The Era of American Leadership Is Over
Vast numbers of people in the United States and abroad are hoping that President Obama will end America's illegal wars, halt America's support for Israel's massacre of Lebanese and Palestinians, and punish, instead of reward, the shyster banksters whose fraudulent financial instruments have destroyed economics and imposed massive sufferings on people all over the world. If Obama's appointments are an indication, all of these hopeful people are going to be disappointed.
James Petras examines Obama's foreign policy appointments and finds the largest collection of Zionist militarists outside of Avigdor Lieberman's far-right political party in Israel.
Petras concludes that Obama's "diplomatic" team has Iran in its sights, a hostility that meshes with Israel's own intent. Not realizing that a member of the press had been mistakenly invited to a selected audience, the Israeli ambassador to Australia said that Israel's attack on Gaza was a dress rehearsal for a major attack on Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu, the expected winner of Israel's March elections, has again declared that Israel will not permit Iran to have a nuclear energy program, as it would provide the basis for developing nuclear weapons.
It makes no sense for Israel baldly to state its intention to attack Iran if Israel does not mean it. What if the Iranians believe the Israelis and decide to strike first with their long-range missiles?
Obama's economic appointments are just as discouraging. Obama chose as his treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, the man who helped Bush's treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, engineer the $700 billion dollar rip-off of the U.S. taxpayer, money that was gifted to the crooked banksters who destroyed Americans' pensions, jobs and health-care coverage.
These banksters, and the negligent federal regulators that enabled them, should be put in prison, not handed hundreds of billions of dollars.
Instead, Obama has appointed one of the chief orchestrators of the rip-off to the helm of the Treasury. Obama's National Economic Council is just as depressing. Clinton's treasury secretary, Larry Summers, is its head. Summers recently declared that he had no inkling that a financial crisis was about to hit. Why did Obama put a person without a clue in charge?
Summer's colleagues are just as bad. Obama has appointed Diana Farrell, lead author of a phony study that claimed offshoring of American jobs is a win-win game for Americans, as deputy director of the National Economic Council. Farrell is affiliated with McKinsey and Co., a firm that helps American corporations offshore their operations. In his book, Outsourcing America, economist Ron Hira tore Farrell's McKinsey report to shreds.
Why not appoint Hira and Nouriel Roubina, who predicted the crisis, to the National Economic Council?
With Israel's most fervent American allies whispering in one ear and banksters and offshoring propagandists whispering in the other, how can President Obama fulfill any of the hopes that people have?
The discouraging fact is that even when faced with crisis in the economy and in foreign policy, the American political system is incapable of producing any leadership. Here we are in the worst economic crisis in a lifetime, perhaps in our history, and on the brink of war in Pakistan and Iran while escalating the war in Afghanistan, and all we get is a government made up of the very people who have brought us to these crises.
Just as the Bushites could not admit the failure of their man, the Obamacons will not be able to admit the failure of their man.
The era of American leadership has passed. America's shyster financial system has brought economic crisis to the world. America's wars of aggression are seen as serving no purpose except the enrichment of the military industries associated with Dick Cheney. The world is looking elsewhere for leadership.
Vladimir Putin made a play for this role at Davos, where his speech at the opening ceremony was the most intelligent of the event.
Putin reminded the World Economic Forum that "just a year ago, American delegates speaking from this rostrum emphasized the U.S. economy's fundamental stability and its cloudless prospects. Today, investment banks, the pride of Wall Street, have virtually ceased to exist. In just 12 months, they have posted losses exceeding the profits they made in the last 25 years."
Putin made his case that the existing financial system based on the U.S. dollar and American financial hegemony has failed.
Putin showed that his economic understanding was superior to that of the Obama team when he said that creating more debt on top of the "hopeless debts," as Obama is doing, would "prolong the crisis."
With another swipe at America's failed economic leadership, Putin said it is time to get rid of virtual money, false financial reports and dubious credit ratings. Putin proposed a new reserve currency system to "replace the obsolete unipolar world concept."
Putin said that a secure world requires cooperation, which requires trust. He made it clear that the Americans have proven that they cannot be trusted.
This was a powerful message. It got a lot of applause.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
How long until the "netroots" start getting impatient with Obama, or will they give him a pass because he is a Dem.?
Vladimir Putin made a play for this role at Davos, where his speech at the opening ceremony was the most intelligent of the event.
That's because Putin is intelligent. The Zio-American gutter press tears down Vlad at every possible opportunity. Which is not to say Russia does not have problems because 70 years of soviet socialism (originally financed by New York bankers) won't be undone overnight. However, even under communism Soviet foreign policy involved what was good for Mother Russia. On the other hand, Americans are clueless about what kind of foreign policy is good for the average Joe Sixpack. So what we get are idle factories, cheap imported goods and cheaper imported Mexican labor.
"America’s wars of aggression are seen as serving no purpose except the enrichment of the military industries associated with Dick Cheney"
One other, more notorious purpose, of course: Empowering the real masters of the U.S. (i.e., Israel).
It must be sweet for any Russian patriot who is aware of the New York bankser's financing of Bolshevism to now be involved in the tearing down of the bansksters' hegemony. My, the turns which history takes.....
If this were only half possible (or likely), we'd be ahead, but I have some serious doubts in regards to our new El Presidente doing anything from the opening paragraph:
"Vast numbers of people in the United States and abroad are hoping that President Obama will end America’s illegal wars, halt America’s support for Israel’s massacre of Lebanese and Palestinians, and punish, instead of reward, the shyster bankers whose fraudulent financial instruments have destroyed economics and imposed massive sufferings on people all over the world."
God only knows how I wish I were wrong.
Instead of the improbable, I can only hope that a real opposition would be formed within these (our) United States of America. The two party system is for the birds. We need a strong (and uncompromising) opposition in the Congress (first and foremost) so that the Senate would function better, and force our President to deploy his veto power which would pale in time. By that time our president (Obama or any other) would be less likely to ignore the will of the people (who in fact gave him their voices and a blank check)
Would it be too much if I said that "Dream, dream, dream" song (Everly brothers) is going through my ears right now? I guess not.
I'm not as pessimistic as Dr. Roberts on the likelihood of a US/Israeli attack on Iran. It is obvious that the US ruling establishment prevented Bush from doing this and reined in the neo-cons. "We're putting the crazies back in their boxes" was how Admiral Fallon put it. He was eventually forced to resign after stating openly and accurately "war with Iran will not happen on my watch". He may have been too candid, but the war has not happened on any subsequent watch to date.
There is no reason why any sane Zionist (let alone non-Zionists) would want to attack Iran. Bibi Netanyahu has an election to win, but he knows what US and Russian intelligence have proclaimed to the world; namely, that Iran is not trying to obtain a nuclear weapon. In addition, Putin has, in a rather convoluted way, given security assurances to Iran by stating that an attack on any Caspian Sea area country will be considered an attack on all. No, Obama and the establishment which both enables and limits him, want to rule the world, not blow it up. Now may God give them the wisdom to quit mucking around in Pakistan and all the other "stans".
Debt is still the surest way to slavery, a gift Obama is now determined to bestow on every American. And, of course, its easier to bestow if you can force or finesse all other community supports away from citizens. Bill, Bush, and Barock are merely the technicians delivering the final dose first engineered by Rockefeller and Morgan et. al. in putting the private Federal Reserve in charge of our money.
By the way, I don't think our Yanqui Puritan descended elite have any problem with cooperation. They just define it differently than Putin. Any time you are groveling at their feet, you are cooperating!
"However, even under communism Soviet foreign policy involved what was good for Mother Russia. On the other hand, Americans are clueless about what kind of foreign policy is good for the average Joe Sixpack. So what we get are idle factories, cheap imported goods and cheaper imported Mexican labor."
Excellent! The American presidency these days conducts policy, both domestic and foreign, that is in the best interests of less than 1% of this nation's people.
Another screed from PCR, which shows that Michael Savage is not alone on the fever-driven right. Does PCR also support "autarky"? So if I have got this right, it is okay for the Palestinians to continue to fire rockets of increasing power and sophistication into Israel, but when Isreal strikes back, it is killing Palestinian "civilians" (since Hamas wears no uniforns, everyone killed can be classified as a "civilian"). Israel, remember, is a single country in a hostile sea of Arabs. Even those at "peace" with Isreal (like Egypt) are hostile in one way or anoter to the idea of a Jewish state. For this reason, we have to go back to Israel's founding and say it was a mistake. So what we are really saying is that we would prefer to extinguish the sole non-Arab state in the region than see the Arab states reach a real peace with and acceptance of Israel. I fail to see in the Obama administration, with his friendliness with a Palestinian activist, and advisor Samantha Power (who was disassociated from Obama only as long as the campaign lasted), who wants U. S. troops injected to "protect the Palestinians," a deferral to Israel that PCR imagines. It is more likely that we will see a "cram-down" whiel proclaiming our loyalty to Israel. Why else would Israel move against Gaza in the waning days of an exhausted Bush administration, just before the inaugration of Obama?
It seems obvious to me at least, that the point of PCR's article is that with the Obama regime, there is to be no change in American foreign policy, and that it is possible things will get worse by the very fact that his appointments to various positions within the executive branch are a continuation of the ideological policies of the Bush II, Clinton, and Bush I administrations. Folks, expect nothing but depression and war in the next four years. Hopefully, you have some foodstuffs and water and ammo stashed away for the days of remorse coming.
Great article Mr. Roberts. Its good to see Im not alone in the things Ive observed and felt to be true.
Joseph McNulty @9:
As a supporter of the Iraq War and of John McCain's candidacy, Michael Savage is in no position to call himself a conservative, so don't call him one. Also, I used to listen to his radio show, and I seemed to gather quite the opposite point of view. As far as Israel is concerned, he comes across to me as just another AIPAC puppet. It was no surprise to me when I read his background and found out he is Jewish. Of course, if Dr. Savage has recently changed this position that he held when I listened to him, then I apologize.
As for your unwavering support for the Jewish state, McNulty, great. You're entitled to your opinion. Just realize that after two and a half centuries of peace with the Muslim world, the re-establishment of the Jewish state in the Holy Land in '48 was the poking of a sleeping viper. It is the reason for all Muslim hostility to the West since then. Conservatives realize this.
Except for the subject of Isreal, PCR sounds like Michael Savage (particularly, his belief that our current economic problems are the fault of a trans-national elite. I am surprised to hear that the formation of the State of Isreal interrupted centuries of peace with the Arab world. The fact that the Arab world was colonized by England and France have something to do with that? As I seem to recall, out first war after the revolution (not counting the Whiskey Rebellion) was with the Musllim pirates of the Barbary Coast. I believe tht the Marine hymn begins "From the shores of Montezuma TO THE SHORES OF TRIPOLI . . . ." The conflict with Islam grows out of the Qu'ran and has little to do with Israel,whose disappearance would not change the worldwide Jihad a whit. Have we forgotten Tours and Vienna? This strain of antisemitism is deadly to those who consider themselves "conservative." This toxic attitude toward "grubby Jews," whether they are CEO's on Wall Street or "settlers" in Isreal, is something that one does not have to be a neo-con to oppose. Does that make me not a conservative?
I meant the "halls of Montezuma" obviously.
"This strain of antisemitism is deadly to those who consider themselves “conservative.” This toxic attitude toward “grubby Jews,” whether they are CEO’s on Wall Street or “settlers” in Isreal, is something that one does not have to be a neo-con to oppose."
But why do you oppose this perfectly rational attitude?
Is it that for some reason you like money grubbing Jewish CEOs on Wall Street who prey on the brainwashed philosemitic sapheads of this country? Or that you for some reason you like the land grubbing Jewish settlers in the West Bank who have ruined any chance of a equitable settlement in the Holy Land?
I mean, if you think the American people deserve to get ripped off, or that peace in the Middle East is for wusses, at least have the decency to come out and express your positions directly.
Jeez, why is this old State Department codger constantly attacking Israel?
First off, only fools and simpletons blame the Jew for the fact that our allies attacked us on 9/11. Everyone familiar with the US betrayal of the Serbs if fully aware that US policy entails stealing land from civil-rights supporting Christians and Jews and creating nazi states therein.
Regarding some mythical '100% pro Israel policy', in the world of reality, the US is the single largest funder of the UNRWA, which supports two nazi movements in the ME: fatah and hamas. The US contributes 30% of its funding, with the rest split amongst various European countries.
Christopher Simpson's 'Blowback' cites extensively from the National Archives in Suitland, Maryland and documents the fact that US intelligence was created by Arabists (the default ideology therein) and the Gehlen Org workers they absorbed. Gosh, what a surprise that they would make Jew-slandering part of their policy. Further, the US has always supported a wide variety of fascist, human rights oppressing (former nazi) movements all over the world. What better way to create our corrupt and easily exploitable quisling states (eg. Kosovo)?
Here is real US policy, stolen from FGW. Mostly, though not entirely, anti-Israel. The American people have always supported Israel. The US State Department, not so much:
The 1930's - Negative - The US Establishment helped sponsor the rise of the German Nazi movement.
1939-1945 - Negative - This year's material is divided into the following sections:
1. The general policy of the Allies towards the plight
of the Jews
2. No US visas for European Jews trying to escape the Nazi slaughter
3. The allies refused to sabotage Hitler's Final Solution by military means
1945 - Negative - After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals.
1947-48 - Mixed to Negative - Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel.
1949-1953 - Negative - In Israel's hour of supreme need, the US allied with Israel's mortal enemies.
1955 - Mixed - The US forces Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but makes some concessions to the Israelis.
1955-1965 - Positive (in one regard only) - Israel indirectly gets some US weapons.
1958 - Negative - Israel assists US military intervention in the Middle East; when this places Israel in danger, the US does...nothing.
1964 - Mixed - The US abandoned its previous official policy of trying to get Israel to relinquish the territories won in the War of Independence. Why had it been trying to do this?
1964-1967 - Negative - Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.
1967 - Negative - After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense.
1967-70 - Negative - The Arabs attack the Israelis. The US response is to try and remove the Israelis from territory they need for their defense.
1970 - Positive - Washington temporarily abandons the diplomatic effort to make Israel withdraw from the territories.
1973 - Positive - The US assisted Israel in the Yom Kippur War.
1973-1975 - Negative - The US supported the election of a pro-PLO Nazi war criminal to the post of UN Secretary General.
1975 - Negative - The US reached an agreement with Israel not to have contacts with the PLO. The US immediately violated the agreement.
1977 - Negative - Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a 'government in exile,' and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door.
1978 - Negative - When Israel tried to defend itself from the PLO terrorists, the US forced Israel to stand back.
1979 - Negative - Jimmy Carter began large-scale US sponsorship of antisemitic Islamist terrorists, especially in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
1981 - Negative - The US pushed for a PLO state in the West Bank against Israeli objections.
1982-1983 - Negative - The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis.
1985 - Negative - 1985 includes more material than other years, so we have divided it into subsections.
1. Shimon Peres acted as a US agent, against Israeli interests.
2. Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti (respectively, the Italian prime minister and foreign minister) committed political suicide for the sake of pushing the PLO. The US was behind them.
3. Ronald Reagan lays a wreath for nazis
4.Who was in charge of US covert operations in 1985?
1987-1988 - Negative - The 'First Intifada' was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed 'underdogs.'
1989 - Negative - With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
1991 - Negative - Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza.
1994 - Negative - Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews.
1996-1997 - Negative - The United States exerted such strong pressure on the Netanyahu government (including threats) that, even though Netanyahu had been elected on an anti-Oslo platform, he had the necessary cover to betray the Israeli public that had elected him.
2005 - Negative - Mahmoud Abbas, who will soon have total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking 'peace' the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas.
"I am surprised to hear that the formation of the State of Isreal interrupted centuries of peace with the Arab world. The fact that the Arab world was colonized by England and France have something to do with that?"
No, it didn't have anything to do with that.
It was rather that the Whites of Europe were:
1. Strong enough to keep Muslims and other alien races out of their ethnosphere.
and...
2. Smart enough not to invite them it (in sharp contrast to their drippy descendants amongst the traitorious elite of Europe and America today).
If you fear an enemy, it is a far better thing to concentrate on defending your own house, as opposed to leaving your property and family unguarded so you can run off trying to find him. (He's in these hills somewhere, I just know it! How's that? Oh, so it turns out he was hiding out in my neighberhood all along and after I left he set my house on fire. Bummer...)
To elaborate a little on my point at 17:
The very fact that England and France were able to put so much of the Muslim World under their yoke was proof that the Muslim World wasn't EVEN CLOSE to being a military threat to Western Civilization at the time.
Therefore the whole idea that the colonialization was protective of the West is crazy talk.
It's only when the military strength of two rival forces and/or alliances is close enough to parity that the outcome is in doubt, that you have real stakes and a situation where victory can actually grant long term safety to a nation (by setting the precedent that A is stronger than B, and more generally that A is not to be needlessly messed with).
Joseph McNulty,
The 1683 Seige of Vienna was the Ottoman Empire's last hostile advance towards the West. From then on, during the Empire's decline, to the year of the Jewish return to the Holy Land, 1948, I wonder if you could name a jihad-like effort the Empire made against the West? That's 265 years - the origin of my "two and a half centuries" estimate I gave earlier.
Empires decline and fall, as do waves of extremist nationalism and religious pride. The forces which create them can die permanently . . . or be provoked back to life, as in 1948. Think about it. Since the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century, when have movements like Hezbollah and Al-Qaida and Hamas had the MOST support, power, and influence? When Western powers establish their presence on Middle Eastern lands! When they interefere in Middle Eastern affairs! They send suicide planes over HERE to our land because WE are over there on THEIRS. Yes, the Qu'ran teaches Muslims to do their best to help create a world caliphate, and there have ALWAYS been imams and mullahs who take that command more seriously than most of their other fellow Muslims. But when in the past 300 years have they ever had substantial influence over their fellow Arabs? Only when the white man's military bases are on their land.
As for your love and appreciation for Jews, fine. I, however, maintain that it is an unwise, borderline delusional position for a conservative to take. You have found distrust of Jews in conservative circles, McNulty, because we recognize a conspicuous divide between them and white Americans, even white Americans who don't consider themselves conservative. That divide is the difference in racial interests - as far as I have observed, Jews seem to avowedly claim a set of interests and loyalties which are at odds with those of most other Americans, specifically whites. To tell the truth, I can say the same thing for all other non-white races in America, but their (Hispanics, blacks, etc.) methods in making their interests known and their demands met seem to be less sneaky and dishonest than those of Jews. A nation of peoples, McNulty, cannot be a nation unless the majority ethnicity of peoples, especially that which founded the nation in the first place, is the one whose interests, habits, religion, culture, and traditions are given FIRST PRIORITY over all others. But I guess if you and the neocons, which you interestingly claim not to be, wish to root out "antisemitism" from all points of view in the American mainstream, be my guest.
slim,
You might put aside your natural tendency to perpetuate the everlasting notion of the Jews as oppressed victims, immediately making all their actions infallible and exempt from criticism, which I know is probably your intent. But put that tendency aside for just one moment, and maybe you could consider another reason for U.S. aid to Muslims in the Middle East and more specifically, Southeast Europe: NOT to kill Jews - and I know this is hard for you to stomach, but run with me on this one - but rather, to stem the tide of Russian and Slavic nationalism, movements which would eventually lead to a tide of Orthodox Christian pride . . . eventually leading to the prospect that has the U.S. foreign policy establishment wetting its pants whenever it thinks about it - the rebirth of the Tsarist Russian Empire. Then, Russia would be a second world power, hence a viable contender for control of the supply of a certain substance which flows through the Middle East like water. I'll give you 2 hints: it's thick and black, and I don't mean Fat Albert.
A question if I might.
While this is not in line with PC Roberts piece, does anyone find it odd that the Aribert Heim (Dr Death, which one you ask? Take your pick)information is "big news" right at the same time Pope Benedict XVI is attempting dialogue with certain members of the Pius X society?
The shaping of the message and the thoughts of wide swaths of the population is the key element to understand. How this concerns the economic side of matters is this: people across the country have long known that economic matters were skewed. They have seen the plants shuttered and their towns blooming with weeds. Despite the cheap products filling the shelves of a certain Bentonville company , it has been an understood thing that something was off mark.
To say that times were "good" because you could buy several shirts at an extra low price is as insulting to ones intelligence as saying that Dr Death's time of death and location is "big news" for some reason. People refuse to ask simple questions such as how those shirts were bought at such a low price and how is a long forgotten doctor, who died years ago, the basis for "big news". Both examples offer up a shaped reality which deny their true purpose and intent.
Carry on.
McCallum
Brock,
you seem to be a paranoid Jewish conspiracy theorist. The reality is that the British antisemites deliberately appointed Husseini to mufti because he was so good at attacking Jews and ensuring division between Arabs and Jews. He was a complete hypocrite, not unlike Muslim leaders of today, who claim to be all religious, but in reality are in alliance with the West and have no problems with having the US swoop in to rescue them (Bosnia) or fight for them (Gulf War).
Muslims have never been anything other than allies and mercenaries of outside imperialists (Brits, Soviets, US). Currently, the US seems to be leading the way in portraying them as poor oppressed victims, while simultaneously unleashing them on Christians and Jews that resist US/Arab dominance.
The evidence speaks for itself. US policy is what one would expect from the Gehlen Org, predominantly anti-Israel, even down to the scapegoating of Israel for 9/11, the foisting of 'protocols' propaganda (Mearsheimer Walt, neocon Jew conspiracies), and the manipulation of the 'leftist intelligentsia' into a Jewhating frenzy.
McNulty, James, is suffering from a little-known variant of the Stockholm Syndrome, the Spittoon Syndrome, so called because of the craven tendency to defend and praise those who spit on you.
Who is spitting on whom? It seems to me that you are spitting on me as some kind of covert neo-con.
It seems impossible to reason with some of these attitudes, which are at base Jew-hatred. For example, what does it have to do with anything that some CEO's on Wall Street happeb to be Jewish? The non-Jewish CEO's are just as repacious. What does the Jewish-ness of some add?
Anyway, most of them are not Jewish in any meaningful or religious way. In fact, most Jews are secular and have no RELIGIOUS sense of their Jewish-ness. That's why 76 percent of them inexplicably voted for Obanma. Their real religion is liberalism, not Judaism. In fact, most American Jews have no real loyalty to Isreal.
Maybe the founding of Israel in 1948, in the fullness of time, was a mistake. So what? You cannot repeal history. The world is full of "mistakes" as a result of conquest or unfair treaties. Israel is a fact and deserves to continue and represents only a tiny speck on the Arab world.
The worldwide Jihad would exist whether Isreal existed or not. It is NOT a reaction to the incursion of the West upon the Arab world. As you recognize, empires have their own flux of expansion and contraction. The Arab world suffered from the collapse of the Ottomans, their conquerors, who were eventually displaced by the British and the French.
But the Arab world has not fundamentally changed. The infidel has always been an object of fear and hatred. The triumph of the infidel was looked upon as Allah's punishment of Arabs who has been insufficiently devout. The revival of Islam actually began in the Twenties -- well before the founding of Israel -- and the Mufti of Jerusalem helped organize a Muslim SS division in Bosnia during the Second World War and spent the entire war in Berlin. Sayyid Qtub, godfather of Al Queda, hated America from his visit during World War II, well before the founding of the State of Israel.
Read the writings of Osama Bin Laden and Ahyman Al Zawahiri and you will see that they hate democracy (man-made law, not the God-made law of Sharia) and that their comments about Israel are only a makeweight for their argument. Along with Israel, they argue for the "return" of Spain and India, which we once ruled by the Muslim Moghuls. How do you feel about the return of Spain? If the goal is avoiding doing anything that might provoke the Muslim world, then you should also be for the return of Spain to Muslim rule.
Joseph McNulty, @24: Pardon my intrusion, although I find the existence of the Zionist State of Israel to be one of the most unfortunate anomalies of the twentieth century, and the world would be better off without it, your point about Israel being a fact has some validity. Nevertheless, does this recognition give them the authority to destroy many innocent lives over and over and over and over ad nauseum? In this sense, history is being repeated. Injustice reigns and the Israelis are its purveyors.
McNulty,
"The worldwide Jihad would exist whether Isreal existed or not. It is NOT a reaction to the incursion of the West upon the Arab world."
Correct, but you seem to be skirting the point I made earlier. How much POWER and SUPPORT from the Arab masses have the jihadists ever had since the decline of the Turkish Empire? A minimal amount, except when the Western powers act as empires and invade onto their land and into their affairs.
Once and for all, McNulty, you are under the influence of neoconservative ideology. It is a variety of leftist thinking which is diametrically the opposite of American conservatism. So you do not call yourself one, fine. I'm not in a position to say to a man what his identity is, but one's words speak volumes about himself, and that does allow others to point out what kind of ideological influence he is under. Take our friend slim for instance. His words have told us that he is under Zionist influence, and his loyalty seems to be to Israel and to Jews, not to the United States. His mission in life seems to be rooting out antisemitism, whereas the life mission of a non-ideological, conservative American would be to root out anti-AMERICANISM.
slim,
No, I am not a "Jewish conspiracy theorist." I merely recognize what I see with my own eyes. Jewish culture, customs, behaviors, traditions, etc. seem to be at odds with those of America, at least white America, I can only speak for my own race. As a result, they seem to crave every chance they get to make their environment more friendly to their own way of life . . . often at the expense of the previously predominant white American way of life. As for conspiracies overall, yes I do believe there is one. It isn't a Jewish one - and I know you want it to be, because that would make precious campaign fodder for your Marxist friends at the AntiDefamation League, but it really isn't. It is actually an American imperial conspiracy theory. Foreign policy is being directed at the ultimate goal of forcibly stopping the rise to power of other empires who would act as checks upon American power and control over valuable resources. Perhaps, slim, the U.S. aids the Arab nations because if Israel was left completely alone, she might also be a strong competitor for the control of the oil supply, not because State and Defense are run by Hitler clones.
McNulty,
To revise my last sentence directed at you, I should add that a conservative should root out anti-Americanism here at HOME. Going beyond our borders to do that is, of course, imperialism.
On the one side, you have a population of implacable so-called "Palestinians." On the other side you have the Israelis, part of whom are settling in Palestinian areas, rightly or wrongly, because they either (a) believe in a greater Israel, given by God, or (2) believe that Israel can only be safe with expanded Jewish settlements. The first group are subject to immediate denial by Israel (a secular state) if peace ever becomes a reality and the second group is settling based on a contingency that the Palestinians could change at any moment.
If the Palestinians sincerely desired "peace," don't we think that the pressure upon Israel to pull back the settlements would be universal? The fact is that the Palestinians have never truly desired peace, and their conduct has shown it. For example, Arafat refused the Taba settlement because he feared assassination by Palestinians who want no peace and hope only that the West -- as many of you appear -- will turn away through fatigue or animus.
The details of the Taba settlement are unimportant. The point is that if the world really believed that the Palestinians wanted "peace," the pressure outside Israel (and, more importantly, WITHIN Israel) for peace would be irresistable, the settlers be damned. But those within Israel, and the world, when they really consider the situation, know that if you removed the settlers today you would only put the rocketeers and motar-men on Israel's borders.
The Palestinians, once a sensible and mercantile people, have never given any indication that they want to do anything other than chase the fruitless dream or pushing the Jews into the sea.
Unfortunately, this goes back to the earliest days of Islam. One of Muhammed's first acts as leader of the Muslims of Medina was a raid in which he slaughtered the Khaybar Jews. What was their "crime"? They had property to be stolem, and they were Jews, killers of the Prophets and non-Muslims. The Jew-hatred of Islam goes back to the very beginning, 600 years before the State of Israel.
The hatred of Jews for Christians goes back at least to 32 AD. Does that mean Christians should respond to this ancient and irrational hatred by expelling the Jews out of their lands and militarily invading the entity claimed by the Jews as theirs?
Yes it does.
Let's get to it!
Johnson,
Actually the Jewhatred of Christianity goes back 2009 years--when the Romans demonized the liberated slave movement of the Jews by telling people that the Jews killed their christ--which was a complete absurdity.
And this Jewhatred has continued unabated, even hiring Muslim nazis to assist you (such as the mufti).
Brock--there is really no such thing as 'loyalty to the US'. In 1972 or 73, Arafat killed two US diplomats. And the US State Department rescued their nazi pet by deciding to hush-hush the entire thing. Not to mention that during WWII, the Dulles brothers and the rest of the US ruling elites were profitting from their nazi connections (exploiting Jewish/Serb slave labor) even while US soldiers were dying fighting the nazis.
So much for your bogus 'patriotism' junk. Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
There is nothing anti-American in my ideology. I support civil rights for all who are tolerant of the rights of others. You OTOH, share the ideology of your Gehlen Org masters--a default policy of sponsoring the Husseini/Izetbegovic/Arafat/Thaci types, inflicting them on peaceful peoples, and then slandering said peoples for having some kind of nefarious control over the governments that are sponsoring these anti-democratic movements.
You are not a non-interventionalist at all. You support the oppression and eradication of the most peaceful people in the world--the ones that resisted the nazis during WWII. This is State Dept policy, which would explain the adulation for PCR and his evidence-free conspiracy theories.
The persecution of Chrisians by Jews was brief and localized. The spread of Christianity throughout the Raman World shows that the Jews, a proud and insular people, were never in a position to launch a GENERALIZED persecution, and the Christians soon became the aggressors in persecution. There was no Jewish jihad against Christianity.
The fallacy in what you say is the assumption that the "Palestinians," a population group that never existed until created 50 years ago in reaction to the creation of Israel, were expelled from their land. One could as easily say that Arabs were squatters on anciant Jewish land. In fact, the Qur'an ssys that Allah gave the Jews the Holy Land, but the Arabs get around this by saying that today's Jews are not the same as those referred to in the Qur'an.
The fact is that the partition plan was offered to the Jews and the Arabs, and the Arabs decided to fight. They lost. If we are going to start with reversing each terrirorial acquisition as a result of war, perhaps we should give back the country to the American Indians -- excuse me -- Native Americans (and I don't know who they wiped out to take over the country originally). Then, I guess, Islam should give back all the land it conquered, including the Christian Near East and Syria. Who spends his time worrying about such things? The Arabs, that's who.
I am still mad about the conquest of Antioch. That is the source of my resentment. So I guess the Arabs are to blame for my resentment of Islam.
The persecution of Chrisians by Jews was brief and localized. The spread of Christianity throughout the Raman World shows that the Jews, a proud and insular people, were never in a position to launch a GENERALIZED persecution, and the Christians soon became the aggressors in persecution. There was no Jewish jihad against Christianity.
The fallacy in what you say is the assumption that the "Palestinians," a population group that never existed until created 50 years ago in reaction to the creation of Israel, were expelled from their land. One could as easily say that Arabs were squatters on anciant Jewish land. In fact, the Qur'an ssys that Allah gave the Jews the Holy Land, but the Arabs get around this by saying that today's Jews are not the same as those referred to in the Qur'an.
The fact is that the partition plan was offered to the Jews and the Arabs, and the Arabs decided to fight. They lost. If we are going to start with reversing each terrirorial acquisition as a result of war, perhaps we should give back the country to the American Indians -- excuse me -- Native Americans (and I don't know who they wiped out to take over the country originally). Then, I guess, Islam should give back all the land it conquered, including the Christian Near East and Syria. Who spends his time worrying about such things? The Arabs, that's who.
I am still mad about the conquest of Antioch. That is the source of my resentment. So I guess the Arabs are to blame for my resentment of Islam.
@26 Brock
Once the Arabs woke up and found out they were living in to 20th Century, they quickly jacked up the price of oil. The Saudi royal family, whose grip on power is tenuous at best -- lavished petrodollars to the whabbist extremists, who in turn promptly constructed Islamic Centers (not mosques) all over the western world. It was probably addressed best by Anthony Burgess in his novel, 1985.
Couple that with a high birthrate on the mohammedans' part, and abortion on our part, and you're looking at a world changing for the worst.
slim,
I have spent my all my time on this website denouncing U.S. government foreign policy. I have recognized for about two and a half years that our criminal government is run by war profiteers and imperialists. For those reasons, there is nothing I support about U.S. foreign policy. Are you so filled with raging hatred for those who do not agree with every single one of your goals, that you cannot see other men's loyalties for what they are? It is the mindset of a fool to embrace an ideology and then assume that those who are not with you on every single point are completely against you. I do not support the current state of Israel, so for you, I am a Nazi. This is dangerous water to tread, slim. Men like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao thought this way and now the blood of hundreds of millions are on their hands.
You made the mistake of conflating two terms that are like oil and water in there relationship to each other - the U.S. the NATION, and the U.S. the GOVERNMENT. You are quite right to point out the sins of the U.S. government, and for that reason neither of us should have any loyalty to it. What was built as a republic is now an evil empire. What I was talking about when offering my loyalty challenge to you is your loyalty to the American NATION. The men who started it in the early 17th century did not support any silly and abstract ideology like equality or democracy or "civil rights," - a code-word for rights that don't exist in our Constitution. Washington and Jefferson surely didn't, either, although they might have used the words for propaganda purposes now and then. Every time ideas like equality and such have been introduced to America, they have had to be forcibly shoved down their throats using egalitarian methods, sometimes bloodshed as the most extreme method. Take the War for Southern Independence for example. Take the Little Rock Nine and all the school busing in the late 60s and 70s. Do you support, more specifically, are you loyal to, the American nation, one that was built for the predominance of white culture and traditions? Or are you loyal only to a certain other minority within that nation, resulting in a life-long mission to make circumstances more favorable, tolerable, and comfortable for that minority of people?
Some western elitists still operate under the quaint notion of America assuming "the white man's burden." This must be some bizarre extension of Anglo-imperialism. However, the cost of that burden has become intolerable, and should now fall on arabic petrodollars, Chinese communists, and financial whiz kids with Harvard MBAs, and not on the US taxpayer.
I'm glad the world no longer looks to us for leadership. We can go back to being a republic ruled by law, and not an empire ruled by power.
Gulp! Brock sounds like he should have belonged to the "Know Nothing" party in the 1850's. I guess that emancipation stuff was some kindof foreign egalitarianism, Jacobinism, that was incident to the War for Southern Independence. We really need to go back before Lincoln, before even Jackson, even before Jefferson (with all his skeletons rattling in the closet). Back to what? Washington? Good luck on that in a nation full of people educated in public schools where they spent more time on Martin Luther King than the Father of Our Country. And we are supposed to let such attitudes inform public policy -- resentment of "foreigners," belief that this was once a "white" country (never mind all those darkies over there). This is what is wrong with the website: it serves as a refuge for antideluvian attitudes that are just statements of resentments and useless in the national conversation. Things are bad enough without attitudes from the 19th Century.
>The spread of Christianity throughout the Raman World shows that the Jews, a proud and insular people, were never in a position to launch a GENERALIZED persecution, and the Christians soon became the aggressors in persecution.The fallacy in what you say is the assumption that the “Palestinians,” a population group that never existed until created 50 years ago in reaction to the creation of Israel...<
Oh yeah, that explains why most Palestinians have family trees only going back 2 or 3 generations. Before they became Palestinians they were, of course, Methodists.
>The spread of Christianity throughout the Raman World shows that the Jews, a proud and insular people, were never in a position to launch a GENERALIZED persecution, and the Christians soon became the aggressors in persecution.<
This is a profoundly wrongheaded and misleading reading of history.
The Christians were acting defensively when they imposed limits on the Christian exploiting and hating Jewish Race. This won them centuries of not having to worry about their societies getting rotted out from within.
Then people like Voltaire came along with their enlightenment, and the strong anti-Christian tendencies of the Jews were unleashed, to the tragedy of the west.
Johnson, let us examine this 2009 year history of Christians defending themselves from the Jewish onslaught (a defense that seems to manifest itself by attacking elderly Jews, smashing Jewish babies into walls, and cramming Jews into ovens):
1st century - Genocide of the Jews by the Romans (‘First Jewish War’)
2nd century - Genocide of the Jews by the Romans (‘Diaspora Revolt’ and ‘Second Jewish War’)
4th century - Following Emperor Constantine's Council of Nicaea (325), all sorts of imperial measures against the Jews, special taxes, prohibition on new synagogues, and prohibition of Christian-Jewish marriages.
Church father Ambrose encourages burning of synagogues so as to abolish Judaism.
5th century - Atacks against Jewish communities during Holy Week, including the burning of synagogues.[00] A great massacre of Jews in Alexandria.
[There is a relative pause in anti-Jewish attacks, and relative tolerance toward Jews, due to the collapse of the political structure of the Roman Empire. Once the German aristocracies that conquered Europe converted to Catholicism, and the empire was reconstituted as the Germanic Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages, the attacks are renewed.]
11th century - Crusaders massacre Jewish communities in the Rhineland.
12th century - Crusaders massacre Jews in Europe; persecution in Spain.
13th century - Forced conversions of Jews all over Europe.
14th century - Black Plague is blamed on Jews. Perhaps three hundred Jewish communities are wiped out. Jews in the Rhineland are exterminated. Jews in Seville are massacred, followed by widespread pogroms in Iberia.
15th century - Spanish inquisition. Many Jews are killed. More than 150,000 are expelled from Spain.
16th century - Inquisition becomes pan-European phenomenon.
17th century - Inquisition continues.
19th century - In 1827 the Russian Tsar began a process of slow-genocide against the Eastern Jews, by forced conscription into the Russian army for Jewish boys, starting at the age of eight. Somewhat later the rate of conscription for some populations of Jews was raised to 5 times higher than what was applied to any other population, and matching the rate of groups selected for special punishment. The terms of service in the Russian army were 25 years.
19th century - Widespread pogroms against the Eastern Jews in the Russian Empire.
20th century - Widespread pogroms against the Eastern Jews in the Russian Empire, and then a genocide by the German Nazis all over Europe.
21st century - Sporadic attacks against world Jewry as Israel defends herself from the 'international community' aided nazis in the middle east.
Gosh, when does this 'defense' end exactly?
Brock,
the US was not built on 'white' culture. There is no 'white' culture. Jews and others have been in the US for hundreds of years. This country is a melting pot of all kinds of people, but those that rise to the top are very greedy, amoral, and fascist in nature. They like enslaving others as a means of gaining wealth. We need not look any further than their exploitation of concentration camp slave labor for confirmation. They are not Jewish--but will admit a few 'Jewish' anti-semites into their periphery.
In 1948, before the US government commandeered US media and tried to rewrite history to whitewash all our nazi allies (Arabs, Croats, Bosnians, etc), over 200,000 American citizens rallied in support of the Jews. The American people support what is right, while the PCR-ilk support our blowback policy of arming, training, and inflicting our 'liberationist' nazi allies on innocent people everywhere.
Judaism is a liberated slave movement. The common folk love the Jews--we defend them. You defend people like PCR and similar government liars. These Arabist fascists are the ones that lie about Israeli history, lie about Serbian history, teach blacks that supporting Israel (as MLK and RFK did) is 'uncle tom' ideology. Pretty much everything wrong with the US is a result of their lying and meddling.
The Jews stand alone, just like we've always done. You serve your government masters, just as you've always done.
Memo to Bob Johnson: This sounds like the Hamas preacher the other day who said that the Jews forced upon themselves Hitler's persecution by attacking the German state. So our problem is not Jackson or Lincoln, it's the Enlightenment. That covers quite an area. Who among the Founding Fathers was not tainted by the Enlightment? Who meets your standards? Does Aquinas pass muster? Next you are going to tell me that Himmler was misunderstood. So Hitler was just acting to prevet the Jews from unleashing their "strong anti-Christian tendencies." He was just fighting to prevent Germany from being "rotten out from within"? So I guess the Holocaust was just self-defense? No wonder you take the "Palestinian" side. By the way, there were no "Palestinians" in Ottoman days. Their nationalism was purely a reactio to that of the Jews.
Slim @39 What is your opinion of the works of Josephus? Does this first century Jewish historian have any credibility today or is he rather to be discounted as a kind of nationalist of the PCR Ilk?
slim,
During the Spanish Inquisition, were there forced conversions under penalty of death?
Now answer incorrectly and you expose a lack of knowledge.
BTW: why were Jews banned from Cyprus?
McCallum
slim,
I read articles everyday from the John Birch Society and this website, two organizations who are identified by their principles of limited Constitutional government and entangling alliances with no foreign powers. You will find the opposite in the United States government. It is now an empire. Since America Firsters and principled Constitutionalists like myself were purged from the U.S. government long ago, I fail to see how I "serve" these "government masters, just as you’ve always done." I have spent the last two and a half years of my life doing everything I can within my limited means to fight my "government masters."
"the US was not built on ‘white’ culture. There is no ‘white’ culture. Jews and others have been in the US for hundreds of years. This country is a melting pot of all kinds of people, . . ."
Well, getting 1 out of 4 correct ain't too bad for a raging anti-Christian and anti-American (Those two assertions I just made are just assumptions based on your words, if you deny being either, I apologize). No debating the fact that non-whites have been in the U.S. alongside whites for probably almost as long as whites themselves, to say nothing of Native Americans, of course. As for your other three assertions, I'm sure you take them to be fact . . . if Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and everybody in the government responsible for passing the Immigration Act of 1965, were your American history teachers. Can you find passages in our country's founding documents, specifically the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the published words of Jefferson, Washington, and Madison, which would confirm your statement that the U.S. was never a white country and was never supposed to be?
As for your second statement directed at me, that is a libelous, abrasive, insulting, borderline evil one. As a non-Hispanic white American man, I consider myself to be part of a culture and set of habits, customs, and traditions that is very different from those of black, Hispanic, Jewish, Arab, and Asian Americans. Those whites left in this sorry excuse for a nation who are proud to be part of their race can confidently say the same. We are different from other races often by our religious faith, almost always by our outward behavior and ways of conducting ourselves, and often by our level of devotion to certain institutions like family and career and education.
Of course, there are those white Americans whose population is swelling . . . those that no longer consider themselves as being different from people of other races, because they agree with Susan Sontag, that the white race is the cancer of human history. So for them, now it is time to embrace creeds like equality and human rights and to sever our Western roots. They might agree with you, slim, that there is no white culture, but I feel otherwise, and I think some other contributors on this site might agree with me.
Robert,
My knowledge of Josephus is that his written histories are useful--but like most of the ancient histories, they are the 'propaganda of the victor', that is, they tend to slander the enemies of the ancient Greek and Roman ruling elites.
Josephus was probably the first in a long line of hellenistic Jewish antisemites--Jews that procure a lofty status in society by allying with antisemites and betraying Jews.
Very few historians defend the Jews from the biblical-based absurdities and other historical big lies that have been passed down. Francisco Gil White is one of the few:
"In the ancient Mediterranean, plenty of ‘Hellenizing’ (pro-Greek) Jews in the Jewish ruling elite allied with the Seleucid Greeks who attempted to obliterate Judaism in the land of Judah, and who committed one mass slaughter of innocent Jews after another, in addition to sundry cruelties a great deal worse than murder.[42] Then there were Jews -- once again Hellenizing Jews in the ruling elite -- who allied with the Roman effort to exterminate the Jewish people in the first and second centuries (the most famous case is that of ‘historian’ Flavius Josephus, from a rich, priestly Jewish family, who assisted the Roman generals Vespasian and Titus in the genocidal ‘First Jewish War,’ and then wrote much propaganda to excuse the Roman outrage.)[43] There were so many traitors in the Jewish upper classes that an entire movement developed among Jewish patriots to selectively assassinate the collaborators with the Romans.[43a]
Many upper-class Jewish converts to Christianity allied with the attacks against the Jews during the Middle Ages.[43b] The same happened in the 19th c., when the assimilated, upper-class maskilim of what became known as the ‘Jewish Enlightenment’ allied with the efforts of European governments to destroy Jewish religious practice.[43c]
More recently we have the example of the mainstream Jewish leaders during WWII in the United States and Britain, who tended to be ‘assimilated’ Jews toward the secular end of Jewish piety and practice, and who were well-connected with the antisemitic power structures in their home countries. These well-placed Jewish leaders destroyed a boycott against Hitler's regime that ordinary Jews around the world had been organizing and that came within an inch of destroying Nazism in the cradle (see Part 0).[43d] Then, during the Holocaust, these same Jewish leaders allied with the powerful antisemites whom they had befriended, and worked to sabotage the efforts of Hillel Kook (alias Peter Bergson) and his mostly Orthodox Jewish and righteous Gentile (i.e. non-Jewish) allies, who were trying to rescue the desperate European Jewish population (see Part 1).[44] Also during the Holocaust, the leaders of the mainstream Labor Zionist movement who went on to become the Israeli government and establishment, likewise sabotaged the efforts to rescue the European Jews; some of them, such as Rudolf Kastner, were in fact very good friends with the top Nazi exterminators and assisted them in the killing, later also defending them after the war from the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal (see Part 4). Even more recently we have the astonishing attacks against the Jewish state by all manner of prominent mainstream Jewish leaders in the Diaspora (see Part 2).[45] In this context, why should we be surprised that the largely and fiercely secular Israeli ruling elite, a continuation of the Labor Zionist movement, is betraying ordinary Israelis? But we are surprised because we do not study history, and so, as George Santayana famously said, we are condemned to repeat it."
Brock,
the US government, going back over 60 years has not been about 'non intervention'. Christopher Simpson's books document this quite well. It has been about sponsoring axis-allied fascist movements, 5th column movements all over the world and using them to attack and crush progressive movements.
And the people spreading the lies to which you subscribe are fully aware of these facts. Arming, training, funding Islamist nazis is not a 'non interventionalist' ideology, regardless of how many times PCR/Buchanan pretend it is or pretend it does not take place.
And there is no evidence that any 'pro Israel' Jews had any role in any of this. There are currently, and never have been any 'pro Israel' Jews in the US State Dept. There have only been Josephus-inspired hellenists, traitors of the Jewish people, 'Jews' that think that peace will only come by spreading naziism and shrinking and weakening Judaism. Keep me posted when we rescue Jews like we rescued the Bosnian mujahedin. Keep me posted when we treat Jonathan Pollard as nicely as we treat Naser Oric.
Technically, there are no such things as 'races', and there is no 'white' culture. Normal people don't take pride in a mythical and nonexistent 'white' ideology. What is this ideology? eating tuna on white bread with mayonnaise? Are Italians 'white'? Why did we have immigration acts designed to make sure that we didn't take in too many of them, thus 'polluting' the US population?
During WWII, white Roman Catholics in Croatia forcibly converted and slaughtered many white Christians. I just don't see any big white Christian unity.
This common 'white' ideology is a myth. It is correct though that for the past 60-90 years or so, US leaders have been quite fascist and elitist, taught the Germans about eugenics, helped them automate their killing machine, and embraced the Muslim version of 'mein kampf' as a tool for indoctrinating the masses.
I'm opposed to all these things--which means I can only support Israel (as well as the Serbs and all other victims of this policy).
McCallum- not sure what your point is. If you have one, come out with it.
slim,
1) 60 years? Try 150. I do not need you to tell me when the U.S. government has been interventionist and when it hasn't. I have read a few excerpts from Blowback, and I was rather stunned to know that U.S. foreign policy is much more anti-Israel than pro. Perhaps we can bury the hatchet on that argument and realize that we agree that the U.S. should be non-interventionist . . . unless you wish that the U.S. should be a true ally, supporter, and funding source for Israel, which I suspect is your ideological creed.
2) For someone who thinks there are no races, you do certainly seem to recognize a distinction between Jews and Europeans.
3) A devotion to the preservation of a race and its predominance in its nation, in this case, the U.S., is not an ideology, slim. An ideology is a devotion to abstract creeds. Today's whites who are proud of their heritage and of the nation that they built and used to have control of (U.S.) are devoted only to concrete institutions. The land they inhabit. The families who live in their neighborhood. Their churches. Their schools. Their ancestors. Their posterity. What do you think Thomas Jefferson would have said if you were to say to him that the aforementioned institutions which are built by whites have no features which distinguish them from those of blacks or Native Americans, you know, that there is no "white culture"? He would have had a good belly laugh, as have I.
McNulty and Slim, yes, yes, you are completely right. The only just Christians that have ever existed are modern American Evangelicals, all others were controlled by the Devil. Jews as a group have never committed one atrocity towards other human beings.(Lazar Kaganovich was a Communist, so he was no longer a Jew etc.)You make me sick.
Will no one on Chronicles rid us of these evil and amateur theologians/historians. I feel as if I am browsing freerepublic.com, a sad and horrifying forum whose members' minds are as decaying as their ideologies.
Excuse me, decaying like their ideologies.
slim,
Not so much a point but a question.
The Spanish issue did not deal with Jews but rather those pointed out by conversos who were claiming to be Christians.
The item which seems to not cause you much burden slim is the concept of action and reaction. You have a view that indicates that there is but a reaction and that is all that takes places. Tax farming, the enslavement of Slav peasants to heavy tax burdens in eastern Europe never enters your mind or a discussion on your part. The part that does register with you is that there was a reaction.
What is your take on the culture war here slim? If you are skimming the pages of Chronciles you arent doing it for the pictures. Tell me about abortion, pornography, homosexuality, feminism.........the leadership is highly out of proportion to the population.
McCallum
McCallum,
I'm sufficiently familiar with Inquisition era Europe to know that Jews worked in the only fields that they were allowed to work in, which were often pecuniary due to church/religious rules that forbade Christians from partaking in these fields. The ridiculous reasons used to justify the killing of Jews in various places had little to do with 'tax burdens'.
regarding "abortion, pornography, homosexuality, feminism………the leadership is highly out of proportion to the population."
Abortion is a eugenics movement, an offshoot of Sanger's movement. As long as the right people are getting abortions, the government will never hinder it. Regarding the others, our government definitely adheres to certain rules of 'correctness', generally allowing people to do what they want, while bombarding them with propaganda to encourage certain behavior.
1) Blacks that recommend getting rid of all the socio-eugenic welfare programs are slandered as 'uncle toms'. Blacks are propagandized to behave in ways that will keep them out of the upper echelon of society.
2) Jews that support Israel and point out the nazi origins of hamas and fatah are slandered as 'right wing extremists'. Interestingly, I was reading about one of the poorest cities in the US, average age of 16 or 17, almost everyone is on welfare, and everyone is an 'extremist'. Yet there is no crime. Google and read about Kiryat Joel. A 'pro Israel' media would not slander all but the most anti-semitic Jews.
3) US contributions to global eugenics (population control) and supporting various conflicts resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands are described as 'aid'. All money used to control other governments is described as 'aid'.
4) the government long ago started manipulating the left to hate progressive movements using people like Ayers, and by continually foisting fiction of 'torturing Islamists'. One need only examine our ME or Balkan policy: creating states for Islamist terrorists, to see that we don't torture them, we make states for them. The waterboarding fiction has encouraged the intelligentsia to support the implementation of sharia wherever possible.
As best as I can tell, US leaders (esp Brzezinski and Khalilzad) sold out the people by allying with, and lying for, Islamists.
Brock,
Glad to shed some light on real US policy--which is not at all what PCR would have one believe. Regarding this 'white' history, I'm learning quite a bit on another forum. While the vast majority of slaves may have been black, there were many white slaves and white indentured servants.
Government written history is (at least partly) about creating an oppressed people, isolating them (for best resentment results). Thus blacks are told that they were the only slaves, and that all of them were slaves. Neither is true. They are also told that Jews played a large role in their enslavement (there were 15-20 Jewish slave traders, never mind that it was the Arab Muslims selling them into slavery).
Jews are told that we are the only and most important people killed in the holocaust. Everyone feels horrible about it (except for when they are putting out propaganda attacking Jews, and giving money to Israel-hating NGOs). The reality of course is that many others were killed, and that Serbs have been written out of it. It is not Jews that wrote them out of it--it's the US government that did this.
Our government partakes of a lot of divide and conquer strategies, as well as lying. Considering that our good buddies the Arabs killed 3,000 of us on 9/11, we'd have to call this policy a complete failure.