all but vanished.

 

The men who deserted did so after being effectively cheated into becoming soldier-serfs, cutting turf on the Bog of Allen.

That was the second great lie of their young lives. The first one was that Ireland ever faced a serious threat of invasion by Germany, which was the spawn of an even vaster falsehood — that in 1940, Hitler wanted to invade Britain. But he didn’t. He actually admired the British Empire, with its inherent presumption of racial superiority. We know from the diaries of Lord Halifax, the British foreign minister, that Hitler offered terms that did not involve German control of Britain. Churchill refused to allow these terms to be read to the cabinet, and they remain prudently concealed under the 100-year rule.

Instead, Churchill’s determination to keep Britain at war turned what had been merely a continental defeat of its army into the enduring myth that in 1940, Britain faced a war for national survival.

But the German naval leader, Raeder, had repeatedly forbidden his staff from planning an invasion of Britain. And far from wanting to continue the war, in June 1940, Hitler ordered 20pc of his army to be demobilised, in order to get the German economy going again. The “invasion fleet” that the Nazis began to assemble that summer was no more capable of invading Britain than it was Hawaii. It was war by illusion: its purpose was to get the British to the negotiating table.

This “fleet” consisted of 1,900 canal barges, only one- third of which were powered, to be towed cross-channel, in clusters of three, by just 380 tugs. These barges had tiny keels, blunt prows and small rudders, with just two feet of freeboard: the distance between the water and the top of the hull. They would have been swamped during even a direct crossing of the English Channel, a shallow and violent waterway linking the raging North Sea and Atlantic. But an invasion would not be direct. The barges, with their untrained crews, would be able to make only about three knots, from the three “invasion” centres: Rotterdam, Le Havre and Boulogne. These ports are, respectively, from any south-coast landing beaches, at best, 200 miles and 60 hours, 100 miles and 30 hours, and 50 miles and 15 hours, with seasick soldiers crammed into keel-less floundering barges without toilets or water. What army would be fit to fight after a journey like that? And then there’s the 55,000 horses that the Wehrmacht would need: its transport was still not mechanised.

All being well, and that really is a relative term, the first “wave” would take 10 days to land, with the barges plying to and from those three distant ports, requiring tides that would have to obey the demands of the Fuehrer rather than the older ones of the sea, in convoy, often at night, and always without navigation lights.

Why no lights? Ah: the Royal Navy. This is where matters become quite phantasmagorical. In August 1940, the British Home Fleet ALONE consisted of 140 destroyers, 40 cruisers and frigates, five battleships and two aircraft carriers.

The entire German navy, the Kriegsmarin, consisted of just seven destroyers, one cruiser with unreliable engines, two working cruisers, no aircraft carriers, and no battleships or battle cruisers: the Bismarck and Tirpitz were still building, and the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst were damaged and out of action until the following winter.

What about the Luftwaffe? Well, it had no torpedo-carrying aircraft, whereas the British had two (the Beaufort and the Swordfish, both of which were later to show their mettle in disabling German capital ships), and air-bombing vigorously defended warships accurately over an open sea is incredibly difficult, even for dive-bombers: Stuka bomb sights were calibrated for stationary targets. All right, but were not British shores defenceless in 1940? No — aside from a largely intact British army, two fully-equipped Canadian divisions arrived that summer, as did 200,000 rifles from the US on the ‘SS Britannic’.

This doesn’t diminish the validity of the allied cause, or the later decision of the nearly 7,000 Army deserters who enlisted in it, for they were taking arms against one of the most evil regimes in world history.

Nonetheless, just about everything that people believed about Hitler’s intentions towards Britain in 1940 — and still believe today — was a myth created by Churchill, which he probably came to believe himself. Consider all the facts above, and then consider how that myth has endured, despite them. Makes you wonder, no?

(Irish Independent)

‘Irish slaves’: Historian destroys racist myth conservatives love to share on Facebook

White supremacists have been promoting the myth that the first slaves brought to the Americas were Irish, not African — but a historian says there’s simply no evidence to back their racist claims.

Liam Hogan, a research librarian at the Limerick City Library, set about debunking the myth after spotting a widely shared Global Research article in 2013 and realized its potential for misinformation, reported Hatewatch.

“It was quite clear to me then that many would never engage with the history of the transatlantic slave trade when they had this false equivalence to fall back on,” Hogan told the website. “I think that’s what convinced me that I needed to put the record straight.”

The myth essentially equates indentured or penal servitude with racialized perpetual hereditary chattel slavery, Hogan said.

Racists claim the Irish slave trade began in 1612 and was not abolished until 1839, and they insist “white slavery” has been covered up by “politically correct” historians.
Report Advertisement
“The various memes make many claims including (but not limited to) the following: that ‘Irish slaves’ were treated far worse than black slaves, that there were more ‘Irish slaves’ than black slaves, that ‘Irish slaves’ were worth less than black slaves, that enslaved Irish women were forced to breed with enslaved African men and that the Irish were slaves for much longer than black slaves,” Hogan said.

“This is then invariably followed up by overtly racist statements,” he added. “For example, ‘Yet, when is the last time you heard an Irishman bitching and moaning about how the world owes them a living?’”

Hogan hasn’t isolated the myth’s first appearance on social media, but it’s been a common trope on the white supremacist website Stormfront since at least 2003 and has been trotted out as an argument against reparations for slavery and to attack the Black Lives Matter movement.

He pointed to a 2014 post on Alex Jones’ Infowars website that attacked both Black Lives Matter and reparations by promoting several falsehoods about “Irish slavery.”
Report Advertisement
“It appropriates the massacre of around 132 African victims of the genocidal transatlantic slave trade in order to diminish it,” Hogan said, referring to the Zong massacre in 1781. “If you look at the Infowars version of the meme you’ll see it has even appended an extra zero, making the number of victims amount to 1,302, while adding that ‘these slaves weren’t from Africa, these forgotten souls were from Ireland.’ This shameless appropriation is then used by Infowars to mock calls for reparatory justice for slavery.”

The myth has become nearly ubiquitous in social media discussions on slavery and race — and it was even promoted by a blogger on the liberal Daily Kos website.

“There was almost no situation where the meme was not used to derail discussions about the legacy of slavery or ongoing anti-black racism,” Hogan said. “Starting with Ferguson and with almost every subsequent police killing of an unarmed black person from late 2014 through 2015, the meme was used to mock and denigrate the Black Lives Matter movement. It is in a sense the ‘historical’ version of the disingenuous All Lives Matter response to demands for justice and truth telling.”

Hogan has collected hundreds of examples of the fallacious argument, which he has shared on Twitter and Tumblr, and he said some of those memes have been shared hundreds of thousands of times on Facebook.

The myth is especially popular among Confederate apologists, and Hogan cites several examples of its deployment during the debate over Confederate flag displays in the wake of the fatal shootings of nine black churchgoers by a white supremacist.

“This year I’ve tracked the meme being shared by the Texas League of the South, History of the True South, Love My Confederate Ancestors and the Sons of Confederate Veterans,” Hogan said. “They seem to believe that this meme somehow negates the fact that the Confederacy fought a war to perpetually enslave millions of African-Americans and their descendants.”

The myth is often supported with citations to the books “To Hell or Barbados,” by Sean O’Callaghan, and “White Cargo,” by Don Jordan and Michael A. Walsh — both of which are historically questionable, according to Hogan, but he said most articles about “Irish slaves” don’t even quote from those sources.

Instead, Hogan said most of those articles rely heavily on an unreferenced blog post and the self-published work of Holocaust denier Michael A. Hoffman II.

Hogan said his concerns are shared by at least 81 academics and historians, and he hopes to set the record straight in his own book.

“I would like to reclaim the history of Irish servitude in the 17th century Anglo-Caribbean and present it in context for a general audience,” he said. “The Cromwellian policy of forced transportation to the colonies in the 1650s (which included an estimated 10,000 Irish people) understandably scars our collective memory and it deserves both respect and close attention from anyone interested in the history of the unfree labor systems in the Atlantic world.”

He said the myth’s appeal reveals an essential element of racist thought — and the way those beliefs are exploited to justify discriminatory laws.

“The racism then flows as these various groups of Neo-Nazis posit why whites can overcome a ‘worse’ situation than blacks and ‘do not whine about it,’” Hogan said. “So the ‘get over it’ racism that so often accompanies the meme is not about history at all. It goes much deeper than that.”

“Their belief is that non-whites can’t move on due to racial inferiority or social pathology,” he continued. “So through false equivalence and erasure, they attempt to remove history as a determinant so that they can claim the current socioeconomic position and mass incarceration of black people in the U.S. is due to racial inferiority.”

This story was originally published April 20, 2016.

The Myth of the Democratic Rift: Despite Media Hot Air, the Data Show Sanders Supporters Will Embrace Clinton

Bernie Sanders has bowed out of the Democratic primary race and endorsed Hillary Clinton. Yet, some questions remain about whether Sanders supporters will embrace Clinton (some pundits, including Paul Krugman, suggested that Sanders would not support Clinton).  Incidents like Susan Sarandon’s ambiguous comments about possibly supporting Trump (or not voting at all) raised many eyebrows.

In the Daily Beast, Christopher Ketcham argued there is a significant contingent of Bernie supporters itching to vote for Trump (though the only one he could get on record was a friend of his living in Brooklyn). Increased use of Twitter among journalists and pundits has exposed them to more extreme positions, which they then project onto broad groups of people. Some have suggested “Bernie Bros,” a term of derision aimed at a group of leftist Bernie supporters who harbor misogynistic and racist views, represent Sanders supporters in general and may vote for Trumpin large numbers (Trump has also courted Bernie supporters).

However, more data-driven approaches often fail to support these narratives. Data don’t show widespread misogynistic attitudes among Bernie Sanders supporters, nor do they suggest widespread racial resentment or stereotyping. Moreover, I find that there are strong reasons to believe Sanders supporters will ultimately reject Trump, and most will end up supporting Clinton. Despite hot takes suggesting otherwise, the Democratic Party is currently quite unified, and there is no evidence the Bernie supporters will support Trump en masse.

Bernie Supporters Don’t Like Trump

The American National Election Studies 2016 pilot study allows us a unique opportunity to explore whether Bernie supporters would back Trump: it asks respondents both which Democratic and Republican candidate they prefer (with the option to choose none). For the purposes of the analysis explored here, I only examine respondents who choose either Bernie or Hillary and consider themselves either Democrats or Independents (throughout the whole piece). That’s because the fact that respondents are asked which Democratic or Republican candidate they would support regardless of party could distort results (if a large number of Republicans preferred Sanders to Clinton). The goal is to analyze whether Democrats and Independents who support Bernie will end up supporting Trump.

A large share of Clinton and Sanders supporters said they would support “none” of the Republicans (42 percent of both Clinton and Sanders supporters selected this option). Only 9 percent of Sanders supporters selected Trump (compared to 12 percent of Clinton supporters). Sanders supporters were more supportive of Rand Paul (12 percent) and Clinton supporters of Jeb Bush (13 percent).  Another way to explore the issues is to examine what are called “feeling thermometer” scores. Respondents are asked to place themselves on thermometer between 1 and 100, with 1 being the coldest and 100 being the warmest. Examining Bernie and Hillary supporters who identify as either Democrats or Independents, I find that the mean feeling thermometer score for Trump is 23 for Clinton supporters and 18 for Sanders supporters (not a statistically significant difference). That is, both Clinton and Sanders supporters have cold feelings towards Trump.

Bernie Supporters Are Committed To Anti-Racism

One reason that Bernie supporters will hesitate to support Trump is his racist style of politics. White Sanders supporters in the ANES dataset had lower scores on the resentment scale and stereotype scale (indicating that they are less likely to endorse stereotypes or racial resentment) than white Clinton supporters. An analysis of ANES performed by political scientist Jason McDaniel and provided to Salon suggests that these results remain after controlling for other relevant variables. The fact that Sanders supporters tend to be younger could explain the difference (with Ashley Jardina, I showed that younger people are more progressive on issues related to race).

Other sources support the idea that Sanders supporters are more racially liberal: a Reuters poll of more than 7,800 respondents suggests that Bernie supporters are less likely to endorse racial stereotypes than Clinton supporters and Republicans (the results are similar for both the full sample and among only white respondents). The biggest difference was on the question of whether black people are more “criminal” than whites, where 32 percent of Clinton supporters rated black people as more criminal compared to 25 percent of Sanders supporters.

These data belie the notion that Bernie supporters are somehow uncommitted to anti-racism. Further, these data make it incredibly unlikely that large number of Trump supporters will support a campaign that has stretched the bounds of racism in political discourse. Pundits who compare Trump and Sanders are doing their readers a deep disservice and should stop.

Democrats Are More United Now Than in 2008

By historical standards, the primary was not extraordinarily bitter. Sanders refused to go after Clinton on potential scandals (such the e-mail scandal, which he publicly denounced) and rather ran a campaign to push the Democratic party to the left on issues with broad popular support.Indeed, Sander’s endorsement signals a level of party unity that has occasionally evaded Democrats. In 1992, Jerry Brown called Bill Clinton the “prince of sleaze”and refused to endorse Clinton, even after clearly losing the primary. In 1972 the party was openly divided about McGovern, and he ended up being crushed. Though it has quickly slipped into the memory hole, the 2008 primary was quite vicious, and many Hillary supporters refused to support Obama in the general.

Indeed, the relatively low levels of support among Bernie supporters for Trump signal far more party unity among Democrats than existed in the past. Using the Cooperative Congressional Election Study 2008, I find that 24 percent of those who reported voting for Hillary in the Democratic primary supported McCain in the general (74 percent supported Obama).  According to polls from Washington Post-ABC News, in May, 20% of those who backed Bernie in the primary would support Trump in the general. By June, that number had fallen to only 8%. For comparison, in June of 2008, 20% of those who supported Clinton in the primary said they preferred McCain over Obama in the general.

YouGov data provided to me by polling analyst Will Jordansuggests that support for Trump among Sanders supporters has remained in the low teens, with a high of 18 points and a low of 9. The bigger worry would be that Bernie supporters might support a third-party candidate. Over the last two months about a third of Sanders supporters have supported a third party candidate (or “someone else”). However, as Sanders begins to campaign for Clinton, these numbers will likely dwindle. Pew Research Center data suggest a similarnumber for Trump support: 9 percent of Sanders supporters say they would support Trump (on the GOP side, 14 percent of those who did not support Trump in primary said they would support Clinton in the general).

Take policy debates: On a battery of issues, including the minimum wage, upward mobility, the environment, inequality and even birth control, Sanders supporters have more liberal views than Clinton supporters (see chart). The evidence, at least from ANES, does give us reason to believe that Bernie supporters are indeed more progressive than Hillary supporters, but these difference are quite modest, and far less important than the differences between Democrats and Trump.

As I’ve argued, the Democratic Party has moved left in ways that are consistent with public opinion and could help them mobilize single women, Latinos, African-Americans and young people, key constituencies. Partisan preferences tend to be sticky (research suggests partisan identification persists over a long time) so young people drawn to Bernie will likely stay in the Democratic Party for a long time. Young people vote at incredibly low rates, so if Sanders brings them out to the polls, he’s done a huge service for Democrats. Finally, political scientist Gabor Simonovits finds that, “the introduction of extreme alternatives into the public discourse makes mainstream policies on the same side of the spectrum look more centrist in the public eye, thus increasing support for these moderate alternatives.” By introducing a somewhat more radical vision of social democracy to the American stage, Bernie has made more modest incremental change possible.

Many pundits have relied on the unhelpful and offensive trope that Trump resembles Sanders. These takes obfuscate far more than they illuminate, and dismiss a group of young Americans who are incredibly progressive on issues of race, gender and economics. Further, the argument is rooted in the mythology that socialists and leftists don’t have the best interests of progressives or the American people at heart. Though the liberal-left and socialist-left may disagree, it’s absurd to think that large numbers of leftists subscribe to a Leninist, accelerationist view. Rather, most want to pull the country in a more progressive direction. Supporting a racist, misogynistic, warmongering ethno-nationalist won’t do that.

There are things in the primary election to be less than excited about: the tenor of the primary has at many times been divisive, particularly online. However, primaries have always been divisive and by historical standards, the Democratic party is not particularly divided. There are rifts, certainly. But the specter of Trump means that most Democrats take the position, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It is incredibly unlikely that Bernie supporters will vote for Trump en masse. It’s unhelpful and lazy to suggest they will.

A Shocking Electric Eel Myth, Confirmed

It the turn of the 19th century, German naturalist Alexander von Humboldt was exploring South America when he hired a group of local fishermen to collect electric eels for him. Humboldt had been experimenting with creating batteries, and was eager to find what he called “living electric apparatuses.”

The locals led him to a pool, where, according to Humboldt’s account, they proceeded to fish for the eels using a rather unusual method. Rather than luring the eels with bait, they led some 30 wild horses and mules into the muddy pond filled with electric eels, and once in, kept the horses from fleeing by yelling and wielding long, thin reed canes. The resident eels defended themselves against the invading equids by swimming to the surface, where they then pressed themselves against the horses’ bodies and released electric jolts. Two horses died within the first few minutes. Once the eels exhausted themselves, the fishermen easily reeled in several for Humboldt’s research.

 

Since Humboldt published this account in 1807, no one had ever reported seeing this shocking—pun intended—behavior (the eels leaping out of the water in such a fashion, not the inhumane treatment of the wild horses, that is). Even Kenneth Catania—a MacArthur genius-grant winning neurobiologist and and modern-day electric-eel expert at Vanderbilt University—hadn’t given the story a lot of credence. “I thought, this is a crazy tale from 1800 that’s probably totally exaggerated, if not possibly false,” he said.

That is, until he saw it with his own eyes.

As he was moving his eels from one tank to another using a metal net, he noticed that the eels “would periodically turn around and change from not wanting to be near the net to explosively attacking it by leaping out of the water up the handle,” Catania says. Because he was measuring the electrical output in the aquarium with wires hooked up to a speaker, he could also hear the amount of electricity the eels were releasing shift from the quiet pop-pop-pops used to sense their surroundings, to much higher voltage, crackling volleys. The eels were leaping, and shocking simultaneously. He captured it on video, like the one seen above, using a fake alligator head as simulated predator.

He realized these were the near-mythical leaps Humboldt had described, and published his findings today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He called the discovery serendipitous. “I love to be able to say that about something trying to leap out and shock you,” he said.

 

Bruce Carlson—a sensory and evolutionary neuroscientist at Washington University in St. Louis, who wasn’t involved in Catania’s research—writes in an email that he was surprised, specifically, by how far the eel was able to launch itself from the water, calling it a “fascinating discovery.”

Catania describes these eels as giant swimming batteries, with the long skinny part of their bodies housing the organs that make the electricity, and the rest of their viscera squished into the front. They only have two settings: a low sensory setting, and a high weapons setting.

Electric eels don’t change how much electricity they emit during their high-voltage volleys, but the voltage passing through a predator (or a voltmeter dressed up as a predator) increases as they leap farther out of the water. That’s because a current passing from the eel’s positively charged head to its negatively charged tail creates a circuit when passing through water, but when moving through air, is more forcefully applied to whatever the eel is attacking.

“[T]his is a beautiful example of how the eel has evolved a fairly simple behavior that exploits the basic physics of electricity,” Carlson says.

“I have been specializing in unusual animals for a lot of my career, and I always underestimate the animals,” Catania says. “They always do something that amazes me.”

Auschwitz Museum Director Reveals ‘Gas Chamber’ Hoax

By P. Samuel Foner
The Spotlight
Volume XIX, Number 2
5-31-4

In a dramatic and unprecedented videotaped interview, Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator and director of archives of the Auschwitz State Museum admitted on camera that ‘Krema 1,’ the alleged ‘homicidal gas chamber’ shown off to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year at the Auschwitz main camp, was, in fact, fabricated after the war by the Soviet Union -apparently on the direct orders of Josef Stalin.

What Piper said – in effect and on camera – was that the explosive 1988 Leuchter Report was correct: no homicidal gassings took place in the buildings designated as ‘homicidal gas chambers’ at Auschwitz.

With this admission by none other than the respected head of the Auschwitz State Museum, one of the most sacred ‘facts’ of history has been destroyed. This ‘gas chamber’ is the major historical ‘fact’ on which much of the foreign and domestic policies of all Western nations since WWII are based.

It is the basis for the $100+ billion in foreign aid the United States has poured into the state of Israel since its inception in 1948 – amounting to $16,500 for every man, woman and child in the Jewish state and billions more paid by Germany in ‘reparations’ – not to mention the constructing of Israel’s national telephone, electrical and rail systems…all gifts of the German people. It is the basis for the $10 billion ‘loan’ (read ‘gift’) made to Israel for housing its immigrants in the occupied territories…while Americans sleep on the streets and businesses are bankrupted by the thousands. (Note – As of 2004, not a single ‘loan’ of US tax money made to the state of Israel by Washington has ever been paid back. -ed)

Germany is paying ‘reparations’ – the the United States is making major contributions – to atone for the ‘gassings at Auschwitz’ and elsewhere. If the ‘homicidal gas chambers’ were postwar creations of the Soviets, in which no one was gassed regardless of race, creed, color or country of national origin, then these ‘reparations’ were unnecessary, and were based on fraud.

The videotape on which Dr. Piper makes his revelations was made in mid-1992 by a young Jewish investigator, David Cole and follows 12 years of intensive investigation by dozens of historians, journalists and scientists who have tried to get to the bottom of what really happened at Auschwitz.

Like most Americans, since his youth, Cole had been instructed in the ‘irrefutable fact’ that mass homicidal gassings had taken place at Auschwitz. The number of those executed – also declared irrefutable – was 4.1 million.

Then came the Leuchter Report in 1988 which was followed with an official ‘re-evaluation’ of the total deaths at Auschwitz (down to 1.1 million). As a budding historian – and a Jew – Cole was intrigued.

Previous to 1992, anyone who publicly doubted or questioned the official 4.1 millon ‘gassing’ deaths at Auschwitz was labeled an anti-semite, neo-nazi skinhead at the very least. Quietly, because of revisionist findings, the official figure was lowered to 1.1 million. No mention was made of the missing 3 million.

The Cole videotape interview proves that the people who run the Auschwitz State Museum had made a practice of fabricating ‘proofs’ of homicidal gassings. Keep in mind that over the years millions of tourists have been told that ‘Krema 1’ is in its original state, while officials knew that ‘original state’ is a ie.

The political, religious, fiancial and historical ramifications of this proof of no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz cannot be measured. Coupled with the Leuchter Report, the Cole interview with Dr. Piper on videotape proves that what Western governments have taught about the Auschwitz gas chamber since WWII is a lie. It proves that what televangelists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have been telling their flocks is simply not true.

No one, regardless of race, creed, color or country of national origin was gassed to death in any building so designated at Auschwitz. And without ‘homicidal gas chambers’ at Auschwitz, where is the reasoning for the special treatment of the state of Israel?

Note – This is excerpted from the orginal, much longer article by P. Samuel Foner.

The Rise of the Jewish Policy Elite: Meritocracy, Myth, and Power

http://www.renegadetribune.com/rise-jewish-policy-elite-meritocracy-myth-power/

 

by James Petras

MARCH 26, 2016
4,900 WORDS

Introduction

Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court marks a continuation and deepening of the lopsided ethno-religious representation in the US judicial system. If Garland is appointed, Jewish justices will comprise 45% of the Court, even though they represent less than 2% of the overall population.

Roman Catholics comprise the other 55% of the Court – even though they represent approximately 30% of the population. Protestants (historically the authors and signers of the country’s foundational documents, and the major confessional group) are totally absent from this august body of jurists.

Equally important the increasing power of Jewish justices on the Supreme Court is accelerating: Counting Garland, two of the last three appointments (67%) have been Jews.

In the first half of the 20th century in the US, progressive Jews and civil libertarians decried what they termed WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) exclusivity, privilege and discrimination, citing their domination of the Supreme Court and their ‘over-representation’ throughout the elite centers of power. Having totally displaced and replaced the dreaded WASPS, there is nary a word from the plethora of civil rights groups and Jewish organizations claiming to be concerned with issues of discrimination and exclusion. Perhaps the marginalized WASP population lacks any qualified jurists among their scores of millions, an ethno-cultural degeneration unique in US history or perhaps the last few WASPs appointed to the Supreme Court turned out to be among the most ardent and independent defenders of citizen rights, to the chagrin of numerous Administrations.

Nevertheless, if a rare individual should dare to raise the issue of nepotism and the exercise of narrow political considerations in the choice of Supreme Court nominees, the factious response is that ‘it’s all about merit’. Meaning, among the thousands of WASP graduates of the top law schools with academic awards and publications in prestigious journals, no qualified candidate can be found to address this lack of representation.

But scholarship and originality may not be of much merit: A brief perusal of the legal publications of Elena Kagan and Merrick Garland reveals meager, mediocre and pedestrian articles and monographs. In the case of Kagan, her rise to power was facilitated by her relationship with the former (and heartily voted out of office) Harvard President ‘Larry’ Summers, who appointed her Dean of the Law School despite her lack of quality publications. Summers, as Harvard President, led a raucous and bullying campaign against any academic critics Israeli policies during his abruptly abbreviated tenure in office.

Clearly the problem of ethno-religious nepotism is not confined to Jews, it was an abuse practiced by WASP elites and others before them. Nor does such nepotism benefit the average wage and salaried Jews, who have to struggle side-by-side with their Gentile compatriots to make a living and exercise their rights.

However, nepotism or ethno-religious favoritism has become an acute problem now when exclusive control of the Supreme Court compounds the growing problems of abuse in other spheres of the power structure – political, economic and mass communications. This imbalance has profound repercussions on everything from US overseas wars of aggression to the everyday struggle of Americans faced with deepening inequalities and the shredding of the social contract.

Historically, and particularly among progressive and leftist critics, what was referred to as the “Jewish Problem” was a multifaceted issue that revolved around the persecution of resident Jews by anti-Semitic regimes and within Christian majority cultures. Various solutions included the granting of citizenship rights following the French Revolution, socio-cultural assimilation, the development of socialism or separation and re-settlement in Palestine through the Zionist movement. Today the major issue has turned into an ‘American Problem’: how a powerful ethno-religious elite can use its multi-faceted power to secure (and create) strategic positions in the state while excluding contenders, repressing critics and actively promoting policies in the interest of a foreign state, Israel.

Not all Jewish appointees and elected officials explicitly follow the extremist position of the most aggressive Zionist organizations, especially the self-styled ‘Presidents of the Major American (sic) Jewish Organizations’ . . . but… nor do they openly object to Israeli-First activities or try to block them – for fear of ostracism and retribution – with the calumny of ’self-hating Jew’ unlikely to promote one’s career or social life.

Chosen People: The Myth of Meritocracy and the Practice of Mediocracy

To deal with the rise of Israel-First individuals to positions of power in the US, it is essential to analyze the all-pervasive claims of meritocracy, the argument that their influence is based on their ‘universally acclaimed’ achievements, intelligence and superiority far beyond their elite rivals. The argument of ‘unique merit’ blends smoothly with traditional Talmudic and contemporary Israeli-chauvinist belief that Jews are ‘the Chosen People of God’, destined to prevail over the inferior ‘others’.

The meritocratic argument is partly based on circular arguments contending that the disproportionate number of Jewish billionaires means they are more brilliant in business; that pro-Israel dominance within the US corporate mass media proves that Jewish media moguls are smarter and Israel is a righteous state . . . and the rise of Israel-Firsters in government, academia and finance reflects their higher intelligence, greater work ethic and accomplishments.

It is with the latter that we have to deal, because the significance of higher grades, diplomas from prestigious universities and piles of academic awards has to be proven on the ground. It is not simply the achievement of high individual positions and great wealth that matter, but how the policies formulated and practices pursued by these elite individual have affected the lives of 330 million Americans, the nation, its prestige, welfare and moral authority.

If we use these alternative ‘evidence-based’ criteria, we find a huge disparity between high levels of academic achievement and disastrous performance when in public office.

We can cite the Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan’s deregulatory policies, which led to the greatest financial crash since the Great Depression and his successor, Benjamin Bernanke, who presided over the trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street banks while millions of American’s lost their homes. Both attended elite institutions, both secured numerous prestigious awards . . . and both imposed disastrous policies on the American nation and people – with complete impunity for their monumental mistakes, while American workers continue to suffer.

Treasury Department

Stuart Levey was the first Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence within the US Treasury Department (a position created by AIPAC and tailored specifically for Levey). He graduated from Harvard College summa cum laude and magna cum laude. While Stu Levey was racing around the US and the rest of the world enforcing the economic sanctions against Iran (which he authored in line with Israeli directives), narco-terrorists from Mexico, Central America, Colombia and Peru were freely washing hundreds of billions of dollars a year in US banks. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabian officials who funded jihadi terrorists were never prosecuted or sanctioned – even after attacks within the US.

Levey’s successor, David Cohen (who else!) followed the same policy. Multi-national banks and corporations, which had corrupted officials, swindled investors, evaded taxes and laundered illicit funds were never investigated, let alone charged. Cohen devoted his time and effort, at Israel’s behest, enforcing sanctions against Iran and endeavoring to sabotage any US-Iran nuclear negotiations.

Foreign Policy

From the Clinton era through the George W. Bush and Obama regimes, the US engaged in a series of wars against predominantly secular governments in Muslim countries, which had been opposed to Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine.

Key policymakers in the design and execution of US war policy were prominent Jews bristling with diplomas from the most prestigious universities.

These ’scholars’, the ‘cream’ of US academe, blatantly falsified the pretexts for the US’ disastrous thirteen-year war (and counting) in Iraq, the lost (15-plus year) war in Afghanistan, the invasion and destruction of Libya and Syria. Their brilliant plans have led directly to the rise of ISIS throughout the region and the displacement of tens of millions of civilians in the Middle East, West Asia and North Africa.

Due credit must be given to the midwives of the 21st Century wars of foreign conquest and domestic decay: Standing out among the principle architects of these foreign policy disasters is Elliott Abrams, BA and Doctor of Jurisprudence, Harvard University. Abrams had been officially censored for lying directly to the US Congress about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal under President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. During that administration, Elliot directed US official support for the dictatorial regimes in Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras where over 250,000 Central American civilians were massacred. The new millennium wiped clean his tawdry slate of crimes against humanity and he was appointed a leading National Security Advisor under President George W. Bush 2002-2009. In this role, he fabricated ‘evidence’ linking the secular government of Iraq to the fundamentalist Al Qaeda and he served as a transmission belt channeling false Israeli ‘intelligence’ that Iraq possessed banned weapons of mass destruction. No weapons were ever found – a ‘mere detail of history’, according to his partner, Paul Wolfowitz. These blatant lies pushed to Bush Administration to invade and destroy Iraq.

While Elliot Abrams was strategically placed in the Bush/Cheney White House, his partners in deception, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith controlled Middle East policy at the Pentagon. This dream team of Abrams, Wolfowitz and Feith formed the powerful Israel-First Troika responsible for the military policies which systematically destroyed Iraq’s state apparatus, decimating its civil society, fragmenting the country and precipitating gruesome ethno-religious wars and the rise of ISIS. This ‘Troika’ has never been held responsible for the deaths of over one million Iraqis – but credit should be given to the ‘meritorious’.

Dr. Paul Wolfowitz received his BA from Cornell and PhD from the University of Chicago. In the 1980’s, early in his government career he temporarily lost security clearance for having passed confidential documents to Israeli agents. Despite this ‘youthful indiscretion’ (or act of treason), Wolfowitz became Deputy Defense Secretary under President George W. Bush (2001-2005). In this position, he was one of the earliest and most forceful advocates for military interventions against Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebanon and Libya. He persuaded the American Congress and the Bush Administration that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would be short and self-financing. He glowingly predicted that the wars would ‘pay for themselves’ in terms of looted natural resources and ‘re-construction’ contracts. In fact, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost tens of thousands of US military casualties, over a trillion dollars in military expenditures and they continue over 13 years (Iraq), and 15 years (Afghanistan) with no end in sight but completely devastated societies spewing millions of refugees and thousands of terrorists.

Equally luminous in academic credentials, the third of the ‘Israel-First Troika’, Douglas Feith received his BA from Harvard (magna cum laude), and JD (magna cum laude). He worked closely with Israeli intelligence officials fabricating out of whole cloth the myth of Saddam’s quest for ‘yellow cake’ uranium to construct Iraqi nuclear weapons of mass destruction pushing the US into war against Iraq.

Feith set up a cozy nest at the Pentagon, the ‘Office of Special Plans’ (OSP), which served as a base of operations for Israeli operatives. One thoroughly disgusted former Pentagon official described the flow of Israeli officials in and out of OSP as resembling ‘a brothel on Saturday night’.

One of Feith’s crowning achievements was the destruction of the Iraqi Baath Party and administrative apparatus, which included the entire police force, the army and public administration, education, and even the huge public health system. Virtually all qualified Iraqi officials were either fired or ‘disappeared’. The result was the total breakdown of essential services, the pillage of the national and historic patrimony and decimation of civil and secular Iraqi society. Even the most fabulous archeological treasures of Mesopotamia were destroyed or looted for American and European collectors. Feith’s level of meddling and disastrous policies led the colorful US General Tommy Franks to describe the Harvard ‘JD’ as “the dumbest fucking guy on the planet”.

Hovering on the periphery of the ‘Troika’ was the ‘mysterious’, veteran manipulator, Richard Perle. With his BA from the University of Southern California and MA from Princeton (and no military experience), Perle was qualified to push for serial US wars on Israel’s behalf, starting with Iraq and moving on to all other countries which had traditionally supported the rights of the Palestinian people. He was a key member of the US Defense Policy Board under the Bush Administration and the front ideologue for invading Iraq. His second ‘job’ was strategic adviser to Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Benyamin Netanyahu. Perle pushed for US military intervention to effect ‘regime change’ in Syria and Iran as well as Libya.

Beyond the warrior ‘troika’ and shadowy Mr. Perle, there is Dr. Dennis Ross who received his BA and PhD from UCLA and taught at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Ross and fellow uber-Zionist, Martin Indyk, founded the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) the most influential lobby on Middle East policy and a virtual ‘king-maker’ in Washington. He was President Bill Clinton’s ‘Middle East Coordinator’, ensuring that Israel’s land grabs in the occupied territories were unimpeded, and indeed justified and funded by the US taxpayer. His notoriety in promoting the brutal and illegal confiscation of Palestinian property earned him the title as ‘Israel’s lawyer’ even among his most pro-Israel colleagues.

Ross made sure that Israel would not be bound to the Camp David agreements even as President Clinton claimed the negotiations as his landmark achievement in diplomacy. AIPAC, under Ross and Indyk, lobbied long and hard for the US invasion of Iraq; it backed Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and justified the expansion of apartheid style ‘Jews only’ colonial settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank.

During the Obama Presidency, Ross served as Special Adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. In this capacity, he actively opposed diplomatic negotiations with the government of Iran or the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Ross’ partner, Martin Indyk received his PhD from the Australian National University and served as Deputy Research Director and co-founder of AIPAC (1982-85). This, the most powerful lobby in Washington, serves exclusively as a political fifth column for the Israeli Foreign Office. Indyk was founding Director of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy (WINEP), a barnyard of ideological propagandists for Israel. When President Clinton appointed (the Australian, Israeli, US citizen) ‘Marty’ Indyk as US Ambassador to Israel, serious questions came up about his transfers of confidential documents to Israel. He thus became the first Ambassador stripped of security clearance. Israel Lobby pressures led to reinstated security clearance for Indyk who was subsequently named Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. As a mouthpiece for Israel’s interests, Indyk has pushed to ‘contain’ Iraq (through bombing) and Iran (through economic sanctions).

Throughout his career, Indyk sabotaged peace negotiation between Israel and Palestine and he undermined any early diplomatic resolution of the Iraq-US conflict, which might have prevented the disastrous war. His meddling on Israel’s behalf has cost the US treasury hundreds of billions of dollars in lost trade with Iran. Despite his clear record of ’service to Israel’ and ‘disservice to the US’, President Obama appointed Indyk as US (sic) Special Envoy for Israel-Palestine Negotiations (2013-2014). In this supposedly ‘diplomatic’ role he failed to protect even one acre of Palestinian farmland among the hundreds seized by Israel for the illegal establishment of many ‘Jews Only’ enclaves the occupied West Bank.

Economic Policy – More Mediocrity, Less Meritocracy

Jack Lew, Secretary of the Treasury (2013-2016) heads an ethno-Chauvinist quintet dictating US foreign and domestic economic policy (with Michael Froman, Chief Trade Negotiator; ‘Penny’ Pritzer, Secretary of Commerce; Lawrence Summers, Director of National Economic Council and Janet Yellen, head of the Federal Reserve Bank). Lew pushed policies favoring the wealthiest 1% along with his co-religionist Michael Froman, while millions of Americans were plunged into poverty and stagnation. Their policies include Free Trade Agreements in Europe, Asia and Latin America which have led to the relocation of US MNC overseas, massive job losses at home, further deepening inequalities and degrading work conditions and wages. Recently, in his stellar public career, Jack Lew was investigated for lying to the US Congress about the national debt, the size and growth of which he deliberately understated. Thanks to his ‘backers’, he was never charged . . . Of course, Lew has his BA from Harvard and JD from Georgetown, which accounts for his success on behalf of the leisure class.

Penny Pritzer, Obama’s Secretary of Commerce (2013-2016) received her BA from Harvard and JD and MBA from Stanford. She is a Chicago billionaire, who served as National Financial Chairperson of for Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign, and was National Chair of his 2012 campaign. Pritzer has been major player among prominent Chicago Jews ensuring that ‘their candidate’ Obama ‘got it right’ on US-Israel relations. Despite having been fined $460 million by the US Treasury Department for predatory banking (Pritzker’s, Superior Bank of Chicago had fleeced millions of poor and middle class household mortgage holders and investors of billions of dollars of their assets), a grateful Obama named Penny Pritzker as his Secretary of Commerce. She quickly teamed up with Froman and Lew in promoting the ‘free trade’ agreements that have thoroughly undermined US regulations protecting labor and the environment. Billionaire Pritzker and her partners have been fabulously successful in globalizing profits for the elite while ’socializing’ the cost of corporate flight abroad onto the backs of the US working and middle classes.

Dr. Michael Froman, Obama’s Chief Trade Negotiator, has a BA from Princeton, a JD from Harvard and PhD from Oxford. Prior to heading up Trade, Froman served under ‘Bill’ Clinton in Treasury and was a National Security adviser to President Obama. He actively pushed for the Obama’s program of expansive domestic police state surveillance. He is also the principal author and promoter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes eleven Pacific nations and is designed to marginalize and encircle China . . . This is a ‘trade’ partnership, which may jeopardize the profits of over 500 major US MNC with investments in China and the US multi-hundred-billion-dollar trade relation. Froman is one of the major architects of Obama’s ‘pivot to Asia’, which has heightened military tensions and threatens the entire West Coast economies heavily dependent on China trade.

Not to be outdone by other luminaries in the ‘economic quintet’, Lawrence Summers had been President at Harvard University until he was booted out by a resounding “no confidence vote” by the faculty – despite the efforts of Zionist academics and trustees who stuck by their ‘golden boy’. Summers, along with co-religionist Alan Greenspan (it has been so hard to find any competent Gentiles to steer the US economy), was one of the prime authors of the deregulatory financial policies leading to the 2008-09 financial-economic crash. This crushing success caused double-digit unemployment, three million household foreclosures and forced a trillion dollar bank bailout down the gagging throats of the US taxpayers.

Summers led the charge on the successful repeal of the New Deal, Glass-Steagall Act, a venerable depression era legislation designed to prevent banks from speculating with their depositors’ savings – which the banks promptly did after the repeal.

As Under-Secretary of Treasury in 1993, Deputy-Secretary in 1995 and Treasury Secretary in 1999, the Harvard and MIT-diploma-laden Summers advised the vodka-soaked ‘experts’ around Boris Yeltsin to ‘privatize the Russian economy’ – resulting in the pillage by gangster-oligarchs of over $500 billion dollars in public properties, banks and natural resources and providing significant profits for a score of Harvard-based ‘advisers’.

As President of Harvard, he attributed the absence of women scholars in science, mathematics and engineering to their lack of ‘high-end’ intellectual capacity (ignoring centuries of ingrained discrimination) and he trivialized the academic work of Afro-American scholar, Cornel West, causing him to leave and join Princeton. His denigration of a major African-American scholar was in line with his views on Africa while at the World Bank where he advocated shipping toxic waste because, ‘I’ve always thought that the under-populated countries in Africa were vastly under-polluted.”

After alienating women and African Americans, Summers spearheaded a vitriolic attack on any and all campus critics of the state of Israel. He targeted student leaders of the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement as ‘anti-Semites’ or ’self-hating Jews’, using the University Presidential bully platform to silence opponents of his pro-Israel politics. Eventually, he was ousted from office by an overwhelming faculty vote ostensibly for his financial ‘conflict of interests’ related to his Yeltsin-era dealings with mega-swindler Andrei Shleifer whose shady deals in Russia’s privatization orgy made some Harvard officials very wealthy.

Self-promoted, academic spokesman for the American worker, Robert Reich received his JD at Yale Law School and taught at Harvard. He served as Labor Secretary under Clinton (1993-97). During Reich’s tenure, labor union membership steeply declined, laws prohibiting worker organizing were tightened and the minimum wage became a minimum survival wage. Reich hung on to his Cabinet position even after the North American Free Trade for the Americas (NAFTA) was approved destroying over two million once secure American manufacturing jobs. He hung on as President Clinton carpet bombed the renowned worker self-managed factories of Yugoslavia. He kept his luxurious office in Washington after Clinton bombed Sudan’s principle factory for the production of vaccines and antibiotics leaving million of children and adults without basic vaccines and medicines. Reich kept ‘mum’ even as Haiti was invaded and a harsh neo-liberal anti-worker agenda was imposed to permit the democratically elected President Aristide to return to office.

While domestic inequalities deepened and economic deregulation extended, Reich remained in office. Reich ignored Israeli violence against Palestinian labor unions and workers, backing Clinton’s “carnal relation” with Tel Aviv.

After years of devastation against workers at home and abroad, Reich left Washington for a cushy $243,000-a-year appointment at UC Berkeley where he ‘teaches’ two hours a week assigning his own op-ed columns in the mass media as ‘reading material’. When not engaged in such strenuous scholarship, Reich has managed to churn out books ‘critical of neo-liberalism, inequality and social justice’. ‘Crying all the way to the bank’, this intellectual for the oppressed worker has to manage the $40,000 he is paid for each 45 minute speech on the lecture circuit. On an hourly basis, Reich earns 6 times more than the average US corporate CEOs he denounces.

Conclusion

From our discussion it is clear that there is a profound disparity between the stellar academic achievements of Israel-First officials in the US government and the disastrous consequences of their public policies in office.

The ethno-chauvinist claim of unique ‘merit’ to explain the overwhelming success of American Jews in public office and in other influential spheres is based on a superficial reputational analysis, bolstered on degrees from prestigious universities. But this reliance on reputation has not held up in terms of performance – the successful resolution of concrete problems and issues. Failures and disasters are not just ‘overlooked’; they are rewarded.

After examining the performance of top officials in foreign policy, we find that their ‘assumptions’ (often blatant manipulations and misrepresentations) about Iraq were completely wrong; their pursuit of war was disastrous and criminal; their ‘occupation blueprint’ led to prolonged conflict and the rise of terrorism; their pretext for war was a fabrication derived from their close ties to Israeli intelligence in opposition to the findings US intelligence. Their sanctions policy toward Iran has cost the US economy many billions while their pro-Israel policy cost the US Treasury (and taxpayers) over $110 billion over the last 30 years. Their one-sided ‘Israel-First’ policy has sabotaged any a ‘two-state’ resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and has left millions of Palestinians in abject misery. Meanwhile, the disproportionate number of high officials who have been accused of giving secret US documents to Israel (Wolfowitz, Feith, Indyke and Polland etc.) exposes what really constitutes the badge of “merit” in this critical area of US security policy.

The gulf between academic credentials and actual performance extends to economic policy. Neo-liberal policies favoring Wall Street speculators were adopted by such strategic policymakers as Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Lawrence Summers. Their ‘leadership’ rendered the country vulnerable to the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression with millions of Americans losing employment and homes. Despite their role in creating the conditions for the crisis, their ’solution’ compounded the disaster by transferring over a trillion dollars from the US Treasury to the investment banks, as a taxpayer-funded bailout of Wall Street. Under their economic leadership, class inequalities have deepened; the financial elite has grown many times richer. Meanwhile, wars in the Middle East have drained the US Treasury of funds, which should have been used to serve the social needs of Americans and finance an economic recovery program through massive domestic investments and repair of our collapsing infrastructure.

The trade policies under the leadership of this ‘meritocratic’ elite – formerly called the ‘Chosen People’ – have been an unmitigated disaster for the majority of industrial workers, resulting in huge trade deficits and the deskilling of low paid service employment – with profound implications for future generations of American workers. It is no longer a secret that an entire generation of working class Americans has descended into poverty with no prospects of escape – except through narcotics and other degradation. On the ‘flip side’ of the ‘winners and losers’, US finance capital has expanded overseas with acquisition and merger fees enriching the 0.1% and the meritocratic officials happily rotating from their Washington offices to Wall Street and back again.

If economic performance were to be measured in terms of the sustained growth, balanced budgets, reductions in inequalities and the creation of stable, well-paying jobs, the economic elite (despite their self-promoted merits) have been absolute failures.

However, if we adopt the alternative criteria for success, their performance looks pretty impressive: they bailed out their banking colleagues, implemented destructive ‘free’ trade agreements, and opened up overseas investments opportunities with higher rates of profits than might be made from investing in the domestic economy.

If we evaluate foreign policy ‘performance’ in terms of US political, economic and military interests, their policies have been costly in lives, financial losses and military defeats for the nation as a whole. They rate ’summa cum lousy’.

However if we consider their foreign policies in the alternative terms of Israel’s political, economic and military interests, they regain their ’summa cum laudes’! They have been well rewarded for their services: The war against Iraq destroyed an opponent of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The systematic destruction of the Iraqi civil society and state has eliminated any possibility of Iraq recovering as a modern secular, multi-ethnic, multi-confessional state. Here, Israel made a major advance toward unopposed regional military dominance without losing a soldier or spending a shekel! The Iran sanctions authored and pushed by Levey and Cohen served to undermine another regional foe of Israeli land grabs in the West Bank even if it cost the US hundreds of billions in lost profits, markets and oil investments.

By re-setting the criteria for these officials, it is clear that their true academic ‘merit’ correlates with their success policies on behalf of the state Israel, regardless of how mediocre their performances have been for the United States as a state, nation and people. All this might raise questions about the nature of higher education and how performance is evaluated in terms of the larger spheres of the US economy, state and military.

What we suggest is that degrees from prestigious universities and the highest awards have prepared academic high achievers to serve the elites but not the workers; to empower the financiers but not the producers. These years of training and achievement have certainly not prevented destructive foreign loyalties from undermining the greater society, nor have they taught basic civic virtues and egalitarian values. Prestigious universities recruit and train graduates in the mold of the dominant elites and increasingly narrow ethno-classes. They purge, intimidate and marginalize effective critics of Wall Street and of the State of Israel – the two major success markers that derive from an increasingly insulated ethno-chauvinist power configuration. I would rather question if the disproportionate rise to the top of academia, government and finance hierarchies by pro-Israel Jews has less to do with their effective practical knowledge and democratic values and more to do with their affiliation with the political and economic power that revolves around ‘the 1%’ and is played out, first in academia and then in the larger political and economic spheres to the detriment of the vast majority.

Whatever intrinsic intelligence may exist can be blinded and distorted by an irrational doctrine of racial-ethnic superiority: the results have been stupid and destructive policies imposed by self-congratulatory, self-contained collectivities – with absolutely no accountability for their failures.

Epilogue

The prestigious degrees and awards may account for the appointments – but they don’t explain the complete absence of any evaluations, or firings or even punishment for failed policies. There have been no consequences for the authors of broken economies, impoverished workers, prolonged losing wars, lies and fabrications of data leading to war and the passing of confidential state documents. Why have they continued to receive promotions in the face of policy failures? Why the revolving doors of appointments to the World Bank, positions in the ‘best’ universities (to the exclusion of real independent scholars) and the lucrative seats in investment banks after their policies have shredded the domestic economy?

Don’t the deaths and maiming of millions of Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians and, Libyans and the tens of millions of desperate refugees, resulting from their foreign policies, warrant a pause in their continued hold on power and prestige, if not outright condemnation for crimes against humanity?

MYTH OF GUN CONTROL IN GERMANY, 1928-1945

Gun Control

by William L. Pierce | A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, “You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms,” or, “The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns.”

One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can. Adolf Hitler has been vilified continuously for the past 60 years or so by the mass media in America, and certainly no politician or officeholder wants to be compared with him. If the gun-confiscation effort can be portrayed convincingly as something of which Hitler would have approved, it will have been effectively tarred.

Gun Control 1928-1945This identification of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms with National Socialism and Adolf Hitler has been strengthened recently by clever magazine advertisements which show Hitler with his arm outstretched in a Roman salute under a heading: “All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.” A Jewish group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has its roots in Germany during the Hitler period. This group has gone so far as to claim in several articles published in popular magazines read by firearms enthusiasts that the current restrictive legislation being proposed by the U.S. government is modeled on a gun-control statute enacted by Germany’s National Socialist government: the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938.

Again, one can understand the motivation of the JPFO. Many non-Jewish firearms owners are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily by Jews, and anti-Jewish feeling has been growing among them. They know that the controlled news media, which are almost unanimously in favor of abridging or abolishing the Second Amendment, are very much under the influence of Jews, and they know that the most vocal anti-gun legislators in the Congress also are Jews. It is natural for a group such as the JPFO to mount a damage- control effort and attempt to prevent anti-Jewish feeling from becoming even stronger among gun owners. Their strategy is to deflect the blame from their kinsmen in the media and the government and direct it onto their most hated enemies, the National Socialists — or at least to create enough smoke to obscure the facts and keep the gun-owning public confused.

Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews.

It is not just that the National Socialist firearms legislation was the opposite of what it has been claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the “Nazi” brush: the whole spirit of Hitler’s government was starkly different from its portrayal by America’s mass media. The facts, in brief, are these:

  • The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government stamped down hard on communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright, law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with mutual trust and respect.
  • The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man’s character.
  • Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially amel ior a ting it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler’s government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler’s government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.
  • At the end of the Second World War, American GIs in the occupying force were astounded to discover how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of pistols looted from German homes by GIs were brought back to the United States after the war. In 1945 General Eisenhower ordered all privately owned firearms in the American occupation zone of Germany confiscated, and Germans were required to hand in their shotguns and rifles as well as any handguns which had not already been stolen. In the Soviet occupation zone German civilians were summarily shot if they were found in possession of even a single cartridge.

Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate. The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, specifically excluded Jews from manufacturing or dealing in firearms or munitions, but it did not exclude them from owning or bearing personal firearms. The exclusion of Jews from the firearms business rankled them as much as any other exclusion, and in their typically ethnocentric fashion they have misrepresented the law involved as an anti-gun law in an effort to cast their enemies in a bad light.
It should be noted in passing that the restrictions placed on Jews by the National Socialists had the intended effect: between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews residing in Germany emigrated, reducing the Jewish population of the country from 600,000 when Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 to 200,000 at the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Jews in the United States, looking at this period from their own narrowly focused viewpoint, have described these peacetime years of the National Socialist government as a time of darkness, terror, and regression, whereas for the German people it was a time of hope, joy, and spiritual and material renewal.

Much the same type of distortion is seen in the portrayal of the United States in the early 1950s: the so-called “McCarthy Era.” Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican, Wisconsin) used his position as chairman of the Senate’s Government Operations Committee to expose the widespread communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other U.S. institutions which had taken place during the Second World War. A substantial majority of the communists who were dragged reluctantly out into the light of day by his efforts were Jews. As a result, the controlled media always have portrayed the period as one of terror and repression, when everyone was frightened of Senator McCarthy’s “witch-hunt.” Of course, it was nothing of the sort to non-Jewish Americans, who were not intimidated in the least. History viewed through a Jewish lens — i.e., through media controlled by Jews — always is distorted in a way corresponding to Jewish interests and concerns.

Both the German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, enacted by the National Socialists, and the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, which was enacted by an anti-National Socialist government, are given below in full, first in facsimile and then in English translation. A little background information first, however, may help the reader to understand their significance. After Germany’s defeat in the First World War (a defeat in which Germany’s Jews played no small part, demoralizing the home front with demonstrations and other subversive activity much as they did in America during the Vietnam war), the Kaiser abdicated, and liberals and leftists seized control of the government in 1918. Hitler, recovering in a military hospital from a British poison-gas attack which had blinded him temporarily, made the decision to go into politics and fight against the traitors he felt were responsible for Germany’s distress.

The tendency of Germany’s new rulers after the First World War was much the same as it is for the liberals in America today: they promoted cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and egalitarianism. By 1923 economic conditions in Germany had become catastrophic, and there was much public unrest. The communists had made major inroads into the labor movement and were a growing threat to the country.

Hitler had indeed gone into politics, and his National Socialists battled the communists in the streets of Germany’s cities and gradually came to be seen by many patriotic Germans in the working class and the middle class as the only force which could save Germany from a communist takeover and total ruin. Hitler’s National Socialists continued to win recruits and gain strength during the 1920s. The communists, with aid from the Soviet Union, also continued to grow. The political situation became increasingly unstable as the government lost popular support.

The government’s response was to substantially tighten up restrictions on the rights of German citizens to keep and bear arms. The Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, was the most substantial effort in this regard. This law was enacted by a left-center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government was headed by Chancellor Wilhelm Marx and consisted of a coalition of Socialists, including many Jews, and Catholic Centrists).

Five years later, in 1933, the National Socialists were in power, Hitler headed the government, and the communist threat was crushed decisively. The National Socialists began undoing the social and economic damage done by their predecessors. Germany was restored to full employment, degeneracy and corruption were rooted out, Jews and their collaborators were removed from one facet of national life after another, and the German people entered a new era of national freedom, health, and prosperity.

Finally, in 1938, the National Socialist government got around to enacting a new firearms law to replace the one enacted by their opponents ten years earlier. The highlights of the 1938 law, especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow:

  • Handguns may be purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle- loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. [The 1928 law had required a permit for the purchase of long guns as well, but the National Socialists dropped this requirement.]
  • Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.
  • A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.
  • Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. [The age limit had been 20 years in the 1928 law.]
  • Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.
  • A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:
  1. persons under the age of 18 years;
  2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;
  3. Gypsies or vagabonds;
  4. persons under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole] or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;
  5. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;
  6. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.
  • The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:
  1. “trick” firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);
  2. any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;
  3. cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.

That is the essence. Numerous other provisions of the law relate to firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers; to acquisition and carrying of firearms by police, military, and other official personnel; to the maximum fees which can be charged for permits (3 Reichsmark); to tourists bringing firearms into Germany; and to the fines and other penalties to be levied for violations.

The requirements of “trustworthiness” and of proof of need when obtaining a permit are troubling, but it should be noted that they were simply carried over from the 1928 law: they were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists these requirements were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited categories listed above was considered trustworthy, and a statement such as, “I often carry sums of money,” was accepted as proof of need.

The prohibitions of spotlight-equipped rifles and hollow-point .22 caliber ammunition were based on considerations that the former were unsporting when used for hunting, and the latter were inhumane.

Now read the German firearms laws for yourself, either in the original German exactly as they were published by the German government in the Reichsgesetzblatt or in the complete English translations which are provided here. If you want to skip over most of the legal gobbledygook and go directly to the most pertinent part of the National Socialist Firearms Law — the part pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms by private citizens — turn to page 35 (Part IV of the Law). Note, as already mentioned above, that two separate and distinct types of permits are referred to: a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), required only for purchasing a handgun; and a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein), required for carrying any firearm in public. Interestingly enough, as also mentioned above, a hunting license could take the place of both these permits.

When you have read the two laws mentioned here, you will understand that it was Hitler’s enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people’s right of self- defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense.

‘It’s not clear if the Holocaust is a reality or not,’ Iran’s supreme leader says

Iran’s supreme leader on Wednesday once again repeated provocative assertions about the Holocaust, defying the world on a day that it paused to remember the victims of the Nazi genocide in Europe.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei released a video in which he said America “assists the fake Zionist regime” and that when “they say in their slogans that they are opposed to terrorism and ISIS they are lying,” according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Of the Holocaust, Khamenei remarked: “It is not clear whether the core of this matter is a reality or not. Even if it is a reality, it is not clear how it happened…This is the ignorance that exists in today’s world. We should be awake. [Muslims] should know that we can stand up against the ignorance.” “Who assists the fake Zionist regime,” Khamenei says in the video. “Who supports them, who clears the road for them, who stands behind them.”

“It is Western powers headed by America that are doing so. This is while they say in their slogans that they are opposed to terrorism and ISIS.”

“They are lying, they say things that aren’t true. This is ignorance (Statue of Liberty).”

Khamenei then begins to cast aspersions on the veracity of the Holocaust, saying: “No one in European countries dares to speak about the Holocaust (Auschwitz).”

“While it is not clear whether the core of this matter is a reality or not, even if it is a reality, it is not clear how it happened,” the supreme leader is heard saying.

Speaking about the Holocaust and expressing doubts about it is considered to be a great sin.”

“If someone does this they stop, arrest, imprison, and sue him,” the cleric said. “This is while they claim to be supporters of freedom. This is the ignorance that exists in today’s world. We should be awake. [Muslims] should know that we can stand up against the ignorance.”

Greater Israel: Myth or Reality?

A short debate on the Darkmoon site
between Franklin Ryckaert and Ormanci
Edited and introduced by Lasha Darkmoon
with some added material in the form of quotes

LD: In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the UN Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.” This comes  from Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” (Seehereand here)

blogger-image--1842373925

THE PROMISED LAND
according to the Oded Yinon Plan

The Oded Yinon Plan was first set forth in an essay written by the Jewish scholar Oded Yinon. It was published in the Hebrew journal Kivunim (Directions) in February 1982. It was later translated from Hebrew into English by Israel Shahak, the famous anti-Zionist Israeli Jew, in June 1982, a week after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.  (LD)

FRANKLIN RYCKAERT: In the supposed territory of “Greater Israel”, the area from the Nile to the Euphrates, about 100 million people live. If Israel really has a plan to colonize that enormous stretch of land, it not only has to ethnically cleanse it but also to repopulate it with Jews.

There are at most 14 million Jews in the world and not all would like to settle in that “Greater Israel”. Then there is the small problem of defending that territory, not only against the people who were expelled from it and want to return, but also against the whole Arab world, the whole Islamic world, the whole Third World and probably the whole Western World too, including the US.

There are no indications that Israel really has such an insane plan. If it did, it would never have given up the Sinai and Gaza and would have annexed the West Bank and have expelled all Palestinians already long ago. This idea of a secret Israeli “Greater Israel” plan is a paranoid conspiracy theory of people with little sense of realism. It cannot be done and Israel is not trying to do it.

ORMANCI: Franklin Ryckaert writes: “In the supposed territory of “Greater Israel”, the area from the Nile to the Euphrates, about 100 million people live. If Israel really has a plan to colonize that enormous stretch of land, it not only has to ethnically cleanse it but also to repopulate it with Jews.”

Logic fail. Currently, with less than 2% of its population, the ‘master race’ has a de facto control over the USA (not to mention the rest of the western satrapies) more complete than the practical jurisdiction than most ‘elected’ governments have over the states which they govern. Using their complicit stooges in the wider population – in this case, punitively “Christian” – to enforce their cultural hegemony, and buying the politico-judicial class a dime a dozen, they shift billions of dollars of taxpayer money – and huge amounts of resources, to their gang headquarters every year, without complaint or oversight.

All this, in the so-called ‘developed world.’ In the area of your 100 million, already half way gone to dissolution of sovereign states already, the process of subsuming control of governments is even easier. This is not conceptual – that Tel Aviv is firmly in control of the breakaway Kurdistan in northern Iraq is well known, as is their command over the so-called ‘Islamic State’ forces in Syria and Iraq. Money talks, regardless of religious window dressings. And the Yinon Plan is well along to its completion.

MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY: The document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. The election was fought by Netanyahu on a political platform which denies Palestinian statehood.

According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.

“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.

The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel. Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).

The Promised Land

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article, the Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:


The Yinon plan is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World.

In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the US military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

“Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states. The plan operates on two essential premises.

To survive, Israel must (1) become an imperial regional power, and (2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. ‘Small’ here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.

This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.”

Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of the process of Israeli territorial expansion. Israeli intelligence working hand in glove with the US, Turkey and NATO is directly supportive of the crusade directed against the so-called Islamic State (ISIS), which ultimately seeks to destroy both Syria and Iraq as nation states.

~Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 22, 2015

%d bloggers like this: