Is Iraq war being fought for imperialism or Israel?

Saturday, December 23, 2006 ::: Is Iraq war being fought for imperialism or Israel?
(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Now that it is conventional wisdom in America (at least outside of politically correct Washington Beltway and mainstream media circles) that the U.S. was misled into the Iraq war by the Bush administration--quite possibly with the acquiescence of members of Congress from both the Republican and Democratic parties--the fight is on among patriotic Americans to determine the motives for the deception.
Rather than merely academic, a determination of motive may well be the first step in holding the perpetrators accountable, and may also be instrumental in determining America’s timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.
One theory is that the war was orchestrated by Jewish nationalists (Zionist Jews who support Israel’s current incarnation as an explicitly Jewish state) and Christian Zionists (adherents to a racialist interpretation of Christianity that mandates recognition of the Jews as God’s chosen people, and that wants to secure Greater Israel as their capital to the exclusion of other native peoples). Operating within and without the administration, this coalition arranged the war on behalf of Jewish security and other Israel-centered initiatives. Call this the War for Israel theory.
The Christian Zionist camp was represented by President Bush himself, who has reportedly hosted secret Middle East policy meetings with dispensationalist evangelicals, and figures such as former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who has a long history of philo-Semitism and pro-Israel activism. (He routinely brags of being the principal architect behind the initiative that strong-armed the United Nations General Assembly to repeal the resolution that equated Zionism with racism).
The Jewish nationalist camp was represented by figures such as former Undersecretaries of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and former chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory Board Richard Perle--all of whom have at various times over the course of their careers been investigated by federal agencies for misuse of American defense and intelligence information to benefit Israel, and all of whom were instrumental in propagating the false intelligence used to deceive Americans into war.
The other school of thought, often embraced by left-liberals squeamish about the implications of acknowledging that Jewish factions within government might be abusing their power (mainly because Jewish nationalists are prominent in the left-liberal governing coalition), is that the pro-war deception was motivated primarily by imperial and economic agendas, including U.S. control of the oil in Iraq, to feed the U.S. military-industrial complex, and to set up Middle East markets for U.S. goods and services. Call this the Imperial War theory.
Those with an open mind who currently subscribe to the Imperial War theory and are inclined to dismiss the War for Israel theory as the province of conspiracy theorists might want to read an interview that recently appeared in the popular Israeli news web site YNetNews.com. The interviewee was Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli citizen, neocon ideologue, and the wife of David Wurmser, a current White House advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney on Middle Eastern affairs who was also John Bolton’s assistant.
David and Meyrav Wurmser, along with Perle, Feith and several others, were the authors of a 1996 report submitted to then-incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Among other initiatives, the report recommended that in order to “secure the realm” for Israel, Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power in Iraq.
In her interview with YNet, Meyrav Wurmser at first feigned shock at being accused of doing Israel’s bidding in the aftermath of America’s Iraq invasion by those who noted her connection to A Clean Break.
"Since I'm an Israeli in the gang, you wouldn't believe what's been written about me," she said. "That I'm proof of the covert neoconservative connection with Israel and the Mossad."
But amazingly, in the next breath she goes on to nearly admit that her neocon clique wrote the script for the White House that led to the removal of Saddam by utilizing the same template that they’d laid out for Netanyahu in Israel in 1996.
According to Meyrav, following the 9/11 attacks, the case made by the neocons (many of whom “are Jews who share a love for Israel,” notes YNet) went something like this: “The idea was that America has a war on terror and that the only actual place for coping with it is in the Middle East and that a fundamental change would come through a change in leadership. We had to start somewhere. The objective was to change the face of the Middle East.”
Note her last sentence: “The objective was to change the face of the Middle East.”
An astounding admission. She is essentially saying that within the White House, the argument being made by neocons (presumably to upper-level administration officials), was not that America should attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein possessed dangerous weapons of mass destruction and was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S, and thus presented a major terrorist threat to Americans (the story later retailed by the administration to the American public).
Rather, the real objective among neocons was to pitch the narrative to Bush insiders “that America has a war on terror and that the only actual place for coping with it is in the Middle East;” to advance the notion within the administration “that a fundamental change would come through a change in leadership;” and finally to convince the administration that the leadership that should be changed was Saddam Hussein’s.
In other words, in order to “change the face of the Middle East,” America needed to begin by getting rid of Saddam Hussein. After all, “we had to start somewhere.”
What a coincidence. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was exactly what David and Meyrav Wurmser, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith told Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 that Israel needed to in order to secure its realm. So just whose realm were these neocons trying to secure?
Could this group’s ongoing connection to Israeli strategic planning possibly have been missed by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush brain trust? Highly doubtful.
For example, despite Feith’s checkered background, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hand selected him to head up the Office of Special Plans, essentially a custom-made Pentagon intelligence unit that was necessitated by the Central Intelligence Agency’s refusal to endorse specious Bush administration accusations against Iraq. Feith is suspected of using the unit to inject the retail “evidence”--that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and that Iraq was connected to 9/11--into the U.S government intelligence stream, thus creating plausible public rationales for the war.
Larry Franklin, a committed Christian Zionist in Feith’s unit, has already been charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with espionage for his role in allegedly trying to deliver a classified draft of a presidential memo to AIPAC and an Israeli Embassy diplomat. (AIPAC--the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee--is a powerful Israel lobby operated primarily by Jewish nationalists who are U.S. citizens.) The FBI charges have raised the question of whether there was a channel between Feith’s office and Israeli intelligence units using AIPAC as the go-between that provided the false evidence used to manipulate the U.S. into war.
If there was, is it really possible that the Bush brain trust didn’t know about it?
And if Dick Cheney believed that the Jewish wing of the neoconservative movement had pulled a “fast one” on Iraq to secure the Israeli realm based on a game plan laid out in A Clean Break, would he really have retained one of its authors, David Wurmser, as his assistant on Middle Eastern affairs to this day?
No, the entire Bush administration knew exactly what the Israeli-loyalists in their midst were up to--and happily enabled the entire enterprise.
But the Bush administration may not have been the only branch of government that actively betrayed its moral, ethical and fiduciary duty to the American people.
The Congressional RoleThat the Bush administration was riddled with fanatical Christian Zionists and Jewish nationalists with an ax to grind against Iraq was an open secret in Washington in the run-up to the Iraq war. In fact, Congress itself is comprised of politicians and aides who are either of the Zionist persuasion or who are willing to look the other way as the Israeli lobby basically dictates most aspects of U.S. Middle East policy because they fear the lobby’s power.
For example, in a letter to journalist Jeff Blankfort after he wrote an essay debunking left-liberal Noam Chomsky’s claims that imperial interests dictate U.S. Middle East policy and Israel is the country being used and manipulated in the relationship, Jim Abourezk, a former U.S. Senator from South Dakota, said his experience in Congress dovetails with Blankfort’s critique of Chomsky’s position.
“I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear--fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress--at least when I served there--have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel,” wrote Abourezk.
“Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.”
But members of Congress may have more affection for the Israeli lobby than even Democrat Abourezk (the first Arab-American to serve in the U.S. Senate) is prepared to admit. In his essay on Chomsky, Jeff Blankfort noted:
“What gives the lobby its strength, besides its significant organizational skills, is that its members are intimately tied to Jewish organizations, federations, and community relations councils across the country, as well as to labor union officials and, in recent years, to the growing Christian evangelical movement, which provides Israel with unprecedented support in what is generally right-wing Republican territory.”
The lobby is intimately tied to both labor union officials and right-wing Christian evangelicals? That means it is intimately tied to key special interests of both the Democratic and Republican parties.
It is likely those very ties (and a desire for the money the lobby routinely spreads around to Washington politicians) were the unspoken reason members from both parties overwhelmingly voted to authorize the Iraq War Resolution on such weak evidence against Iraq.
That assessment seems to be backed by stricken comments made by Virginia Rep. James P. Moran on March 3, 2003, a few days before the beginning of the invasion: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," Moran told an antiwar forum in Reston, Va.
Of course, most members of Congress would never admit this. Congress clearly realizes that the idea of sending Americans to fight for a country as belligerent as Israel is loathsome to the vast majority Americans, who rate the Jewish state just a notch above Communist China in terms of conduct in areas of international peace and security, according to a recent survey.
Washington knows, as scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt quote Philip Zelikow in their paper on the Israel lobby, that sacrificing American troops and treasure on behalf of Zionism “is not a popular sell.”
“Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim,” write Walt and Mearsheimer. “Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’”
All of this raises the specter that everyone from the Congressional supporters of the war to the president himself have knowingly subordinated the best interests of the American people and U.S. military personnel to their own narrow religious agendas or because they are too cowardly to take on the Christian Zionists or the Israeli lobby with which they are partnering.
The fact that the Israeli lobby may be coercing and intimidating certain members Congress is irrelevant to the central fact of their betrayal and negligence; they are sent to Washington to represent American interests, not Israeli ones. If they don’t have the backbone to speak out against American soldiers being sent off to die in foreign lands for the sake of foreign interests, or worse yet, if they collaborate with those interests to knowingly sacrifice Americans on behalf of a foreign cause, they shouldn’t even be setting foot in the U.S. Congress, let alone “serving.” In fact, a strong case can be made that they should be impeached and tried for treason.
So was it primarily imperial interests, or Israeli interests that got America tangled in Iraq?The only way Americans will ever know for sure is if there is a federal investigation of both the Bush administration and Congress in which the key players who were responsible for putting us there are hauled before a judge and forced to testify under oath.
In addition to holding the perpetrators of the Iraq quagmire accountable, such an investigation could also be instrumental in helping Americans make a determination on how quickly they should withdraw from Iraqi occupation. After all, if we are indeed fighting a war primarily for Israeli interests instead of American ones, should we really be paralyzed in fear over the supposed cataclysmic consequences of a withdrawal that certain self-serving apocalyptic political voices in Washington and in the media are painting?
Beyond that, such an investigation will help Americans determine whether or not it is really in U.S. interests to go to war with Iran, which seems to be the latest pro-war cause being pushed on Americans (or at least on their “representatives” in Washington) by the energetic and apparently eternally shameless Israeli lobby.
Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

If you support Israel, you support World War III

Friday, August 04, 2006 ::: If you support Israel, you support World War III
(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Writing for Salon.com, Sydney Blumenthal documents how Bush administration neocons and their apparatchik private-sector allies are trying to use the current Israeli conflict to widen the “war on terror” into World War III:
“Inside the administration, neoconservatives on Vice President Dick Cheney's national security staff and Elliott Abrams, the neoconservative senior director for the Near East on the National Security Council, are prime movers behind sharing NSA intelligence with Israel, and they have discussed Syrian and Iranian supply activities as a potential pretext for Israeli bombing of both countries, the source privy to conversations about the program says. (Intelligence, including that gathered by the NSA, has been provided to Israel in the past for various purposes.) The neoconservatives are described as enthusiastic about the possibility of using NSA intelligence as a lever to widen the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and Israel and Hamas into a four-front war.”
Blumenthal says that because Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have qualms about widening the war (“recently she has come under fire from prominent neoconservatives who oppose her support for diplomatic negotiations with Iran to prevent its development of nuclear weaponry”) she has come to be seen as a thorn in the side of neocon plans for escalation.
"‘Dump Condi,’ read the headline in the right-wing Insight Magazine on July 25. ‘Conservative national security allies of President Bush are in revolt against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, saying that she is incompetent and has reversed the administration's national security and foreign policy agenda,’ the article reported.”
Blumenthal continues: “A month earlier, [neocon guru Richard] Perle, in a June 25 Op-Ed in the Washington Post, revived an old trope from the height of the Cold War, accusing those who propose diplomacy of being like Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who tried to appease Hitler…Rice, agent of the nefarious State Department, is supposedly the enemy within.‘We are in the early stages of World War III,’ [Newt] Gingrich told Insight. ‘Our bureaucracies are not responding fast enough. We don't have the right attitude.’”
So now it is clear: first the neocons tried to spark World War III by lying America into a war in Iraq, which because so many neocons are also Jewish nationalists, was to be fought primarily by Americans on behalf of Israel. It didn’t work. Americans don’t want World War III because they know it would have to be conducted against all of Islam, which would be a war that neither side could possibly ever win on any decisive level; much of the world would simply become the new battle ground in a never-ending, Israeli vs. Palestinian style conflict which would accomplish exactly nothing except the devastation of lives, economies and infrastructures.
Because World War III via invasion of Iraq didn’t work, the neocons are trying a second, more direct route--through support of Israel: either America continues to support Israel, and follows wherever that path leads (and the neocons know it will lead to confrontation with Syria and Iran and eventually all of Islam) or it withdraws its support for the Jewish state altogether.
Brinkmanship junkies that they are, the neocons are betting America is dumb enough to continue to support Israel. And because they are also insane, the neocons think the resulting conflict with Islam can be won.
But look at what their previous thinking has wrought their favorite country: year after year of ongoing war--and this despite overwhelming military power by Israel, which has been thrown billions in aid and armaments by dimwitted American politicians and Jewish and Judeo-Christian supporters of Jewish nationalism for decades. If America invades the entire Middle East, it will be the exact same thing on a larger scale, as we have already seen in Iraq--yet another example of the destructive results of neocon ignorance and bigotry.
“Ideas have consequences” used to be a favorite conservative slogan. And it is true, they do. In the case of the neocons, stupid ideas have disastrous consequence, as their warped schemes have proven time and again.
So where are the Democrats on all of this? Like neocon Republicans, still staunch supporters of Israel--which makes them supporters of World War III by default.
As AntiWar.com’s Justin Raimondo writes:“The left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which is making political capital out of the Iraqi quagmire, has nothing to say about Israel's Lebanese quagmire – and especially not about our part in subsidizing and egging them on. The Democrats pushed to have Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki barred from speaking to a joint session of Congress because he had dared describe the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as ‘aggression’ – a faux pas in Washington no matter what party you belong to. Congress voted to endorse the murderous Israeli assault, without mentioning any need for restraint or deploring the targeting of civilians and Lebanon's infrastructure: there were only eight dissenting votes.”
The foot-in-both-camps Democrats, just like the hand-wringing Republicans who are too smart to want to conduct World War III, have tried to have it both ways for too long. They want to support Israel, but they don’t really want to wage a global war.
Sorry, but it is simply no longer feasible to have it both ways. Either you are a supporter of Israel, Jewish nationalism and World War III--and all that waging such a war on behalf of Jewish nationalism implies--or you are opposed to Israel, Jewish nationalism and World War III.
If you are in opposition, you must support the immediate suspension of all aid to Israel, military and otherwise, until it reforms its system into a democracy that ensures equal rights under the law for all instead of special rights for Jews over gentiles, which has resulted in its current quasi-fascist incarnation, and a big headache for America. This should be followed by a suspension of aid to all other Middle Eastern countries and regimes that do not meet the same equal rights standards. If this results in the temporary ascension of Islam, so be it. The free markets will deal with Islam in their own way and in their own time. The West may even learn a little something about maintaining higher moral principles from the Muslims in the process.
The alternative is World War III. The Jewish nationalists and their supporters in America won’t have it any other way.
Chris Moore is publisher of http://www.libertariantoday.com/

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

Sunday, July 30, 2006 ::: What will it be: Containment of Israel or World War III?
(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Worldwide, the religion of Islam has about 1.3 billion adherents; Judaism has about 15 million.
The neocons, Judeo-Christian Zionists and Jewish nationalist Zionists (the three groups that make up Judeofascism in America) have always known that without American intervention, the long-term prospects for Israel in its current racialist incarnation are bleak. It is Jim Crow state of 7 million people, 77% of whom are Jews, who’s “democratic” government grants them privileged-class status over gentiles. And they reside amidst a sea of millions of gentile Muslims.
Additionally, the majority of Jewish Israelis (for a number of reasons, most of which have to do with sheer bigotry) despise those Muslims and have sought to root them out of their midst using government-organized terror and violence since Israel’s inception. (Occasionally, the Muslims have responded in kind.)
What, then, has become the phenomenon of a few million Jews (not including their fanatical Judeo-Christian allies) trying to take on an Islamic population many times their size is not unlike the early decades of the Soviet Union wherein a small minority of Jewish Communists joined with fanatical Marxist ideologues and used a powerful State to terrorize and murder millions of Christians, whom they also regarded as backward and inferior.
Because there were so many crypto Jewish nationalist in the upper echelons of the Communist Party in those days, critics of the Soviet Union, like critics of Israel today, were said to be “anti-Semitic” and opposed to the fair treatment for Jews that the Soviet state supposedly ensured. Not irrelevant to its current incarnation as a violently bigoted (national) socialist state, many Communist Jews later sought refuge from retaliation for their Soviet crimes against humanity in Israel, which welcomed them with open arms.
Like their statist Soviet pre-cursors, American Judeofascists have also operated by using a powerful central state and appropriating money and arms from its government to further their murderous cause. Only in this case, it’s the U.S. government; and Washington has been subsidizing Judeofascism for years at the behest of that movement’s various lobbies and lackey politicians in the form of aid to Israel. Most Muslims know this, as do most politically astute Americans.
And this is why America was attacked on 9/11.
On that fateful day, a group of Muslims, who believed they were acting on behalf of the dirt-poor Islamic masses, hit back against the country whose government has long supplied the resources used by Israeli Judeofascists to subjugate and murder them. They also hit back against the country whose government for years backed anti-Islamic Arab dictators like Saddam Hussein, who only after his invasion of Kuwait became an enemy of the U.S., mainly because it was feared he might one day also represent a threat to Jewish Israel and to oil-rich, U.S.-allied Arab tyrants. Today, our government still backs dictatorial Arab regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan because like Saddam, they too are willing to pit their Muslim sects against one another in order to rule over the entire internecine mess with an iron fist--for the right price.
The only surprise about 9/11 was the fact is that it took Islamic militants so long to strike back domestically at the U.S. government for financing Jewish and Arab-authoritarian terror for so many decades.
It is unfortunate that innocent Americans paid the price for this instead of the Judeofascists themselves. After all, the average American is only culpable for Washington’s inhumane policies against Muslims to the extent that he or she has allowed the tenacious Judeofascist lobby to coerce the U.S. government into financing this ugly state of affairs.
But then, as a tiny minority here (just as it was in the Soviet Union), that is part of the Judeofascist strategy: burrow deep into the general population that it hopes to one day leverage against its enemies, attain positions of power and influence and then act in its name so that when that population is retaliated against, the Judeofascist-instigators can paint the hit as an attack on the entire society itself.
In the Soviet Union, Judeofascist Communists routinely and arbitrarily singled out Christians for persecution. When Christians sometimes violently defended themselves, the Judeofascist called this a “counterrevolutionary” or “terrorist” attack on the entire State and used it as an excuse to bring the wrath of the Soviet system down upon all “bourgeoisie” Christians, whose main trespass was subscribing to Christianity. (“Anti-Semitism,” by the way, was declared a crime in the Soviet Union.)
Former Israeli prime minister and ongoing neocon darling Benjamin Netanyahu unwittingly hinted at this strategy at play in contemporary America when, after hearing about the 9/11 attacks, he blurted out that they were “a good thing for Israel.” He said this because he knew that they would provide an opportunity for Zionist Fifth Columnists in America to begin the process of co-opting the U.S. military on Israel’s behalf to bring its wrath down upon Islam.
Of course, today we know that the U.S. government has been riddled with Zionists for years, mostly of the Jewish nationalist stripe, who are inextricably intertwined with Israel. Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and Scooter Libby are but three examples of open Jewish nationalists then working in the upper echelons of the Bush administration who were instrumental in manufacturing the “evidence” that led to the Iraq war from their positions within the government. And openly Jewish nationalist media figures such as William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Mort Zuckerman (who has owned the New York Daily News, US News & World Report, and Atlantic Monthly), are but three examples of Zionists who were crucial elements in the lie-America-into-war operation from the mass media end.
They and hundreds of other Jewish nationalist Fifth Columnists all used their positions of influence and power to disseminate false evidence against Saddam, and then relied upon the countless Judeo-Christian Zionists residing across middle America to provide the localized “grassroots” Fifth Column necessary to perpetrate the fraudulent Iraq war upon the American people and the Iraqis themselves.
Some of these Fifth Columnists are traitors to America, others are merely useful idiots being manipulated on behalf of Judeofascism. But recall what nearly all of them were shouting from the rooftops in the run-up to war: Saddam Hussein is connected to 9/11; Saddam Hussein has WMD; Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. And so we invaded.
Unfortunately for them, like most fundamentally deceitful enterprises tend to, the war has gone poorly. And even their numbers haven’t been enough to prevent more earnest representatives of the government, the media and the general public from getting to the truth: all their claims were lies.
After the invasion, even George W. Bush was forced to admit that Saddam had no connection to 9/11. And the WMD hunters his own administration sent to Iraq concluded that none were there to be found.
What does this tell you? Are these honest people? Were their pre-Iraq war certitudes honest mistakes? Or did they knowingly send American troops to Iraq under false pretenses? Given that the false evidence against Saddam was manufactured and disseminated mostly by Zionists, the answer should be self-evident: many of them knowingly betrayed America. So the question becomes…why?
Some say to monopolize oil, some say to perpetuate the Keynesian military-industrial-complex. I believe there are elements of truth to both of those theories. But I also believe the primary motive--the only one driven by a powerful combination of religion, ambition, emotion and ideology--was Israel. And it would take such fundamental forces to inspire these elements to perpetrate the diabolical betrayals that they have.
The Judeofascists were (and still are) eager to get even more Americans killed than died on 9/11 by sending our troops to Iraq in order to escalate the battle against Israel’s Islamic enemies to ever-greater heights. I believe Israel and its Judeofascist emissaries want to force America and eventually the entire West into a world war against all of Islam. They want this “clash of civilizations” so that American troops will die in the battle instead of Israeli ones, and they want it in order to increase the power of the capital of Judeofascism, Israel, so it can spread its megalomaniacal racialist beliefs across the Middle East and perhaps to the corners of the globe.
They are willing to use the U.S. military to accomplish this; they are willing to use nuclear weapons to accomplish this; and they are willing to use your children to accomplish this.
Will you let them?
The only way to stop Judeofascism is to root its most tenacious representatives out of the U.S. government; and to root those loyal to the Israeli government, both Christian Zionist and Jewish nationalist, out of American civil society. Of those who were knowingly involved in the operation to lie America into war, some should be arrested for treason, others merely deported to Israel--which is their primary loyalty anyway. That way they can be contained there the same way Ronald Reagan contained Communist ideologues in the Soviet Union: through the use of carrots and sticks.
Recall that Reagan frightened the Marxists with strength, but gave them incentive to reform. The combination, applied over a number of years, was enough to defeat them before the confrontation escalated to an all-out nuclear exchange. The Judeofascists should be similarly contained through limited American carrots (drastically-reduced aid to what will become a skeleton Israeli state) in conjunction and partnership with the stick of Islam, which will continue to intimidate and frustrate their diabolical ambitions through constant, steady pressure. That way Israel’s continuing existence will be a function of its ability to get along with its Islamic neighbors instead of a function of its ability to murder and subjugate them.
The alternative is a war with Islam instigated by Judeofascism’s American Fifth Column, which has already proven itself capable of epic acts of deceit and betrayal. And there is no reason to believe that if left unchallenged, the Judeofascists will stop at anything less than world war.
In response to Hezbollah’s defense of Islam and Lebanon against Judeofascism’s latest onslaught, neocon Judeofascist Newt Gingrich has already called upon the Bush administration to declare World War III. And such calls will only continue, either until Judeofascism is contained, or until it gets its way and achieves a mass conflagration in the service of its sinister, racialist vision carried out under the guise of attaining Israeli “security.”
Chris Moore is publisher of www.LibertarianToday.com

Defeating Judeofascism in America

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 ::: Defeating Judeofascism in America
(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- For years, spineless and cynical left liberals have ignored the growing Judeofascist threat and sat idly by while the Israel lobby solidified its stranglehold over Washington. In fact, in many cases the left-liberals collaborated with the Jewish nationalist wing of the Judeofascist movement because so many of its members were Zionist Democrats and wealthy donors to the party. They still are.
Only recently, as the Judeofascists have grown ever more bold, lying America into a "preemptive" war of conquest and imperialism motivated by greed and the Zionist vision of a religious-based Middle Eastern hierarchy wherein Jews and Judeo-Christians are officially recognized as supreme, perpetual rulers (a state of affairs to be enforced by American troops), have the left-liberals started to make a few hesitant squeaks about the axis of Israel and fascism. The assault on Lebanon has served to highlight the extent of this axis, and so the squeaks have turned to whimpers.
Yet while they never hold their tongues in violently condemning the Christian Right for pursuing this vision, many on the left-liberal side continue to defend and make excuses for the Jewish nationalist wing of Judeofascism. This is because they want their cake and to eat it too: They want all that Zionist money that comes from Jewish Democrats who are staunch advocates of secularism in America (where Jews are in the minority) but fanatically Jewish-nationalist when it comes to Israel, where Jews are in the majority.
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Howard Dean (and the mentality they represent) think the Democrats can continue to blindly support Israel, take in loads of Jewish nationalist money from lefty American Zionists, condemn the Christian Right (which is made up mostly of Christian Zionists) and squeak through to victory in the midterm and 2008 elections without ever bothering to address the internal contradictions central to their entire campaign--namely, why is Jewish nationalism acceptable in Israel, but Islamic nationalism and Christian nationalism forbidden in the Middle East and America?
For that matter, why is persecuting religious minorities acceptable in Israel but wrong in America? Why is persecuting racial minorities, which Jim Crow Israel also does with impunity, forbidden here as well?
In summary, why in the Democrats’ view is the American government subsidization of religious nationalism, the persecution of racial and religious minorities, and the fascist bombing of Palestinian and Lebanese civilian “others” acceptable for Israel, but not acceptable for America?
I’ll tell you why: Because the Democrats are themselves latent Judeofascists. The Party has internalized the central Judeofascist mentality, namely that the world is divided between the “chosen” elite who do the governing, and what George Orwell in the novel 1984 called “the proles”—the ignorant masses whose government-prescribed function is to do what the government tells them to do. Hypocrisy is part and parcel of that mentality.
So if Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Howard Dean in all their statist wisdom decide that a foreign policy riddled with internal contradictions is the way to go, then by God that’s the policy that the increasingly Orwellian U.S. government will pursue.
Which raises the question: Since that’s already the policy of the federal government under the Republicans, then what do we need the Democrats for? The GOP has shown that it can pursue the Judeofascist agenda far more effectively and with a lot less hand-wringing than the Democrats, so why bother with the Dems at all?
Because the Dems want to limit the Judeofascist agenda to the Middle East and won’t let it spill over into America? Wrong. In fact the pseudo-liberal, big-government Dems, who were always a little bit soft on Judeofascism when it operated under its Communist guise, are probably more likely to unleash the full fury of Judeofascism on America because the Party’s upper ranks are riddled with Jewish nationalists, even more so than the GOP.
And the Democrats have already demonstrated they will basically roll over for whatever policy the Judeofascists propose the second one of them starts accusing dissidents of “anti-Semitism”--and Americans who oppose the ongoing supremacist project in the Middle East will be accused of exactly that under the Dems, just as they have been under the Republicans. The only difference is that the politically correct Democrats, who have never met a big government Thought Police program they didn’t like, will probably take the already Orwellian federal bureaucracy to the next level domestically and let the Inner Party Judeofascists use it against “anti-Semitic” enemies of the state and “domestic terrorists” here just as they did in the Soviet Union.
You see, it has long been the authoritarian Judeofascist modus-operandi to infiltrate and use a powerful central State to bash in the skulls of its “enemies” (those who object to the innately bigoted Judeofascist agenda). It did so to the Christians, Ukrainians, Cossacks and dissidents in the Soviet Union and behind the iron curtain under Communism (until collaborator Stalin later turned on “the Jews,” which converted the formerly Trotskyite Jewish neocons to “liberalism” and later neoconservatism); its doing so to the Palestinians, and now the Lebanese in the Middle East under Zionism; its doing so to the Iraqis by proxy using the American military under neoconservatism; and it will do so to Americans domestically under neoconservatism or neoliberalism using the federal government through the Republicans or Democrats, as the case may be.
America may not be a tyranny yet, but make no mistake--if left unchecked, Judeofascism will take the federal government there sooner or later. That’s what it does; that’s what it is; that’s its nature. Most Judeofascists know this and accept it. All of the clever neocon, neoliberal rhetoric about valuing democracy, liberty and liberalism is designed to disguise this fact. Those who have closely studied Israel understand that the Judeofascists simply don't want equal rights for all, and never have. In fact, they are staunchly opposed the concept.
In the end there is no getting around the iron law of reality: Judeofascism is real, it is murderous and it is totalitarian. It existed in the Soviet Union and it exists today in Israel and as a fifth column in America. Pretending it is the figment of “anti-Semitic” imaginations will not make it go away. The longer it is ignored, the worse it gets, as Israel’s latest assault on Middle Eastern civilization demonstrates.
There is only one solution to Judeofascism in America, and that is to replace the pseudo-liberal Democrats with the classically liberal libertarians, who are in the same intellectual tradition as America’s Founding Fathers and, similarly, advocate its liberation from tyrannical rule.
That will give Americans a real choice between authentic liberalism and big government authoritarianism instead the false choice between the authoritarian-Left Democrats and the authoritarian-Right Republicans forced upon us today.
And if Americans choose classical liberalism (and if they know what’s good for them, they will) the Judeofascist threat will be removed by hamstringing the instrument of its evil designs: the State.
Chris Moore is publisher of www.LibertarianToday.com

Zionist fanatics and the threat to America’s future

Wednesday, June 07, 2006 ::: Zionist fanatics and the threat to America’s future
(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by respective University of Chicago and Harvard University scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt is a groundbreaking study cataloguing Zionist influence over the federal government’s Middle East policy. It has unleashed a torrent of pent up frustration over the American Establishment’s failure to address (let alone redress) a root cause of the dysfunctional policy-making process that triggered the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the disastrous Iraq war that followed.
Unfortunately, the most intelligent analyses of the study have been limited to internet publication, and have yet to see the light of day in the mainstream media.
In his article on the tepid mainstream response to the study (published on Thornwalker.com), Stephen Sniegoski aptly summarized its findings:
"Mearsheimer and Walt maintain that the pro-Israel lobby, made up of an extensive network of journalists, think-tankers, lobbyists, and officials of the Bush regime — largely but not solely of Jewish ethnicity — has played a fundamental role in shaping American Middle East policy. The lobby's goal has been to enhance Israeli security, which could very well be at the expense of U.S. interests. The risk of that has become especially apparent with the war on Iraq, for which the pro-Israeli neoconservatives served as the ‘driving force.’"
Sniegoski assesses that many non-Jewish Americans would prefer to remain in denial about the extent of Zionist power in this country than face up to the facts and confront the problem head on. This is largely the result, he implies, of a sort of Soviet-like psychological conditioning carried out by Zionist opinion makers.
"To a certain degree, [white gentiles] have internalized the moral compass of the Israel lobby: that offending what seems to be a Jewish interest is worse than lying; that propitiating officially recognized victims is more important than truth."
Sadly, this is largely true—even to the point that today, many "respectable" gentiles would rather acquiesce to another foolish and unnecessary war detrimental to American interests (this time against Iran) than confront the truth staring them straight in the face: namely that Zionist operatives, both Christian Zionist and Jewish nationalist, are largely dictating American foreign policy on behalf of Israeli interests and at the expense of America’s future.
The psychological reasons behind the fact that many white gentiles today are too cowed to fight back against a major threat to their own children’s future are many and complex. Sniegoski touches on a couple of important ones, though.
Mindlessly obeying politically correct taboos, he says, is "the ultimate survival trait in modern American society…it is far easier and safer simply to conform to the prescribed opinion." Most people, he adds, "so that they may reach and remain in the ranks of profitable respectability, take care to hold no strong views."
Those two societally and self-imposed mandates—the maintenance of "political correctness" and "profitable respectability"—working in tandem, are key to understanding the grip that the Israel lobby has over Washington, and in many respects the rest of the country as well. It is no coincidence that one (political correctness) is considered a function of the Left, while the other (the pursuit of profitable respectability) a function of the Right, because that is how the lobby has attained its tremendous power—through a policy of triangulation.
To force the Left into acquiescence, the lobby has made support for Jewish Israel a politically correct litmus test. Anyone who consistently opposes Israel or its policies is sooner or later subjected to accusations of racist "anti-Semitism." This is ironic, and highly disingenuous given that Israel is an officially segregationist state granting special rights and privileges to Jews over non-Jews. But under the current American zeitgeist, faux anti-Semitism at home trumps institutional Jewish racism in Israel every time.
In fact, in America, anti-Semitism—even more so than racism—has come to be seen as the ultimate thought crime. The U.S. State Department recently swore in a special envoy whose entire job consists of monitoring and combating anti-Semitism. (This too is ironic given that besides Jews, many Arabs are a also a Semitic people, which should put most neocons, who are constantly haranguing against Arab "Islamofascism," on the special envoy’s watch list—but won’t.)
Imagine if a special federal envoy was created to combat anti-Catholicism or anti-Russian-Orthodoxism or anti-Islamicism, all of which also have histories of mass persecution. Every group would want their own special federal protector. But only anti-Semitism is entitled to a special envoy, which is a deliberate message being sent by the federal government.
While not necessarily incontrovertible evidence that all Americans have internalized the Israel lobby’s moral compass, it does suggest that large factions of the U.S. government have. (So much for the separation of Synagogue and State.)
This is due in no small part to Zionists and their sympathizers working not only through the government, but through mass media and other cultural institutions to imprint on the American psyche the notion that few faux pas are greater than criticizing Jewish group behavior, or even Jewish initiatives such as Zionism and Israel, because such criticism can ultimately lead to "another Holocaust".
Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List immediately comes to mind as the best-known example of this kind of imprinting, but thousands of ethnic Jews and Leftists working through every mass medium from film and television to newspapers and books have labored over the years to advance this neurotic mindset. Taken individually, their work is innocuous enough, but collectively, the sheer volume of "Jewish victim" scholarship, agitprop, investigation, reporting, and general canon has forced America, ostensibly a multi-cultural society, to focus and fixate on the tragic historical experience of a tiny minority.
Is it any wonder then that even though Israel makes up only .002% of the world's total population, and has the highest average living standards in the Middle East with a per capita GDP of almost $25,000, it is granted nearly 33% of the American foreign-aid budget? Selfishness doesn’t even begin to describe the injustice of this ridiculously disproportionate state of affairs.
***
There were many different motives behind the concerted effort to transform the Holocaust from just another example of statist mass murder (which, unfortunately is all too historically banal, starting with the mass killings carried out by Soviet Communists, through World War II Nazi atrocities, Maoist China and Africa today) to a "unique" and now universally known cautionary tale of almost holy import.
For ideological American Jews, the motivations were several: 1)an earnest (if not rational) fear of the American Christian majority; 2) to glorify their own ethnicity (and by extension, themselves) as both righteous victims and morally superior survivors vis a vis their philistine neighbors; 3) to promote the notion of Jewish exceptionalism, which is merely a modern update on their biblical claims of "choseness"; 4) to aid in the maintenance and prosperity of Israel as a sanctuary for this deified group; and 5) to use as an ecumenical blunt instrument against Christianity, which shrewd Jewish leaders designated as a convenient scapegoat for the Holocaust. (This last had the incidental effect of drastically eroding Western Christianity, which opportunistic Jewish Zionists, joined by their Christian neocon brethren, have managed to help reinvent in the U.S. as the more Israel-friendly, post-World War II coined Judeo-Christianity practiced by many evangelicals today.)
Shrewd non-Jewish Leftist leaders also used the Holocaust as a political tool. Like their manipulative Jewish contemporaries, they were also motivated by a hatred of Christianity, but less for its supposed anti-Semitism and more because Christianity has historically acted as a natural check against Communism. Leftists were additionally motivated by the fact that elevating the importance of the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust diminished the focus on the Communist-perpetrated ones, which they have long labored to sweep under the historical carpet (for self-evident reasons).
Of course, many earnest Jews and liberals are today horrified that Israel, the neocons, Jewish nationalists and Christian Zionists are using the moral capital that they diligently helped to assemble on behalf of a "historically oppressed group" to impose and justify Israel’s apartheid system, which (if the emerging Judeo-Christian coalition gets its way) will be made the model for all future Middle East invasions and occupations instigated and enforced by American troops.
Worse yet, the Israeli model may ultimately be forced by the Judeo-Christians on America as well, which would threaten 2,000 years of intellectual progress under Christianity and Classical Greco-Roman thought in order to replace it with a new civilization patterned on an immature Jewish state that uses its police powers to mandate racial and religious barriers and legally impose second and third class status on gentiles. Who will be the gentiles of America’s future? Why the non-Judeo-Christians, of course.
That Israel has been in a state of perpetual war since its founding as a result of this political model in no way seems to deter the Judeo-Christians so enamored by the Israeli system. In fact, it seems to invigorate them. And perpetual war is what the rest of us can expect if they are allowed to have their way.
The old adage "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" seems to apply to both Jewish liberals and Leftists to a greater extent today than at any time since they got their death-dealing Communist dream state in the Soviet Union: Wish for the decimation of Christianity, get the far worse and more intolerant Judeo-Christianity in its place.
***
The second part of Sniegoski’s explanation for white gentile trembling in the face of the Israel lobby, "respectable profitability," as noted, is largely a function of the American Right.
If the average white American liberal lives in fear of being designated a heretic for violating stringent politically correct speech codes by telling the truth about Israel and its lobby, the average U.S. conservative who might be inclined to broach the subject lives in fear that doing so might cost him some money—and so doesn’t.
After all, the business of America is business, and why should Main Street Joe capitalist risk even one thin dime for something as abstract and intangible as truth and justice, neither of which hold any currency in post-Christian, politically correct, Judeo-Christian America?
And if Joe capitalist isn’t interested in the subject, the short-sighted Big Business hyper capitalists who own the American Right today are positively hostile. Like the historical materialist Marxists who reside on the flip side of their intellectual coin, the international profiteers believe everything essential in life comes down to access to money and material goods. And they are willing—indeed, eager—to abandon all principles, loyalties and pedestrian notions of patriotism that might get in the way of their multi-national bottom line.
Perhaps because it is blinded by greed, American business can’t see that in the long run, allowing the Israel lobby to continue to run rampant is going to cost it, and cost it dearly.
How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the 9/11 attacks cost the American economy? How much has the Israel-lobby instigated Iraq war cost American business through high oil prices, unstable stock markets, a strained U.S. budget and economically beleaguered American consumers? How many billions more will another terrorist attack or another war cost U.S. businesses and taxpayers?
Virtually all of the Islamic terrorists who have issued statements addressing their reasons for attacking America, both before and after 9/11 (including bin Laden) have listed the U.S. government’s blind loyalty to Israel as a primary motive for their aggression. In fact, virtually all Islamic terrorist who have attacked America or American positions anywhere in the world in the last 10-15 years cite our one-sided support of Israel as a major source of their rage.
It is likely that had the U.S. government not been so one-sided in its support of Israel, America would never have been attacked on 9/11, and the neocons would thus have never gotten the opportunity to lie us into a war with Iraq.
Yet rarely is this reported in the mainstream media, let alone in the business journals, and so American business blunders on under the false impression that because Israel is a favorite Jewish American and Christian Zionist cause, it is financially better off either openly siding with the Israel lobby or keeping its mouth shut about its power altogether.
Not unlike the selfish, dim-witted Leftists who refused to look more than a couple of years down the road and so suckled, cradled, sheltered and help raise up the Zionist infant out of political expediency, the equally dense, greed-driven Big Business capitalists can’t see beyond next quarter’s financial results and so ignore today’s full grown Zionist monster who is straddling America, Israel, and now Iraq, baiting the increasingly angry Islamic masses to attack in order to force American retaliation.
But Big Business isn’t alone on the Right in its see no evil, hear no evil approach to the Israel lobby. As mentioned earlier, the Judeo-Christians—the primarily evangelical group of Christian Zionists so in love with the racialist Israeli model—are also to blame for giving Israel a free ride at America’s expense these many years.
Certainly, this group has been used and manipulated by Jewish nationalist Zionists, who have systematically gone about constructing a Christ-minimizing, Old Testament-emphasizing, Judeo-centric reading of the bible that highlights the importance of the Jewish people as the group "chosen" by God to deliver His word. But the Judeo-Christians have allowed themselves to be used; in fact, their leaders have encouraged and contributed to their exploitation by painting the "success" of Israel (meaning its ability to carry on as a Jewish supremacist state) as a validation of their entire religion.
Endless biblical passages are cited by the Judeo-Christian leadership as "proof" that Israel is fulfilling biblical prophecy, and the partnership between Jewish and Christian Zionists has proven a fruitful money-making enterprise for both camps. After all, what better way for these new Pharisees to separate believers from their money than to convince them that that they are an essential component to the realization of the predictions outlined in the holy book and now playing themselves out in real time today?
One of their favorite, constantly cited biblical passages in justification of shoveling ever more money and weaponry toward Israel is Genesis (12:3), in which God promises Abraham and his offspring that "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee."
Of course, this citation conveniently ignores Jesus’ later, eternal curse upon the corrupt and calculating Jewish Pharisees (the group that brought racism to Israel) articulated in John 8: "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham…You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire."
A strong case can be made that the neocons and Zionists who painstakingly provoked the Islamic attack on 9/11 and then opportunistically used the resulting atmosphere of anger and hysteria to lie America into war are the Pharisees of our day—as are the many members of the White House, Congress and the Washington Establishment catering to their agenda at the cost of America’s integrity, and possibly its very future.
(Chris Moore is publisher of www.LibertarianToday.com)

The Longest Manipulation: How statists, authoritarians and profit-seekers all play the "anti-Semitism" card

Tuesday, March 01, 2005 ::: The Longest Manipulation: How statists, authoritarians and profit-seekers all play the "anti-Semitism" card
(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- The world is eminently familiar with the holocaust of some six million Jews and other designated "enemies" of National Socialism (Nazism) that took place in Germany and Europe during World War II. Thousands of articles and hundreds of books and movies have been produced on the subject, and grieving over the Holocaust has become an annual, State-encouraged ritual as pundits, politicians and celebrities from around the world gather on Holocaust Memorial Day to pay homage to those who lost their lives. According to author Norman Finkelstein, an entire Holocaust Industry (the title of a book he wrote on the subject) has even sprung up around the phenomenon
But less familiar is another holocaust that took place prior the Nazi Holocaust, one that murdered at least four times as many. Perpetrated in the Soviet Union by Communists largely against Christians and other "enemies of the State" over a span of some fifty years starting with the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, the first holocaust has yet to fully enter the consciousness of much of the world. And fewer still are aware that the first holocaust triggered the second.
In part, this ignorance is due to special interests with their own agendas working to scapegoat Christianity for World War II crimes instead of laying the blame where it truly belongs. In fact, just as some have made memorializing the Nazi Holocaust their life’s work, others have made establishing and maintaining the alleged link between Christians and Nazism their specialty.
For example, in the book Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil, author Ron Rosenbaum cites Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, best "known in America through his combative polemics in Commentary [the influential magazine of the American Jewish Committee] which challenge Jews to cut through the warm fog of ecumenical hopes and cast a cold eye on the responsibility of Christian culture and Christian belief for the Holocaust."
Rosenbaum quotes Maccoby as follows: "Christians say the Holocaust is part of the evil of humanity. It isn’t the evil of humanity. It’s the evil of Christendom."
Author Daniel Goldhagen apparently took Maccoby’s remonstrations to heart and produced two volumes, A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, notorious for implicating huge swaths of Europeans and Christians in Hitler’s atrocities.
But the connection between Jews and Communism has been mostly ignored or, when addressed, explained away as a persecuted people’s natural reaction to historical bigotry and anti-Semitism. Even though the Soviet holocaust predates the Nazi holocaust, the reverse argument—that anti-Semitism may be a persecuted people’s reaction to historical genocide committed by Jewish authoritarians—is out of bounds. In fact, mentioning the Jewish ethnicity of many of the commissars, apparatchiks and Party members responsible for assembling and maintaining the Communist super-structure used to perpetrate atrocities against Christians and others deemed as threats to the State has been declared anti-Semitic in and of itself.
The only exceptions to this seems to be when the observation is made by someone of Jewish heritage. A recent example is Professor of History at the University of California, Berkeley Yuri Slezkine’s book The Jewish Century, wherein he describes Communist Jews as "Stalin’s willing executioners."
Another example is an article by syndicated writer and radio talk show host Chuck Morse (also Jewish) who wrote a column that concisely summarized the relationship between Jewish authoritarians and Communism:
"Communism introduced unprecedented levels of atrocity and totalitarianism to Europe in the years before Hitler, starting with the 1917 Bolshevik coup itself, Stalin's collectivization of farms, wars against the Kulaks, the engineered famines of 1931-32 which killed upwards of 5 million Ukrainians, the communist inspired atrocities of the Spanish civil war and other examples. Jewish Bolsheviks played prominent roles in the Russian coup including, among others, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Apfelbaum), Kamenev, Radek, and Uritzky…"
"It is an unpleasant fact that many of the worst Communists, those associated with many of the worst atrocities, were of Jewish background. Lavrenti Beria brought about the infamous Katyn massacre and other atrocities. Lazar Kaganovich, who personally claimed to be responsible for 20 million killed, stood atop the rubble of a Christian church proclaiming, 'Mother Russia has been cast down, we have torn away her skirts!' Genrikh Yagoda sent hundreds of thousands to work on the Baltic Sea canal project where countless numbers of Russians, Ukrainians, and Baltic's perished. Natalfy Frenkel and Mathias Berman founded the infamous Gulag system, with camps commanded by figures such as Rappoport, Solz, and Spiegelglas, all of whom are mentioned at length in the work of [Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]. Ilya Ehrenburg, the World War II communist counterpart to Goebbels, incited Soviet troops to rape and maim German, Polish, and Czech women as a form of punishment…"
Of course, Stalin eventually turned on his Jewish henchmen, and later on all Jews, but not before the connection between Jewish authoritarians and Communist atrocities committed against Christians was firmly established in the minds of many Europeans.
"Because Kaganovitch, Yagoda and some other senior Communist party and NKVD officials were Jewish, Hitler's absurd claim that communism was a Jewish plot to destroy Christian civilization became widely believed across a fearful Europe," writes The Toronto Sun’s Eric Margolis.
Hitler thus deftly and demonically exploited the Jewish association with Communism to implicate all Jews as a threat to the very survival of the German people. But it should be remembered that he did not originate the concept of scapegoating a religion as an existential threat to a people and their culture, and then murdering its practitioners in an act of "justifiable preemption". That had been done previously by the Communists. Hitler was merely following suit.
Was it fair for Hitler to scapegoat and murder millions of Jews for the heinous acts of a few fanatical Jewish authoritarians? The overwhelming contemporary consensus is a resounding "no!" Was it fair for Jewish authoritarians and their Stalinists partners to murder millions of Christians for the historical sins committed by a few fanatical "Christian" authoritarians? Unfortunately, the contemporary zeitgeist often either ignores the question completely or offers up a less resounding "no, but...". The caveat is deliberate.
At first glance, it seems odd that the Jewish-authoritarian/Communist connection, as a primary motive for the Nazi Holocaust, has been ignored and downplayed for so long. After all, if the Holocaust truly was singularly evil, as so many scholars maintain, wouldn’t it be important to shed light on all of its causes?
Some would argue the silence is mainly the result of Jewish groups steadfastly working to shape history to their own best interests to save themselves from another horrible backlash. However, the artifice of arguing that the deaths of tens of millions of Christians must be suppressed in order to protect the reputation of Jewish authoritarianism only makes sense to Jewish authoritarians, Christian-haters, and those with a parallel agenda. Unfortunately, those with a parallel agenda are legion—and many of the legion reside on the political Left.
In a recent exchange with the New Republic, Paul Gottfried, Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, indirectly put his finger on the Left’s motives for framing 20th Century history as a cautionary tale against unbridled Christianity instead of a cautionary tale against unbridled statism.
In a defense of historian Ernst Nolte who "painstakingly analyze(d) the ‘rationality’ of those who made an automatic connection between Jews and communists in explaining the rise of anti-Communist anti-Semitism in the epoch that gave birth to National Socialism," Gottfried notes that it is common for Leftists to suppress comparisons between Soviet and Nazi totalitarianism. The Soviet holocaust is minimized by the Left not to prevent the Nazi Holocaust from being minimized—as some historians absurdly attempt to maintain. It is minimized to discredit anti-Communism, says Gottfried.
It seems the statist Left, which still draws much of its inspiration and world view from Marxism, wants to keep anti-Communism off balance—even today—to protect its own moral legitimacy and preserve the myth of its moral virtue. It accomplishes this by downplaying the Soviet holocaust, scapegoating Christianity for the Nazi holocaust and inferring that rigorous anti-Communism (historically a Christian enterprise) is akin to anti-Semitism.
An example of this came in 2003, when Martin Hohmann, a conservative member of the German parliament, compared the actions of Jewish Communists in the Russian Revolution with those of the Nazis. He was roundly condemned by the Left and even threatened with a criminal complaint for "incitement" under German laws outlawing "far-right" statements in public.
Hohmann defended himself by noting that the point of his comparison was not to blame the Germans for Nazi crimes or Jews for those of the Bolsheviks, but rather to blame "the godless with their godless ideologies."
This, of course, does not sit well with the Left. So rather than own up to its own historic (and current) hostility towards organized religion and the role that that hostility played in the Soviet holocaust (including the part enthusiastically embraced by FDR), the statist Left has painstakingly gone about constructing a false consciousness wherein Christianity and right-wing fanaticism are solely responsible for World War II and the Nazi holocaust; and Communism, secular Jewish authoritarianism and statism played little or no role whatsoever. Fixate on the evil of Nazism, say the Leftists. Anything less detracts from Jewish suffering and is thus anti-Semitic—and possibly illegal as well.
Perhaps cognoscente of the Jewish role in Communism, organized Jewish interest groups in America and elsewhere have gladly played along with the Left’s elaborate scapegoating of Christianity. In fact, over time, the false consciousness constructed by the Left has become the mainstream Jewish reality—and the American reality.
And the Left has taken the concept to new heights by silencing all of its critics by inferring a Nazi-like bigotry lies at the heart of their motives. For example, the entire phenomenon of political correctness—wherein generally recognized "victim" groups are completely insulated from legitimate criticism of their behavior for fear by their would-be critics of being charged with a "hate crime" or with "inciting hatred"—is one of its manifestations.
And Jewish authoritarians, as members of the ultimate victim group in what is construed as the ultimate hate crime, have leveraged their specially recognized status to the hilt. Over the years, it has been leveraged in defense of hostility towards Christian customs and culture; leveraged to render comparisons between the genocide of the Jews with the genocide of any other religious group or people worthy of contempt; leveraged in defense of a convicted traitor and spy like Jonathan Pollard and on behalf of ongoing Israeli spying on America; even leveraged to harass and intimidate American Christians seeking a more balanced approach to the never ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Jewish political capital has been leveraged to such an extent, in fact, that even The New York Times has taken note—and is concerned: "Jewish organizations and advocates of Israel fail to grasp that they are no longer viewed as the voice of the disenfranchised," Ami Eden wrote in the Times recently. "Rather, they are seen as a global Goliath, close to the seats of power and capable of influencing policies and damaging reputations. As such, their efforts to raise the alarm increasingly appear as bullying."
Of course, the Times itself has long been close to the seats of power and long played a role in encouraging Jewish authoritarians towards the belligerence they exhibit today—by advancing their delusions of self-righteousness. For example, it was a Times correspondent, Walter Duranty, who helped cover-up State crimes in the Soviet Union for years by celebrating Stalinism and downplaying the atrocities being committed by the Communist regime—reporting for which Duranty was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1932.
Was this allowed by the Ochs-Sulzbergers —the family that has controlled the Times since 1896—out of loyalty to Judaism, or out of loyalty to the Left’s false construct of right-wing Christian Nazism as the apex of evil? Probably both.
But it’s not just Leftists who have encouraged the Jewish victim mentality. There are those on the Right who have encouraged it as well.
One is well-known Washington Post columnist George Will, who can best be described as the Court conservative to statist Washington.
In 2001, Will wrote an essay in Newsweek magazine about a brutal 1941 massacre that took place in the village of Jedwabne, Poland of that town’s Jewish population by local Christians immediately following Nazi occupation—brutality apparently bereft of motive. After delving in significant detail into the savage nature of the townspeople’s attacks ("hooks and wooden clubs were used. A head was hacked off and kicked around") Will posed the question: "Why in Jedwabne did neighbors murder their neighbors?" His startling conclusion: "Because it was permitted. Because they could."
Not once did Will mention previous atrocities committed by Jewish Communists against Christians; not once did Will mention the tens of millions of Christians previously murdered—many at the hands or behest of secular Jewish authoritarians.
Would that have justified the vicious behavior? Of course not. Would it have provided some historical context that pointed to something other than the conclusion that even modern humanity is disposed towards barbarian-like savagery without a strong authoritarian hand to guide it through global multi-culturalism (or the latest version of whatever the statist elite decides multi-culturalism should be)? Yes it would have, but that wasn’t the conclusion that George Will wanted drawn.
Why not? Because the supposed imperative to save historical "victims" is a useful pretense employed by globalists in pursuit of their primary goals: money, power and Empire.
Will’s manipulativeness betrays the extent to which the interests of the statist Right overlap the interests of the statist Left when it comes to maintaining the official State narrative.
But with the war in Iraq, the statist Right and the Left (at least those on the Left willing to second guess the Church of Statism) have had an irreconcilable parting of ways—and the anti-Semitic accusation has been leveraged yet again, this time by the Right.
Because so many neocons are of Jewish background with personal and political ties to Israel and its Likud Party (some have business ties as well); and because neocons played a key role in laying the propaganda groundwork and manufacturing the false evidence necessary to take the nation to war (from both inside and outside of government), support for the war in Iraq has been construed as a litmus test on support for Judaism and Israel.
In fact, the neocons and President Bush have deliberately encouraged this interpretation by emulating Israeli tactics and policies and by tapping into the Jewish establishment to support their cause. Doing so has allowed them to hide behind the smokescreen long utilized by the Left: those opposed to their initiatives must have something against "the Jews."
Europe is mostly opposed to the Iraq war? Suddenly reports of "Europe sees a rise in anti-Semitism" start appearing in the press. Elements within the American left are increasingly opposed to the war? Look at new reports of "The Democratic Party's anti-Semitism problem." This sudden media emphasis is designed to paint the people opposed to unnecessary intervention around the globe as the ones with the problem; the people opposed to another statist war as evil anti-Semites.
The Christian Right, for whom Israel and "the Jews" play a key role in what Christian Zionists believe to be the pending End Times Rapture, has entered into the bargain as well, and some Evangelicals have become willing partners in the grand manipulation.
As Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com notes: "…the neocons are happy to applaud their Christian cohorts, egging them on to more militant acts of defiance against an increasingly pagan culture, while privately despising Christianity in all its manifestations and publicly celebrating the "pagan virtues."
"But the Christian fundamentalists don't mind being patronized and treated with ill-disguised contempt by their secular neocon allies, just as long as certain theological and political goals are met: a theocracy on the home front and Armageddon in the Holy Land…"
It is the Jewish lobby, the End Times Evangelicals, and the politicians that cater to all of them, that have played up the myth that America and Israel are somehow irrevocably intertwined; that we share the same values and same fate; that opposition to the policies of one is the equivalent of a declaration of war on both.
"…Israel is our ally – and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel – we will support Israel if her security is threatened," says President Bush.
And if the Israeli lobby has its way, that support will come at the expense of America’s ties to Europe.
"Anti-Americanism in the Islamic world and anti-Americanism in Europe are in fact linked," says Natan Sharansky, the acknowledged right-wing Zionist who is Israel's minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs and, reportedly, Bush’s Middle East muse. "Both bear an uncanny resemblance to anti-Semitism."
And so with helpful prodding from the Jewish lobby, the Right has picked up a variation of the false construct relied upon by the Left for so long: irrational anti-Semitism lurks in the heart of anyone who questions their motives and behind any inquiry into their agenda. The demagogue "anti-Semite" smear is used as a blunt instrument to silence critics yet again.
But playing the "anti-Semite" card has reached its limits, as have all trumped up "victim" justifications for putting the interests of Americans second to the interests of a few special interests run amok. The internet is aflame in recrimination against conspiratorial Jewish authoritarianism, neoconservatism and End Times Evangelicalism, which is why the New York Times—infamous for its powers of selective denial—has been forced to finally address the issue.
The Old Media have lost control of the dialogue and can no longer sustain the fantasy narrative built upon a foundation of half truths and lies. A younger generation is asking questions and wants answers. Real answers—not the politically correct pap served up through the faux pas filter of The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media. And not the State-sanctioned conservatism that decries State-designated "Islamofascist" bogeymen in order to manipulate Americans into backing wars carried out primarily at the behest of a small minority of militant Jewish and Evangelical authoritarians and the Empire-builders and profiteers that constantly manipulate and cater to them.
Saying America has to invade the Middle East and construct a totalitarian super structure to prevent another Holocaust or 9/11 just won’t cut it much longer with an internet generation in America and around the world that is increasingly aware of, for example, what the first totalitarian super structure accomplished in the Soviet Union.