Which ‘New World Order’?

Who is planning a ‘New World Order’ (NWO),  in what form, and what progress so far?  One obvious focus is ‘globalism’, but there are other more complex and sinister issues at play discussed in the following articles.

Scan down to read the latest articles.  Links to more articles are at the end of this post.

Trending to a Multipolar World: Opportunities and Challenges

Trending to a Multipolar World, Opportunities and Challenges  By James O’Neill, American Herald Tribune, 26 April 2019

At the conclusion of the Second World War the United States was the overwhelmingly dominant military and economic power. The other major colonial powers, in particular France and the United Kingdom, had been financially exhausted by the war. Germany was shattered, its industry in ruins. The United States has a monopoly on nuclear weapons and there were serious plans to use those weapons on the Soviet Union (Operation Unthinkable) (1).

The Soviet Union had borne the vast brunt of the fighting against the Germans, losing at least 28 million soldiers and civilians, a sacrifice of people and treasure that has never received the acknowledgement in the west that it is due. Generations of Australians and New Zealanders among others were raised on the mythology of “plucky Britain” standing alone against the Nazi hoards.

In fact, as many Russians died during the siege of Leningrad (September 1941- January 1944) as total US and UK casualties combined for the whole war. Nearly half a million Russians were killed in the battle of Stalingrad (July 1942 to February 1943), which is more than total US losses for the whole war.

Had Churchill’s plan for a surprise nuclear attack of the Soviet Union after the defeat of the Germans in May 1945 eventuated, additional casualties would have been incalculable. It is the memory of those horrendous losses during the war, and the treachery of the British and the Americans after the defeat of Germany that is essential to an understanding of the reaction of Soviet, then Russian, leaders ever since to the actions of the western powers.

Any thoughts of a military confrontation between the Western powers, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, were solved in 1949 when the Soviet Union successfully exploded its own nuclear bombs. Instead of a “hot” war, the two sides instead engaged in what is generally referred to as a Cold War. That term is somewhat of a misnomer, as war was indeed waged on a number of fronts: ideological, propaganda, economic and via a series of proxy actions in third countries.

The other great shock to American sensibilities in 1949 was the defeat of the Chiang Kai Shek nationalist forces in the Chinese civil war. In what was to be a precedent for the following decades, the United States refused to accept Mao’s Government as the legitimate rulers of China, but fought to retain the nationalists as China’s Representative on the United Nations Security Council. US Navy ships patrolled the narrow straight between Formosa (is it then was) and the Chinese mainland.

The fiction of Taiwan being the representative of China in the United Nations persisted until 1971.

In an echo of Operation Unthinkable, the United States military command in the Korean War (1950-53) urged President Truman to allow the use of nuclear weapons against China (2), after China entered the war on the side of the North Koreans. US and Allied forces defied the clear intention of United Nations Security Council resolution 82 and invaded North Korea, continuing to the Yalu River which marked the border between North Korea and the People’s Republic of China.

The Allied forces were quickly driven back to the North/South border, itself a unilateral creation by the Americans in 1945 without reference to the citizens of either the North or the South (3). From then until the armistice of 27th of July 1953 the United States and Allied troops waged a relentless war against the north. The entire country was devastated, with civilian infrastructure almost completely destroyed. That, together with the use of chemical and biological weapons, amount to a sustained war crime against North Korea (4). As is the case with all atrocities committed by the United States and its allies in the almost continuous warfare waged since 1945 against mostly poor and relatively defenceless nations, the issue of accountability for war crimes is a non-issue as far as the western powers are concerned.

In the American case, not only do they not subscribe to the international criminal Court, they have threatened sanctions and worse (5) should that body ever have the temerity to investigate the actions of its military personnel or those of its allies, much less prosecute them.

As a result of that war, North Korea lost an estimated 8 to 9 million people, or about one third of its total population at that time. By comparison, the United Kingdom lost 0.94% of its population during World War two, which lasted twice as long as the Korean war.

An understanding of that war, as well as the history of United States intervention in Korean affairs, which dates back to the 1880s (6), is essential to an understanding of the contemporary geopolitical situation on the Korean peninsula.

The post World War II military and economic dominance of the United States and its imperviousness to international law had a number of other consequences. In particular it bred an attitude best expressed in their own self-description of being the “exceptional nation”. The ordinary definition of the word exceptional implies being atypical, extraordinary, or out of the common or usual mode.

In the American case however, it came to be equated with much more, and in particular a profound belief in all levels of society that their way was the only way. Deviations from that defined the path were not to be tolerated, and recalcitrant nations or individuals work subject to “regime change” operations, economic and financial sanctions, and in extreme cases invasion and occupation (7).

These actions will always justified in terms of “bringing democracy”, or “upholding the rules based international order” or some other patently self serving justification.

It is difficult to reconcile these high-minded concepts with the actual behaviour of the United States and its allies. Operation Boot (UK name) Ajax (US title) on behalf of the Anglo Persian oil company overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government. That coup was reversed with the Islamic revolution in 1979, an outcome that still dominates United States attitudes and behaviour towards Iran.

That was followed in 1954 by Operation PBSuccess, the overthrow of the Guatemala government, to the great benefit of the United Fruit Company. Operation Condor from 1968 to 1989 involved the assassination or disappearance of tens of thousands of Latin American civilians, and the installation of a series of brutal dictatorships, all supported by and paying obeisance to, the United States.

From an Australian perspective there is a common thread running through many of the CIA coups of the post war era. There was a coup in South Korea in 1961; in Indonesia in 1965 (where more than 500,000 were killed at the instigation of the CIA); Chile in 1973 and Australia in 1975. The common denominator to all four was a State Department diplomat named Marshall Green, name in CIA and State Department circles as the “coupmaster.”

Declassified CIA and State Department documents show that Green was sent to Canberra as ambassador in 1973 with a specific brief to deal with the “Whitlam problem.” (8)

Whitlam was threatening to close Pine Gap spy station, the United States lease on which was due to expire in December 1975. The Governor General sacked him in November 1975 the day before he was to make an announcement in the Australian parliament about Pine Gap.

Again to return to the earlier point, it is impossible to understand the stance taken by Australia viz a viz the Americans and their illegal wars without understanding the effect that the coup had on successive Australian governments.

Efforts by historian Jenny Hocking to uncover the role of the British, and in particular the correspondence between the Governor General Kerr and Buckingham Palace, while worthy, in this writer’s view misses the main point (9). By 1975 the British had become of peripheral relevance to Australia’s geopolitical perspective. Then as now, Australia was an appendage to US foreign policy, “joined at the hip” in former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s infamous phrase.

Australia has joined illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to support the Americans, when any vital Australian interest is vanishingly small.

American hubris reached its pinnacle following the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991. Boris Yeltsin became president and the following decade was catastrophic for the Russians. Life expectancy plummeted. State assets were sold off at fire sale prices to western corporations and Russian oligarchs. Yeltsin, an incompetent drunk, would in all probability have lost the 1996 presidential election were it not for blatant and large scale US intervention for his benefit (10).

That they had “their” man in office only added to the sense of US triumphalism. This history is bitterly ironic given the hysterical and wholly fake allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.

From an American perspective, the demise of the Soviet Union, and the election of a pliable puppet in the form of Yeltsin, meant that they had won the Cold War. In what was a common and disturbing pattern, the undertaking given by George HW Bush to President Gorbachev that NATO “would not advance 1 inch to the east”, was almost immediately broken. Successive US presidents have overseen the expansion of NATO allies and US military bases right up to Russia’s borders.

This was a pattern repeated in the east with again a steady increase in US military bases on China’s borders. They made no secret of the fact that the policy was to “contain” China (11).

Despite the frequent invocation of phrases such as “Chinese assertiveness” or “a threat to America’s allies” in the Asian region, there was never any evidence to support such claims.

What the US sought to “contain” in fact was the rise of an economic and military powerhouse that threatened US hegemony the world. On the basis of parity purchasing power, China is now the world’s largest economy, and the gap is destined to widen for the foreseeable future. The US reaction to this has been an increase in economic warfare through sanctions, tariffs, and an unrelenting propaganda barrage to paint each and every positive development emanating from China in negative terms.

This is not a new phenomenon. Victor Marchetti told the United States Congress decades ago that the CIA provided $250 million annually (in modern value) to the Asia Foundation for anti-Communist academics to disseminate a negative view of China, and paid journalists and publishers elsewhere in the world to do the same.

Operation Mockingbird was a large-scale CIA program that began in the 1950s to infiltrate student organisations, newspapers and magazines, and other forms of media outlets to “manage” the news in such a way as to favour US interests (12). Any resemblance to the truth was coincidental. The only thing that is changed since the 1950s is the scale and the sophistication of the penetration of news outlets.

The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte’s book Gehanfte Journalisten (Bought Journalists, 2014) which exposed how German mainstream journalists had been compromised, had its English rights bought by a Canadian company, but was never published. Amazon does not stock it, although it can be bought (in German) on Book Depository for A$41.95.

When Vladimir Putin replaced Yeltsin as President of Russia he initially sought to cooperate with the United States. He has been criticized within Russia for persisting in seeking détente in the face of constant rebuffs and unilateral moves such as the United States withdrawal from the antiballistic missile treaty in 2002, and the aforementioned constant expansion of NATO.

Putin’s change of heart became most clearly evident when he addressed the Munich Security Conference on 10 February 2007. His speech included the following remarks that are worth quoting:

”What is a unipolar world? ….. It refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within the system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but impossible in today’s world.

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in International relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts…… we are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. One State, first and foremost the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way”.

If the unipolar world is not only unacceptable, but “impossible in today’s world”, what then is the alternative? The pattern of voting in the United Nation’s General Assembly over the past few decades in particular shows that the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations want a better alternative than the unipolar model dominated by the United States.

Those nations see for example, the transformation of China in the 40 years since the “reform and opening up” of the Chinese economy and society that officially began under Deng Xiaoping. Those reforms have seen more than 600 million Chinese (more than the whole of Europe’s population) lifted into the middle class since the turn of the century.

China outspends the United States on basic science and technology research by a ratio of 4:1. It leads the world in patent applications, with more than twice the number than the United States (1.38 million versus 606.9 thousand in 2017) which in turn represented more than a third of all the world’s patent applications in that year.

Significantly, Chinese patent applications to the world intellectual property office (WIPO) in Geneva grew by 14.2% over the previous year, while United States applications grew by 0.2% (so much for allegations of intellectual property theft).

The fundamental difference between the rise of China to a dominant position compared to that of the United States is that China does not seek either to dominate the world, or to impose its system on others.

The philosophy underlying China’s international posture was clearly set out by President Xi Jinping in his speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2017. Again, it is worth quoting some brief key passages from Xi’s speech.

”The global economic landscape has changed profoundly in the past few decades. However, the global governance system has not embraced these new changes and is therefore adequate in terms of representation and inclusiveness.

(Red Cross founder) Henry Dunant once said ‘our real enemy is not the neighbouring country: it is hunger, poverty, ignorance, superstition and prejudice.’

We should pursue a well-coordinated and connected approach to develop a model of open and win-win cooperation.

There is a growing call from the international community for reforming the global economic governance system, which is a pressing task for us.

We should adhere to multilateralism to uphold the authority and efficacy of multilateral institutions. We should honour promises and abide by rules. One should not select or bend rules as he sees fit.

No country should view its own development path as the only viable one, still less should it impose its own development path on others.”

It is not difficult to identify which country Xi had in mind. The Chinese model of development is seen for example in the following organisations.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is the best known of these modern vehicles for multilateral development, but it is far from the only one. Others include the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), which has as a primary aim the establishment of an equitable, democratic and multipolar world. Dating from 2001 BRICS has developed its own bank and other forms of financial cooperation. It is not a coincidence that both Brazil and India are targets of United States’ foreign policy aimed at undermining their growing relationship with China.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) also began in 2001 with six original members (China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Pakistan and India both joined at the same time in 2017. In addition, there are four observer States (Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran and Mongolia) and six dialogue partners (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Turkey).

Countries as diverse as Egypt, Israel and Ukraine among others have applied for observer or dialogue partner status and others in the Middle East such as Iraq, Bahrain and Qatar have expressed interest.

The North South Transportation Corridor (NSTC) grew out of the Ashgabat Agreement in 2011 and a rail link from Mumbai to Moscow via Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan is now up and running. Again, a range of countries in proximity to the original route have expressed an interest in becoming part of this transformative transport project. As with the major rail projects that are an integral component of the BRI, these developments have the potential to slash both transport times and costs for goods traversing Eurasia.

Eurasian Economic Union. This organisation was formalized in 2015 and incorporates Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia, with Iran signing a free trade agreement in 2018.

There is a notable overlap of membership of these organisations. They increasingly trade in their own currencies, part of a rapidly increasing move toward the elimination of the United States dollar as the principal medium of international trade. The demise of the dollar from its central role will remove one of the United States’ most powerful tools for imposing its policy preferences upon sovereign nations.

The reserve status of the dollar has enabled the United States to defy economic logic, running huge internal and the balance of payments deficits without the logical consequences that would ordinarily flow. That day of reckoning is rapidly approaching.

The United States has for decades neglected its own vital infrastructure and educational standards as more than half of each federal dollar is spent on its military industrial intelligence complex. It has not been value for money, as both Russian and Chinese military technology is significantly superior, as even the Americans now acknowledge (13).

There is little evidence however, that the United States recognises the cause and effect between its preference for military expenditure over civilian needs; the political, economic and reputational costs of endless wars for and on behalf of vested interests; and its steady decline in the world both in absolute and relative terms.

The United States will undoubtedly continue waging its wars, whether they are hybrid wars using terrorist proxies which it has done since the least Operation Cyclone began in the 1970s, or overt invasions and destruction of sovereign States as in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria to name but a few.

There is a remarkable correlation between victim countries of the past two decades and the “seven countries in five years” identified by General Wesley Clark (14).

The world has tired of this endless aggression and the chaos that ensues. The win-win philosophy expanded by President Xi is for an increasing number the most attractive option. This is why more than 128 nations have now signed Memorandum of Understanding with the BRI, in Africa, Latin America, Island States in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, the Middle East and throughout the Eurasian continent. They clearly view the multipolar world as the preferable alternative. The question is whether they will be able to continue to develop along their preferred path, or will the frankly insane US political class make one final attempt at regaining world hegemony, and in the process destroy us all.

*(Top image: Russian President Vladimir Putin with President of Iran Hassan Rouhani (left) and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Credit: Kremlin.ru)

References

  1. J. Walker Operation Unthinkable: the Third World War The History Press (2013).
  2. C. Posey How the Korean War almost Went Nuclear www.airandspacemag.com July 2015
  3. B. Cumings The Korean War: A History Modern Library 2011
  4. J. Kaye Revealed: The Long Suppressed Official Report of US Biowarfare on North Korea.www.medium.com 20 February 2018
  5. S. Vasaliev Not Just another Crisis www.ejiltalk.com 19 April 2019 (Part 1); 20 April 2019 (Part 2).
  6. M. Pembroke Korea: Where the American Century Began One World Publications 2018
  7. W. Blum America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy Zed Books 2013
  8. J. Jiggens November 11 Coup? What Coup? www.greenleft.org 20 November 2010
  9. J. Hocking The Dismissal Dossier Melbourne University Press 2015
  10. S. Shane Russia Isn’t the Only One Meddling in Elections: we do it too. www.nytimes.org 17 February 2018; S. Cohen Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post Communist Russia. Norton & Co (updated edition) 2001
  11. J. Reed Surrounded: How the US is Encircling China with Military Bases www.foreignpolicy.com 20 August 2013
  12. C. Bernstein CIA & The Media www.rollingstone.com 20 October 1977; J. Tracy The CIA and the Mediawww.globalresearch.ca 30 January 2018
  13. A. Martyanov Losing Military Supremacy Clarity Press 2018; The Saker Newly Revealed Russian Weapons Systems www.southfront.org 9 March 2018; R. Ridenour Has the US Lost its Military Supremacy over Russia www.counterpunch.org 4 April 2019
  14. J. Conason Seven Countries in Five Years www.salon.com 12 October 2007

Writer James O’Neill is a barrister at law and geopolitical analyst.

======================

Will Evangelicals Spur the US to War?

Will Evangelicals Spur the US to War  Alastair Crooke, 24 April 2019

On March 14, Russia’s National Security Council, headed by President Putin, officially raised its perception of American intentions toward Russia from “military dangers” (opasnosti) to direct “military threats” (ugrozy). In short, the Kremlin is preparing for war, however defensive its intention.

Why? Why would Putin do that? ‘Trump doesn’t want more wars… He has consistently called for good relations with Moscow. And now that Mueller has come up with zero…’.

This is the familiar refrain that suggests that a confrontation with Russia simply cannot happen: “It wouldn’t make any sense: it would not be rational”. Well, maybe Russia is reading the ‘tea-leaves’ differently, and maybe they simply understand that when it comes to wars, it is often the non-rational that trumps the rational.

As Russia might view things, the precursors for a conflict in the Middle East are fast falling into place. On the one hand, we have a very hawkish Israel, ‘pie-eyed’ from large draughts of team Trump’s ‘Greater Israel’ cool-aid; then we have Bolton prosecuting his ancient hatred for Iran – trying to corner the Republic, and to implode it.

These represent major clashes of tectonic plates, especially as the northern tier of the region (including Turkey) is now with Iran (to one, or other extent). Moscow will be aware that colliding tectonic plates release hot plasma, which all too easily can spread to scald Russia.

And then, we have other shifts in the tectonic plates: Turkey is inching toward Russia and China, and so – it seems –might be Egypt (after Sisi’s recent altercation in Washington). Translated – this all says that the US is fast losing its hold over the Middle East. And Russia, whether intentionally, or not (more ‘not’, than actively ‘sought’), is increasing its’ reach.

Usually, such occurrences are met with Washington decreeing a hard slap over the head for Moscow’s Promethean ‘impudence’. But… actually, America is almost out of substantive allies in the Middle East – except ‘the one’.

Yes, indeed – up to this point, we are dealing with the rational chessboard. So, what about the ‘non-rational’?

Let us go first, to basics: 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016, and his popularity amongst them remains high – in the 70s percent. Whilst other white voters may have become disheartened by Trump’s foreign policy (the Saudi embrace), white evangelicals have become his last, solid bastion. They are not insignificant either: they form some 25% of all Americans.

Professor of Religious Studies, Andrew Chesnut tells us that Christian Zionism has become the “majority theology” among white US Evangelicals. In a 2015 poll, 73% of evangelical Christians said events in Israel are prophesied in the Book of Revelation. For Christian Zionists, achieving a ‘Greater Israel’ is one of the key preconditions for ‘Rapture’. It is a belief, known as pre-millennial dispensationalism or Christian Zionism, Chesnut says.

“Trump himself embodies the very opposite of a pious Christian ideal. Trump is not a churchgoer. He is profane, twice divorced, who has boasted of sexually assaulting women. But white evangelicals have embraced him, writes Julian Borger.

“Some leading evangelicals see Trump as a latter-day King Cyrus, the sixth-century BC Persian emperor who liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity. The comparison is made explicitly in The Trump Prophecy, a religious film screened in 1,200 cinemas [last year], depicting a retired firefighter who claims to have heard God’s voice, saying: “I’ve chosen this man, Donald Trump, for such a time as this …

“Cyrus is the model for a nonbeliever, being appointed by God as a vessel for the purposes of the faithful,” said Katherine Stewart, who writes extensively about the Christian right. She added that they welcome [Trump’s] readiness to break democratic norms, to combat perceived threats to their values and way of life.

Mike Pompeo and Vice-President Pence are strongly of this Evangelical orientation. It is something that has real import for foreign policy: During his tenure as CIA director, and before that as a member of the House of Representatives, Pompeo has consistently used language that casts the war on terrorism as a cosmic, divine battle of good and evil. He has referred to Islamic terrorists as destined to “continue to press against us until we make sure that we pray, and stand and fight, and make sure that we know that Jesus Christ is our savior, and is truly the only solution for our world”.

The proscription of Iran’s IRGC, by Pompeo was couched in exactly this language of terrorism, with the clear connotation that Iran is the cosmic ‘evil’. This style of Apocalyptic or Rapture language has been adopted wholesale by Trump, and his Administration. “To worship our Lord and celebrate our nation at the same place, is not only our right,” Pompeo told attendees at a Kansas rally in 2015: “It is our duty.” He added, “We will continue to fight these battles,” the then Congressman said at a church in Wichita. “It is a never-ending struggle … until the Rapture. Be part of it. Be in the fight!”

Pompeo’s reference to Rapture is important: The Rapture, Tara Burton notes, “is a distinctively American theology that says Christians will be taken up, or “raptured,” into heaven, at the onset of the End Times … and a number of GOP politicians allow their belief in Rapture theology to influence their political worldview. Because the Rapture is ultimately desirable — it marks the return of Jesus Christ — anything that hastens it, is desirable too. For many evangelicals, apocalyptic “good versus evil” battles, particularly centred over the “Holy Land” of the Middle East, are signs that the longed-for end may be at hand”.

So, how does all this balance out? Well, the pivot is the Las Vegas Casino billionaire, Sheldon Adelson. He donated $82 million to Trump and other Republican candidates during the 2016 election. Trump has consciously courted the moneyed Jewish diaspora Right, but Adelson’s significance lies more with his passionate commitment to Netanyahu’s“Greater Israel” political agenda, and to strengthening ties between the Republicans’ evangelical base and Israel.

And just to be clear, the ‘Greater Israel’ mission is similarly rooted in ‘End of Time’ biblical theology. David Ben-Gurion, the “father of the nation”, was a firm believer in the ‘mission’, declaring: “I believe in our moral and intellectual superiority; and in our capacity to serve as a model for the redemption of the human race”. At the 2003‘Jerusalem Summit’, whose participants comprised three acting Israeli ministers (and included Netanyahu, and Richard Perle from the USG), the group solemnly professed: “We believe that one of the objectives of Israel’s divinely-inspired rebirth, is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, as foretold by the Prophets”.

As Larent Guyénot observes, Zionism, in fact, has always been about a New World Order, under the mask of ‘nationalism’. It is with the Adelson lynchpin too, that John Bolton fits in. Bolton is no evangelical. He says that to call him a neoconservative “is clearly not accurate”, by which he explicitly means that he never shared the desire to ‘spread democracy’ as other mainstream neoconservatives did. He does however, hold to the belief that America (and Israel) are ‘chosen’ to lead and shape the global order. This may not be strictly a ‘religious’ expression, but it is a prime example of a millenarian ‘project’ that emphatically denies religion, yet is in fact a vehicle for religious myth – Judeo-Christian myth.

Bolton says it explicitly: “I would describe myself as pro-American. The greatest hope for freedom for mankind in history is the United States, and therefore protecting American national interest is the single best strategy for the world.”

The American millenarian ‘myth’, then and now, was (and is), similarly rooted in a messianic belief in the Manifest Destiny of the United States: ‘the New Jerusalem’ that would represent humanity’s best hope for a utopian future. This belief in a special destiny (being ‘chosen’) is reflected in a conviction that the United States must lead – or more properly, has the duty to coerce – mankind towards its universalist destiny.

Adelson’s role then – using his own money – has been to resurface neoconservative policies: Policies that had been discredited after the US invasion of Iraq, and to reconnect these policies to the Israeli Right (as they were, before the war on Iraq). This whole is underpinned through the extensive Evangelical base that forms Trump’s key constituency. Both Pompeo and Bolton are reportedly Adelson’s protégés, whom Adelson pushed into their key positions in the White House, as a part of his political architecture.

And with the resurfacing of neoconservative policies, comes, inevitably, their ancient attitude towards Russia as an existential struggle that can have only one outcome – Russia’s collapse, leading to regime change – either via war or means short of war. All elements of western policy are geared to that one inalterable objective.

Former US diplomat, James Jatras, remarks [that these American millenarians] “hate Russia not for what it does, but for what it is: an obstacle to absolute global domination by a US-led [New World Order]. Russia’s deployment of the most powerful weapons imaginable – perhaps can limit the military aspect of that agenda, but it cannot reverse it. Quite to the contrary, such actions, like Moscow’s defensive moves after the 2014 regime change in Ukraine; or Russia’s 2015 deployment in Syria; or current presence in Venezuela, are held up as further “proof” of Russians’ “typically, almost genetically driven” aggressiveness, in the words of former CIA Director James Clapper.”

“With Robert Mueller’s pointless investigation concluded, nothing has improved, nor can there be much expectation that it will”. Jatras quotes [Gilbert] Doctorow:

“… the step by step dismantling of the channels of communication, of the symbolic projects for cooperation across a wide array of domains, and now dismantling of all the arms limitation agreements that took decades to negotiate and ratify, plus the incoming new weapons systems that leave both sides with under 10 minutes to decide how to respond to alarms of incoming missiles – all of this prepares the way for the Accident to end all Accidents. Such false alarms occurred in the Cold War; but some slight measure of mutual trust prompted restraint. That is all gone now, and if something goes awry, we are all dead ducks”.”

One might perceive that this broad ‘dismantling’ of channels, agreements and commitments came about as some unexplained, extraneous ‘happenstance’. If so, it would be wrong: No, it represents signature Bolton thinking. He says:

“America has slowly constrained its range of action, through foolhardy entanglements with international institutions such as the United Nations, and naive bilateral agreements that promised too much to America’s enemies, in exchange for too little. [Bolton] saw bad deals all around: The INF Treaty … was one. The Iran nuclear agreement, which Bolton has laboured tirelessly to scrap, was another.”

So, why should Trump acquiesce in this road to calamity?

Trump was raised as a Presbyterian, but leaned increasingly towards Evangelical preachers as he began contemplating a run for the presidency, Katherine Stewart observes. Trump’s choice of Pence as a running mate was a gesture of his commitment.

But, having lost control of the House of Representatives in November, and under ever closer scrutiny for his campaign’s links to the Kremlin, Trump’s instinct has been to cleave ever closer to his most loyal supporters. Almost alone among major demographic groups, white evangelicals are overwhelmingly in favour of Trump’s border wall, which some preachers equate with fortifications in the Bible, Stewart suggests.

In brief, this is what Trump has – this is what ‘has his back’ politically. Bolton gives him some cover from the US Deep State; the Evangelicals and the deplorables represent a base which sustains the President from the plots to remove him from office. A core base, which simply ignores the denigrations thrown out at President Trump, daily.

But here is the point: There lurks a major danger in to this ideologically ‘non-rational’ set-up. One that threatens us all – and may explain the Russian raising of their ‘threat status’. Trump’s instincts still remain that a channel with Mr Putin is essential. But the demonization of Russia will not be stilled with the publication of the Mueller investigation. It will just swap to a new narrative.

The pressures on Trump from his Bolton-Evangelical team, to hasten End Time with an Apocalyptic good-v-evil struggle, possibly linked the Christian Zionists’ Greater Israel ambition, inexorably will mount (precisely in response to US weakness and crisis). Will Trump hold the line? Might he offer up Iran, towards advancing Rapture, (and pleasing his base)?

The major danger is that Trump is not fearful of nuclear war – at least not in the way earlier generations of US leaders were. For Trump has manifested (admittedly before assuming the Presidency) a strange and worrying fatalism about nuclear conflict. Will Bolton manoeuvre to exploit this quirk?

We know that Trump regards himself as ‘an expert’ on nuclear conflict: In a 1984 interview with the Washington Post, Trump said that he hoped one day to become the United States’ chief negotiator with the Soviet Union for nuclear weapons. Trump claimed that he could negotiate a great nuclear arms deal with Moscow. Comparing crafting an arms accord with cooking up a real estate deal, Trump insisted he had innate talent for this mission.

In a 1990 interview with Playboy, Trump said, “I think of the future, but I refuse to paint it. Anything can happen. But I often think of nuclear war.” He explained: “I’ve always thought about the issue of nuclear war; it’s a very important element in my thought process. It’s the ultimate, the ultimate catastrophe, the biggest problem this world has, and nobody’s focusing on the nuts and bolts of it.”

Five years on, Trump was asked  where he would be in five years. “Who knows?” he replied. “Maybe the bombs drop from heaven, who knows? This is a sick world. We’re dealing here with lots of sickos. And you have the nuclear and you have the this, and you have the that.” Trump continued expressing the notion that nuclear annihilation could be on the horizon: “Oh absolutely. I mean, I think it’s sick human nature. If Hitler had the bomb, you don’t think he would have used it? He would have put it in the middle of Fifth Avenue. He would have used Trump Tower, 57th and Fifth… Boom”.

In another Playboy interview —this one in 2004—Trump once more conveyed his nuclear despondency. He was asked, “Do you think Trump Tower and your other buildings will bear your name a hundred years from now?” Trump responded, “I don’t think any building will be here—and unless we have some very smart people ruling it, the world will not be the same place in a hundred years. The weapons are too powerful, too strong.”

During the Presidential election debate, Candidate Trump said in December: “The biggest problem this world has today is not President Obama with global warming … The biggest problem we have is nuclear – nuclear proliferation – and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon. That’s in my opinion, that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now… I think – I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation, is very important to me.”

“So for decades, it seems” David Corn has written in Mother Jones, “Trump has been haunted by the feeling that nuclear war may be inescapable. Now he is in a position to do something about the matter”. And, as former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper remarked, “[If] in a fit of pique he [Trump] decides to do something about Kim Jong Un, there’s actually very little to stop him”. “The whole [nuclear weapons] system is built to ensure rapid response if necessary. So there’s very little in the way of controls over exercising a nuclear option, which is pretty damn scary.”

In short, should a fatalistically inclined US President, order a nuclear tactical weapons strike (and America currently is taking delivery of tactical weapons, and exercising with allies, the air delivery of them) – possibly believing recourse to tactical nuclear weapons is somehow inevitable, and egged on by his messianic team – there is almost nothing to stop him.

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

=========================

The Great Fraud of National Zionism

The Great Fraud of National Zionism  By The Saker, 27 March 2019

The Defining Event for the US

There is no doubt that the 9/11 false flag (now even admitted (by direct implication) by NIST!) was a watershed, a seminal event in our history. While millions (or even billions) watched in horror as the twin towers burned, a small group of Mossad agents stood nearby and danced in overwhelming joy. Why exactly were these Israelis dancing? Surely there was more than just Schadenfreude in this spontaneous expression of euphoria? Considering that these three dancing Israelis were just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, we can rest assured that there were many more folks dancing in joy that day, especially in Israel.

Why were these Mossad agents so blissful? The answer is obvious: 9/11 put the following notions front and center of the concerns of most people in the US:

  • We are under attack and in grave, imminent, danger
  • Islam wants to destroy our way of life
  • Those who did 9/11 also want to destroy Israel
  • We need to ask the Israelis to share their “expertise” in dealing with Islamic terrorism
  • Draconian laws and new police powers need to be passed to protect us from mass murder
  • If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists

Almost a decade before 9/11, in 1992, Francis Fukuyama had explained to us that history itself was coming to an end while Samuel P. Huntington explained to us in 1996 that we were witnessing a “clash of civilizations.” This kind of “scholarly” research created the perfect political background to an already rather disquieting perception of the upcoming Year 2000. In 2001, when all hell broke loose, the general public was already well prepared for it (just like the AngloZionist elites who had already prepared the huge “Patriot Act” long before the Twin Towers came down).

9/11 was as much the culmination of a significant preparatory effort as it was the trigger for a decade or more of wars.

Still, all this immense effort into shaping the West’s perceptions was not good enough to hammer the sufficiently hysterical mindset into most people, in spite of the best efforts of the legacy Ziomedia to explain to us that Bin Laden decided that “we” were next in line for some kind of horrible (possibly nuclear) terrorist attack. Inside the US the constant fear-mongering of the legacy Ziomedia did induce the suitable hysterical panic, while in the rest of the world things were not going quite as well. Especially not in Europe (which was vitally needed as a fig-leaf to pretend like the GWOT was not a US-Israeli thingie, but that there was a large “coalition of the willing” formed of the best and brightest countries out there). Something else, bigger and better, was needed and, sure enough, it was found: a mass exodus of poorly educated immigrants, the vast majority of them from Muslim countries.

While the (totally fictional and therefore totally unsuccessful) GWOT was petering out, the AngloZionists directed their stare at Libya and its leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi had warned that unless Europe was willing to pay Libya to contain the many millions of African refugees, a major catastrophe would happen. He explained that

Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European, and even black, as there are millions who want to come in“, “we don’t know what will happen, what will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans” and “we don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.

The AngloZionists heard his message loud and clear and proceeded to immediately (and illegally!) overthrow and brutally murder Gaddafi (it is still unclear how many Israelis were dancing the day Col. Gaddafi was murdered). Almost exactly a decade after 9/11 the Zionists finally had their “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor,” but this time the victim was the entire European continent.

The defining event for Europe

The effect of what can only be called an “invasion” of immigrants was huge, to say the least. Even before this latest invasion began, Europe had already suffered many negative consequences from previous waves of emigres (Romanians, Gypsies, Albanians, Tunisians, Moroccans, Algerians, sub-Saharan Africans, Turks, Tamils, Kurds, Latin-Americans (during the US-sponsored terror years in Latin America), etc. and even before them there were the Spanish, Portuguese and Italians (who, at least, all superbly adapted to their new place of residence). But that new wave was much bigger and much more dangerous than any previous one. A huge, massive, immigration crisis resulted in most European countries.

Can you guess what the Europeans felt? They felt that:

  • We are under attack and in grave, imminent, danger
  • Islam wants to destroy our way of life
  • Those who did Charlie Hebdo and all the other terrorist attacks in Europe also want to destroy Israel
  • We need to ask the Israelis to share their “expertise” in dealing with Islamic terrorism
  • Draconian laws and new police powers need to be passed to protect us from mass murder
  • If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists

Sounds familiar?

If it does, it is because it is.

In terms of methods and means, 9/11 and the invasion of Europe by hordes of immigrants could not be more different. But in terms of results, they achieved very similar outcomes.

Russians and Muslims, which do you fear most?

The election of Trump was something so totally unexpected by the AngloZionists (and for Trump himself too!) that it caught everybody completely off-guard. In their typically infinite arrogance, the Neocons were darn sure that Hillary would win and they would be left in total control of the US, but the American people decided to show them a big, collective, middle finger and vote for the “unthinkable” and “impossible” candidate. And since the Neocons could hardly blame Trump’s victory on Bin Laden or al-Qaeda, they quickly came up with the “Russian interference” canard which had the added beneficial side-effect that it could justify spending even more money on war against a very real and powerful Russia than on war against a rather nebulous “al-Qaeda”.

The fact that Russia has no reason to attack anybody, least of all the US made no difference here. All that was needed to “prove” (under the “highly likely” “Skripal standard of evidence”) that the Russians are a terrible threat was to come up with the absolutely ridiculous Skripal false flags combined with a few imaginary chemical attacks by “animal Assad.” And, of course, when the US suffered it’s latest military debacle in Syria, the Neocons could also blame it all on Russia. As they say, “one hand washes the other.” Initially, the Russian bogeyman looked even sexier than the Islamist one, but then with Putin and Russia steadfastly refusing to take any of the many baits tossed at them, the “Islamic” threat became sexier again. After all, Russians are (mostly) White and (mostly) Christian, so they are not that scary. But Muslims?!

Ask a typical westerner what he knows about Islam and you will be treated to a long list of evils, some based in reality, others entirely imaginary. Besides, the Muslim world is so big and so diverse, that it is effortless to find horrible things about it, even real ones! The lie here is primarily one of omission. Specifically, two things are never said:

  1. That Takfirism is a minority strain of Islam and long before killing all the “infidels” and “Christians” the Takfiris first want to kill any and all Muslims (the vast majority) who dare to disagree with their interpretation of Islam.
  2. That all the Takfiri terrorist groups are federated, organized, financed, trained and even protected by the AngloZionist Empire (as seen many recent times in Syria when the US protected, transported, treated, resupplied, and even coordinated the various al-Qaeda franchises in Syria). That was also true for Chechnia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

This last point is so important that I will repeat it again: to the degree that there is an “Islamic threat” to the West, it is a “threat” fully and totally created and controlled by the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire. You want proof? There are many, but my favorite one is the passports which are found next to the smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers or the passport left in the car right before the Charlie Hebdo attack. How nice it is of the “Islamic terrorists” to make darn sure that they are quickly and “convincingly” identified! There is also the “minor” fact that all those “Islamic terrorists” apparently have ties with western security services (heck, some even traveled to Israel!). As for the lifestyle of these “Islamic terrorists”, in each case they are anything but Islamic (which the legacy Ziomedia and various Zionist “experts” always explain as part of a “deceptive tactic” not to be noticed in spite of the fact that every one of those so-called “Islamic terrorist” was, of course, not only “noticed” but even actively “developed” by western security services!).

The real nature of the threat faced by mankind is rather well illustrated by this image which I found somewhere on the Internet. Not convinced? Try this thought experiment. For a few minutes, simply assume that Wahhabism=Imperialism=Zionism and then see if the world we live in makes sense to you. Next, assume that Wahhabism is sui generis, that imperialism is something the pesky Russians are guilty of, and that Zionism is absolutely wonderful. Now see if the world we live in makes sense to you.

Unless you are severely challenged, the correct model is rather obvious, I think.

Of course, like all slogans or conceptual shortcuts, Wahhabism=Imperialism=Zionism grossly simplifies a much more complex reality and takes a few intellectual “shortcuts”. But at its core, it is a crude but fundamentally correct interpretation of the world we live in. The only thing I would add to that list would be an “=terrorism” at the end.

So what about Russia in all this?

Russia is self-evidently the only country on the planet which can turn all of the US into radioactive ashes in just a few hours. But there is much more to Putin’s Russia than just military power. For one thing, what Russia can do to the US, the US can do to Russia. So there is an ugly, but so far stable, balance of terror between the two countries. In economic terms, Russia’s economy (soon to be roughly about the size of Germany’s) is dwarfed by the vast Chinese economy and Russia is not, therefore, a credible economic competitor. Politically, things are a bit more complicated: Russia is popular with many nations worldwide, but a majority of governments will bow to the World Hegemon every time Uncle Shmuel slams his fist on the table, right? Well, not really. The case of the US aggression against Venezuela is compelling as the US failed to get any legitimate regional or global organizations to back the attempt at overthrowing the Venezuelan government. True, this is primarily due to the genuinely fantastic incompetence of the Neocons who in their crazed zeal found nobody better to pick than Elliott Abrams to lead the attack against Venezuela (does that stupid choice also remind you of the time when the Neocons suggested Henry Kissinger as the head of the 9/11 Commission? The Neocons really don’t realize how offensive and even ridiculous they appear in the eyes of the rest of mankind…). Still, it is rather clear that under the Presidency of Donald Trump the US influence and power in the world have declined truly dramatically – so much for making anything at all “great again”. Well, except Trump’s ego, of course, which was already huge even before the election). Now let’s add it all up.

In military terms, while Russia has a much superior conventional capability, in terms of nuclear forces the US and Russia keep each other in check by both having the capability of vaporizing the other side even after riding out a first strike (hence the redundancy of nuclear weapons systems). Here we have a draw.

In economic terms, the US economy dwarfs Russia’s. Advantage US.

In political terms, Trump ain’t too popular (or credible), but neither is Putin (although he, at least, is taken seriously). Another draw, but with another advantage for the US.

So what’s the big deal with Russia? Surely, nobody in the White House seriously believes that the Russians hacked the DNC, that they stole the elections, that they poisoned Skripal or that they plan to invade the Baltics and Poland. That kind of nonsense is just the vulgar “political prolefeed” for those who still pay attention to the legacy Ziomedia.

No, the real threat posed by Russia is a civilizational one.

Putin’s Russia as a civilizational threat

I need to clarify why I speak of “Putin’s Russia.” The reason for that choice of words is that modern Russia is not the Russia of the 1990s or even the Soviet Union. And neither is modern Russia the same Russia as before 1917. Next, I want to stress that Putin’s Russia is a project, a moving target, a partially realized potential – but not yet a stable, finished “product” (in the past I wrote about these issues, here, here and here). Still, we can see a number of very interesting phenomena taking place in Russia.

First, the overwhelming majority of the Russian people reject the Western-style “democracy” and its so-called “values.” After almost two decades of gross violation of every single norm, the West pretended for centuries to stand for the credibility and reputation of itself as a source of moral or political inspiration, and now it has become roadkill. Mind you – the Russians very much want real people power, real “democracy” if you will, just not of the western model. They want their own, uniquely Russian democracy.

Second, Russia is openly and systematically denouncing the absolute hypocrisy of the AngloZionist Empire. The historical speeches of Putin in Munich or at the UN come to mind.

Third, Russia is at least partially a Muslim country too! She does not have a Muslim majority, and Islamic customs and traditions are mostly kept only by a minority of Muslims (just like Christian traditions are held by a majority of nominally “Orthodox” Christians). The point here is this: for Russians, Muslims are not some type of “scary aliens” who will invade your village and destroy your way of life. Historically, Russia has had terrible relations (including 12 wars) with Turkey, and rather bumpy relations with other Muslim countries (I think of Iran here). But Russians have also lived in peace with their Muslim neighbors for centuries, and they are acutely aware of that. Which means that Russians have a much broader spectrum of experiences with Muslims and Islam, some good, some bad and some absolutely horrible. But what Russians know and which makes them so dramatically different from most people in the West is that peaceful cohabitation with traditional Islam is very much possible. It all depends on the specific type of Muslim you are dealing with.

Finally, while Christianity is still struggling in Russia, there is no doubt that most Russians prefer the traditional values found in Christianity to the kind of “everything goes” or, even more so, the “everything has its price” which forms the “spiritual” core of the West’s post-Christian materialistic society. This is why most Russians are clearly “gender-differentiated” – men look and act like men, women look and act like women, and the various LGBTTQQIAAP (add more letters if you are so inclined, that will be more “inclusive”) are told to hold their “pride parades” elsewhere.

These are some (there are many more!) reasons why Russia should not be considered part of Europe, at least not in a civilizational sense of the word. Of course, Russia is partially European geographically, and most Russians look “White” (albeit that whiteness hides a huge genetic diversity). Some particularly ignorant observers believe that Russia is European because Russia is Christian. This completely overlooks the “minor” detail that Latin (and later Reformed) Christianity had lost all connections with the rest of the Christian world during much of the Middle-Ages while the Christian Roman civilization continued to exist far away from barbaric Europe, first in Byzantium and later in Russia and other Orthodox countries.

Besides, the modern West is not Christian at all, not Latin and not Reformed, it is post-Christian and, I would argue, anti-Christian. Thus, even if Russia was a paragon of traditional, Patristic, Christianity – this would in no way affect the dynamics in the West, neither with the various Christian denominations (which, by Patristic standards cannot even be called “Christian” any more) nor with the overwhelming majority of atheist/agnostic materialists who have lost even a vague sense of right/wrong or even true/false.

There are, of course, millions of Russians who lost their original Russian cultural and spiritual roots. A person like that is called a “??????” (vy-rooss) in Russian. Thankfully, many (most?) of them have emigrated (to the West, of course) and they are therefore not very influential nowadays. But we often see their hostile comments under pro-Russian or pro-Putin articles. Many of these folks made good careers in the 1990s and are angry at Putin for terminating that bonanza. Others hate Putin because they were found useless and ditched as soon as the Eltsin gang lost power.

True, the Russian elites (as opposed to the common people) have been profoundly westernized for the last 300+ years. With Putin in power this has dramatically changed. There is still a powerful 5th column in Russia, but the keys to real power are held by Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignist supporters in the armed forces, the security services and, most importantly, in the general public. And so far, they are holding firm, and while there are regular ups and downs, all in all, Russia is doing amazingly well and is headed in the right direction. I would even argue that theirs is the only viable direction!

So why do the western elites hate (and fear) Russia so badly? Let’s look into what kind of values the West truly stands for today.

21st-century western values are not your grandfather values for sure!

Here we need to come back to 9/11 and the invasion of Europe by an immense flow of refugees. These are just two instances in which the people in the West felt directly attacked and whether 9/11 was a false flag or not, or whether the Empire triggered the refugee crisis by militarily attacking the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (that was the official name of Libya) is irrelevant.

What matters is that the people in the West felt attacked by a vicious and most dangerous enemy: Islam.

There were other, no less significant “attacks” on the very core of Western identity. For example, I don’t believe that the term “cultural Marxism” makes any sense at all, but it does describe a real phenomenon. Ditto for the profusion of pushy and even aggressive “minorities” of all kinds who demanded not only equal rights but even special privileges. In the legacy Ziomedia, we saw an apparently never-ending hunting season against Whites, against men, against heterosexuals, against Anglos, and against Christians.

Needless to say, the attack on White Anglo-Saxon Christian heterosexual males was (and still is) relentless. A majority of people in the West were told that they are guilty of this or that historical injustice or crime, that their traditions and beliefs were evil and that they out to be ashamed of their identity on all levels. Of course, there have been many horrible and outright disgusting chapters in the history of the western civilization, but unless you believe in collective and/or inherited guilt, that hardly justifies the kind of hatred and contempt which the (pseudo-) “liberal” elites constantly express against anything traditional.

If the election of Trump was a huge slap in the face of the Neocons, the reaction of the Neocons to this event was a massive slap in the face of the American people. What began with Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” soon turned into a long list of ridiculous accusations (including, my personal favorites: Ron Paul is a “Putin’s best friend,” Rand Paul a “Russian stooge” and Tulsi Gabbard a “Putin puppet“).

Frankly, this kind of constant bashing of everything traditional is nothing else but a type of mental rape of the western cultural identity. A reaction to this kind of onslaught was inevitable. The only question was which form it would take.

Understanding National Zionism – a primer

It took the form of what the French philosopher Alain Soral called “National Zionism.” Here is how Soral explains this ideology:

There is a huge surge of what is called national-Zionism, that is, to bring nationalists to Zionism. For me, this is a fundamental contradiction in this amalgam of Muslims equal to Daesh, basically in France in Muslim equal to scum equal to Daesh equal to Palestinians and therefore the good Frenchman if he wants to get out of the shit in which these people have put him, must support Israel and not take offense and accept the disproportionate power that the Jewish community embodied by the CRIF has over France and that is the supreme scam. This is politically unacceptable, morally unacceptable, strategically stupid. This is what I call national-Zionism and this is the fundamental struggle today. We must refuse this scam, refuse the nationalism in Kippa. And that’s not for that, all of a sudden, we would become pro-Muslim to come back to your question.

We must treat the issue of the world seriously, that is to say that immigration is very, very problematic today and the Muslim issue is a follow-up to the immigration issue. (…) They do absolutely nothing against immigration. This is a certainty, so if we want to be against the Islamization of France, we must take the problem at the right end, that is, resolve the migration issue. To resolve the migration issue, we must regain political power over those who have the power and who have brought us to this point today and who have fought with all their strength, with all their strength, against our borders, against identity.

I would remind you that the last cover of Elisabeth Lévy’s magazine, Causeur, the title, is “anti-French ideology” which would also be favourable to Islam or Muslims. I would remind you that this is the opposite of the title of Bernard Henri Lévy’s book. So we have a Lévy that responds to a Lévy whose book was “The French ideology” which was at the time to say that French was intrinsically fascist and anti-Semitic.

So in 20 years, we have gone from the problem being Catholic French, French and today, no, finally the problem is Muslim immigrants. But those who declared war on the native French in the 70s and 80s are the same today who tell us, let us be friends to fire those who were put in your face and educated against you. Because that’s what national-Zionism is all about, making friends with the people who are the cause of all our problems and who for 2500 years have been systematic and fierce anti-nationalists except for their own nation called Israel. So that’s clear.

Another French author, Youssef Hindi, explained the role of the US in this new ideological paradigm:

We see the return of the idea of “nation.” The EU is in a state of crisis. A part of the American Establishment, particularly Donald Trump, is trying to implement the implosion of the European Union. We are witnessing a resurgence of nationalism: like in the US, Russia, GB and also in Italy. It is falling apart on all sides. Thus, the strategy is as follows: to always stay a step ahead, assert control over this new European patriotism and nationalism. Therefore, from the Right Jews elites’ perspective, it is absolutely essential to retain control over this European patriotism and nationalism by amalgamating it with the state of Israel.

I never believed that the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire were very intelligent, that is a Hollywood myth, but they indeed are clever, and when they realized that a nationalistic blowback was inevitable, they decided to simply take control of it. This is the brilliant simplicity of the logic of National Zionism. It goes something like this:

I, we, my family and my country are all under attack by rabid religious fanatics who will never cease until they kill all those who don’t agree with them and destroy our way of life. In this struggle for our very survival, we need to turn to those who fought that enemy for decades and who have developed the most sophisticated anti-terrorist methods and means: the Israelis.

Furthermore, Israel is like a small island of European democracy in an ocean of violent and chaotic brutality. Heck, Israel is part of Europe, really, it even participates in the Eurovision! Unlike us, the Israelis are proud, and they don’t hesitate to defend their culture, religion, and values, why don’t we do the same? They even have the right to bear arms! Jews are White, like us, and we share a common Judeo-Christian heritage which places a duty upon us all to support Israel, especially against the Iranian Mollahs who have publicly sworn to kill all Jews and wipe Israel off the map. Last but not least, Islam is a threat to our civilization and Muslim immigrants must be either re-educated to fit into our society or sent back home. Those who disagree with any of the above are either anti-Semites, Putin agents, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, terrorist sympathizers or terrorists themselves.

Let’s take a few well-known US public figures associated with conservatism or the Alt-Right: Alex Jones, Paul James Watson, Jordan Peterson, Steve Bannon or even Donald Trump himself. Have you ever heard these “defenders” of western tradition or “Christian values” have anything critical to say about Israel, Israeli policies or Zionism? The exact same phenomenon can be observed in France where putatively “conservative,” and “patriotic” folks such as Eric Zemmour or Marine Le Pen are using the frustration of the French people with the regime in power to channel that frustration into a hatred of Islam and everything Muslim. These folks are also the promoters of what has become known as “Christian Zionism” which worships everything Jewish and/or Israeli and which believes that Christians and Jews have “almost” the same religion. Let’s take Steve Bannon as an example.

Here is an article entitled “Steve Bannon drafting curriculum for right-wing Catholic institute in Italy” which sure makes Bannon look like some kind of very conservative and traditionalist Christian. The same article also mentions Cardinal Raymond Burke, as “a leading Vatican conservative”. According to Cardinal Burke, this institute’s missions is “to promote a number of projects that should make a decisive contribution to the defense of what used to be called Christendom”. This “right-wing Catholic institute” is run by a Christian Zionist, Benjamin Harnwellwho declared that the younger generation across the Western world was on a “long slide” into darkness. His Institute is working to resist by “trying to prop up one of the major pillars of Western civilization – what used to be called ‘Christendom’ – and that’s the recognition that man is made in the image and likeness of God.” So far, this also looks very nice.

The problem is that Bannon, Burke, and Harnwell have all sold out to Israeli interests and the ideology which they are promoting is not traditional Christianity at all, but this nonsensical and amorphous idea of “Judeo-Christianity.” This is why the Latin website “Media Catholiques Infos” correctly concludes by saying “Such a high place of Christianity deserves better than to serve as a springboard for National Zionism under the guise of an “academy for the defense of the Judaeo-Christian West.”

The sad truth is that these pretend-traditionalists have all been co-opted by the Israel lobby and that they are being used to brainwash the folks in the West to see Islam as a foe when, in reality, the real foe of the West is Zionism as Zionism is the force which is responsible for both 9/11 and the massive flow of immigrants into Europe. As for the Papacy, it has been in bed with Talmudic and Kabbalistic rabbis for many centuries (just read Michael Hoffman’s superb book, the 700 pages long “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome”) and not just since Vatican II (as some Latins naively believe!). It is therefore not surprising that Bannon says about “Catholic” universities that they are “the foundational institutions of the Judeo-Christian West.”

France does not have the equivalent of a Steve Bannon. But it does have a functional equivalent in the person of Renaud Camus whose very politically-correct biography you can read on Wikipedia. Even a cursory read-through that entry will immediately reveal the profoundly Zionist worldview of Camus which can be further established, if needed, by reading about Camus’ “Great Replacement” theory; you might also want to compare this to the “Eurabia” theory of the Israeli author Bat Ye’or (aka Gisele Littman).

All this paranoid and racist nonsense can be summed up in a short sentence: led by Zionists the White Christian West will rise again!

If it weren’t so ugly and tragic, it would actually be funny (especially to see the Latins and the Talmudists in bed with each other after centuries of mutual hatred). But in reality, there is nothing funny about the colonization of the western minds by the Zionist parasite. It might even end up with a nuclear war.

The US Alt-Right and the French National Front as the useful idiots of AIPAC and CRIF

I am personally convinced that the entire Alt-Right movement has been created by the US deep state and that it is still run by it. The purpose of the Alt-Right and the National Front is to offer a nationalistic and pseudo-Christian alternative to any kind of real traditionalism or any kind of real Christianity. On the rank and file level you will find a lot of anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist and even anti-Jewish sentiments amongst Alt-Righters and National Fronters, but on the leadership level, it is wall to wall Zionist. To get a feel for this Zionist (pseudo-)patriotism just take a look at these propaganda images:

A sample of Zio-patriotic propaganda

By taking control of the key nationalist movements in the West the Zionists have given themselves a “dream opposition”: that is an opposition which they fully control; which they can poke a little from time to time when there is the need for some kind of anti-Semitic incident; but which they can also mobilize against anybody daring to oppose Israel or Zionism.

In this context Russia becomes the ultimate threat for very good reasons:

First, Russia is completely rejecting the unipolar world model and, together with China, Russia wants a multi-polar world in which relations between states are ruled by international law.

Second, Russia cannot be militarily threatened and neither can China, by the way. The RAND Corporation finally admitted that much.

Third, thanks to the various sanctions against Russia, Russia is gradually withdrawing from the AngloZionist controlled markets. You could say that the main effect of all the sanctions has been to make Russia stronger, more independent and closer to the goal of full sovereignty.

Fourth, Russia is not only openly rejecting the AngloZionist civilizational model, but she also denounces its absolute hypocrisy. In particular, the Russian people are rejecting the West’s materialism, in particular in its turbo-capitalist variant. While not officially endorsing socialism as such, Russia does declare herself a “social state.”

Fifth, Russia is taking the polar opposite approach to Islam, to what we see in the West. Unlike the Empire, Russia is serious about killing as many Takfiris as possible no matter where they are. But, unlike the Empire again, Russia sees traditional Islam as a vital ally against the Takfiri rot and Russians don’t think of Muslims as “aliens” at all.

Last but not least, Putin’s Russia has made patriotism (i.e., love for one’s country) a central element of the social and political culture while categorically rejecting any form of nationalism or, even more so, racism. “White Pride” is about as popular in Russia as “Gay Pride” would be.

You could say that the gradually emerging new Russian ideology is the polar opposite of National Zionism. No wonder the Neocons hate Russia so much!

Conclusion: National Zionism is a gigantic fraud

There is no other way of putting this: National Zionism is a gigantic fraud. It is also the rising political ideology of the West, and that presents a major risk for our entire planet. I often hear naive folks saying “what is your problem with Zionism?! all it wants is a safe homeland for Jews too! What is wrong with that?!“.

I addressed this issue in some detail here, so I will simply say here that Zionism, whether of the national or the anti-national type, separates mankind into two qualitatively different categories: Jews and non-Jews (ironically, it shares this fundamental belief with National-Socialism. It’s just that the hierarchical scale is reversed, that’s all).

Next, it assumes that all non-Jews are at the very least potential“anti-Semites” and thus Jews need to do two things to remain safe. First, create a Jewish homeland and, second, secure enough Jewish power in literally all the countries on the planet to be ready should the goyim (literally “nations” but in the Talmudic context it carries exactly the same meaning as the German Untermensch: subhuman) come down with unpredictable (by definition) and unexplainable (by definition) cases of “anti-Semitism”. In contrast, Jewish lives and, especially, Jewish blood acquire a profound soteriological meaning: Jewish life is infinitely precious because 1) Jews will “repair” the world (tikkun olam) and 2) because the Moshiachwill be born from a Jew and become a world leader accepted by all nations.

A (somewhat secularized) variation of this philosophy is that all Jews form a “collective Moshiach” and that all the “nations” will accept their power and rule with gratitude as this will usher the final and everlasting era of milk and honey. Finally, Talmudic/Pharisaic “Judaism” teaches that Jews “represent” mankind before God and God before mankind (yeah, modesty if not their forte). Next time you hear some Israeli politician going bonkers about spilled “Jewish blood” just remember this info, and it will all make sense. Ditto for when some other (or even the same) Israeli politician demands some gruesome revenge, terrible retribution or promises to kill some huge number of enemies. This kind of “Purim talk” only makes sense once you realize how deep and fundamental Talmudic/Zionist racism really is.

So what constitutes “enough power”? Simple: once the people of a country lose control of their government and the sovereignty of their country is gone, then the Zionists will feel they are safe. This theory is 1) racist 2) paranoid 3) sociopathic and, frankly, just plain silly. But this is what the Talmudic worldview produces in a secularized society. A critical assumption of this worldview is that any form of nationalism or even patriotism is dangerous (by definition) unless it is Jewish or Israeli, at which point it is laudable and benevolent (again, by definition). Thus, besides being many other things, Zionism is also a theory of power based on a zero-sum game. Of course “zero-sum” might sound benign until you remember that it implies a total struggle to the end, a total, absolute defeat of the other, a destruction of all your enemies. Not something helpful in a multi-polar world with lots of nuclear weapons.

National Zionism is a fraud and an extremely toxic and dangerous one. Any supposed patriot or nationalist who fails to recognize that, is at best poorly informed and, at worst, a useful idiot for the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire.

The Yellow Vests in France got it. Occupy Wall Street, or the Tea Party did not. I suspect that many Trump voters also got it, but they were betrayed by Mr. MAGA. Will Rand and/or Ron Paul recognize this danger? What about Tulsi Gabbard? Frankly, I don’t know. But if they don’t, other Americans eventually and inevitably will.

We might even see a US version of Yellow Vests one day, who knows?

PS: for the latest National-Zionist induced stupidity, see here: https://www.rt.com/news/454428-us-israel-golan-recognize/

============================

Previous articles 

About Peter Senior

I'm a very experienced and pragmatic management consultant. I've reviewed and led the restructuring of many organisations - large and small corporations and Government Departments, much of the time as President of the New Zealand Institute of Management Consultants. Before that I was General Manager of a major NZ newspaper; earlier, an analyst for IBM UK. I gained an honours degree in engineering at London University, and studied management at Cambridge University. This wide range of experience has left me frustrated: I continue to see too many examples of really bad management. Sometimes small easily fixed issues; sometimes fundamental faults; and sometimes really tricky problems. Mostly these issues can be fixed using a mixture of common sense, 'management 101' and applying lessons from years of management experience. Unfortunately, all too often, politics, bureaucracy and daft government regulations get in the way; internal factors such as poor culture and out-of-date strategies are often evident. So what's gone wrong, and why, and most importantly, how to fix 'it'? I hope there are like-minded people 'out there' who will share their thoughts enabling 'us' to improve some significant management failures that affect the general public. If you just accept bad management, you don't have the right to complain! If you'd like to share thoughts on any aspects of management, send me an email to petersenior42@gmail.com . My latest project has the interim title 'You’ve been conned. Much of what you were taught and read is largely irrelevant, misleading or plain wrong – this is the REAL story of life: past, present and our possible future.' The working paper so far comprises 105 pages, many listing references and interim conclusions. The main problem is finding sufficient credible evidence, and realising the more Iearn, the more I realise I don't know!
This entry was posted in "New World Order". Bookmark the permalink.