Bibi Netanyahou décrivait, en mars 2015, dans un discours au Congrès états-unien (qui lui vaudra 26 ovations debout) sa vision du monde, un monde hostile et barbare comparable, à cause des menaces de Daech et de l’Iran, à un grand « Game of Thrones » mortel.
D’où vient ce mélange d’insécurité, de méfiance maladive et de crainte survivaliste permanente — « ils sont tous contre nous » — qui semble avoir pris possession de l’establishment juif et d’une grande partie de sa base ?
Comment les juifs ont-ils pu changer aussi radicalement, au cours du 20e siècle, passant d’un idéal libéral progressiste, invoquant « l’égalité, la tolérance, la justice sociale », à un idéal aussi contraire et rétrograde que « la loyauté envers Israel, l’engagement pour sa survie et la lutte contre ses ennemis ».
Selon le respecté auteur J.J. Goldberg, dans Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment, le début de la grande insécurité et du virage à droite des juifs remonte à la guerre de Six Jours. Non pas aux faits de la guerre comme tels, mais à la leçon (totalement fausse) qu’ils en ont tirée: « le monde est contre nous, pour survivre il faut être pro-guerre ». En réalité, confirme l’auteur, à aucun moment et d’aucune manière dans toute son histoire l’existence d’Israel n’a réellement été menacée par ses voisins…
Voilà qui expliquerait, grosso modo, selon cet auteur et bien d’autres examinés sur ce blog, que les juifs aient pu être si nombreux à une certaine époque, à être simultanément des colombes antiguerre du Vietnam et des faucons de la défense militaire illimitée d’Israel. Voilà qui expliquerait également pourquoi l’empire des États-Unis devint ensuite pour eux la seule force capable de les soutenir, l’empire états-unien libéral-capitaliste étant l’unique rempart à l’empire communiste soviétique, cet « empire du mal » pour reprendre l’expression reaganienne, semblable au nazisme…
Posted inNon classé|Commentaires fermés sur De colombes libérales pour la justice sociale et contre la guerre du Vietnam à faucons néocons pro-guerre sans fin pour Israël : le mythe de la guerre de Six Jours, à la base de l’insécurité et de la droitisation chez les juifs
À vrai dire, force est de constater que les lois raciales n’étaient pas suivies aussi rigoureusement dans le Reich qu’aux États-Unis, où Jesse Owens se plaignit du traitement indigne qui lui fut réservé malgré sa glorieuse performance aux Jeux Olympiques.
Alors, les États-Unis étaient-ils vraiment si bien placés pour jouer les moralisateurs et aller leur péter la gueule ?
La page Wikipedia en anglais sur les « Jim Crow Laws » ignore complètement ce fait : la page francophone y réfère une seule fois dans les « articles connexes » tout au bas de la page. Sur la page wikipedia anglaise sur les « Nuremberg Laws », il en est uniquement question au passage, dans les références pour aller plus loin » – « for further reading »; la page francophone l’esquive complètement. La découverte est-elle à ce point trop récente?
Fait intéressant à noter: le livre de James Whitman à ce sujet (voir la page de l’Un. Princeton) a été qualifié de vulgaire « reductio ad hitlerom » par le néoconservateur sioniste Joshua Muravchik. La dissidence et les néocons se retrouvent encore une fois sur la même ligne… tiens donc! Faut-il s’en étonner ?
How American race law provided a blueprint for Nazi Germany
Nazism triumphed in Germany during the high era of Jim Crow laws in the United States. Did the American regime of racial oppression in any way inspire the Nazis? The unsettling answer is yes. In Hitler’s American Model, James Whitman presents a detailed investigation of the American impact on the notorious Nuremberg Laws, the centerpiece anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi regime. Contrary to those who have insisted that there was no meaningful connection between American and German racial repression, Whitman demonstrates that the Nazis took a real, sustained, significant, and revealing interest in American race policies.
As Whitman shows, the Nuremberg Laws were crafted in an atmosphere of considerable attention to the precedents American race laws had to offer. German praise for American practices, already found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, was continuous throughout the early 1930s, and the most radical Nazi lawyers were eager advocates of the use of American models. But while Jim Crow segregation was one aspect of American law that appealed to Nazi radicals, it was not the most consequential one. Rather, both American citizenship and antimiscegenation laws proved directly relevant to the two principal Nuremberg Laws—the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law. Whitman looks at the ultimate, ugly irony that when Nazis rejected American practices, it was sometimes not because they found them too enlightened, but too harsh.
Indelibly linking American race laws to the shaping of Nazi policies in Germany, Hitler’s American Model upends understandings of America’s influence on racist practices in the wider world.
James Q. Whitman is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School. His books include Harsh Justice,The Origins of Reasonable Doubt, and The Verdict of Battle. He lives in New York City.
Associer le délire dominioniste uniquement à Trump serait une erreur : il faut aussi compter Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin et surtout Michelle Bachmann au nombre de ses adeptes, ou du moins de ceux qui parmi la classe politique américaine ont courtisé les milieux dominionistes.
En même temps, Israel sous Netanyahou ouvre plus que jamais ses portes à des organisations chrétiennes conservatrices ultra sionistes, naturellement des organisations pro-Trump. Israël ne s’est jamais montré si ouvert — jamais autant que sous Netanyahou — aux grandes conférences d’organisations chrétiennes sionistes.
Israël serait-il sur le point d’être colonisé par un néo-sionisme américanocentré fondé sur le Dominionisme ?
(Doctrine qui, rappelons-le, justifie que les États-Unis déploie la puissance de son règne sur les nations, conformément à son destin lié à son élection divine en tant que successeur légitime, à la suite du défunt empire britannique, du « Dominion » d’Israël. Elle recoupe le « dispensationalisme », sorte de millénarisme et de messianisme apocalyptique, dans leur croyance commune en le rôle de la nation juive et de la « recréation d’Israël » dans l’histoire actuelle.)
Sans être nécessairement inféodés aux intérêts d’Israël, les réseaux politiques américains de droite chrétienne ultra conservatrice unissent la défense d’Israël (comme prétexte à toute intervention au Moyen-orient) à la défense d’intérêts politiques et capitalistes sauvages (déréglementation, réduction de l’État, etc.) particulièrement liés aux intérêts des États-Unis. De la même manière, la Corée du Sud et son organe la secte Moon sert depuis longtemps de véhicule aux services secrets sudcoréens en lien avec la CIA (ou encore la Scientologie en lien avec le Mossad) en luttant à travers le monde contre l’influence socialiste et en infiltrant les organisations, médias et partis nationalistes et généralement de droite, afin de défendre tous azimuts l’hégémonie mondiale des grands capitalistes occidentaux et de leur modèle économique néo-libéral. (Le faux populiste millionnaire Bannon suit exactement cette ligne: derrière son populisme se cache le plus pur néo-libéralisme souhaité par les grands capitalistes.) On les trouve ainsi immanquablement en train de condamner ou même exiger la mise à mort sommaire des dictateurs iraniens et nordcoréens (autrefois irakiens et lybiens), comme ils ont l’habitude de le faire à tous ceux qui osent tenir tête au modèle américain capitaliste sauvage ou qui dénoncent trop ouvertement les prétentions d’ « exceptionnalisme américain » servant à justifier les États-Unis dans son rôle de police mondiale sanctifiée par la puissance divine.
Le télévangéliste Frank Amedia est passé du judaïsme sioniste au sionisme chrétien américain.
America’s ‘Global Policeman’ Role America’s influential neocons and their liberal-hawk sidekicks want U.S. interventions pretty much everywhere, but other powers are chafing against this U.S. “global policeman,” as ex-CIA official Graham E. Fuller explains.
Petite histoire de l’évolution de la droite vers une alliance entre l’Alt-Right (droite alternative) et le fondamentalisme chrétien néo-évangélique, convergeant dans le néoconservatisme. Néoconservatisme que les antijuifs de pacotille de l’Alt-Right associent strictement aux juifs et aux politiciens « cocus » influencés, croient-ils, par le marxisme culturel. Or le marxisme culturel, comme la gauche en général, n’a rien en commun avec un tel schéma, au contraire la gauche et le marxisme culturel sont rien de moins que la bête noire préférée des groupes représentés dans ce schéma.
American Zion Shalev clearly demonstrates how these colonists and early Americans read their own stories into the Bible and in so doing created a Bible that stood for republicanism and a soon-to-be-secular republic that was part and parcel of the Biblical story.
During the 2012 election campaign, you’ll probably be hearing a lot about “American exceptionalism,” particularly from the Republican presidential candidates. Newt Gingrich has made the concept a centerpiece of his campaign, and Gingrich’s wife—the current one, that is—has produced a documentary on the topic. Mitt Romney’s campaign book is entitled No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Sarah Palin’s book, America by Heart, has a chapter entitled “America the Exceptional.” And former Sen. Rick Santorum and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty have also been heard touting the topic.
But don’t be fooled by rhetoric that has a lot of patriotic appeal. In fact, the concept of American exceptionalism— and a related theme known as national greatness conservatism—are really modern-day propaganda masks for old-fashioned Trotskyite communism: rapacious imperialism and internationalism now wrapped in the American flag, but no different from the age-old dream of a world imperium—a global government.
Many call it the New World Order. The wizards who conjured up these themes are three key figures in the so-called neo-conservative movement:
• William Kristol, founding editor of The Weekly Standard, long published by Zionist billionaire Rupert Murdoch;
• David Brooks, a former Kristol underling at the Standard and now a columnist for The New York Times, and;
• Marshall Wittmann, a Jewish Trotskyite-turned neo-conservative and regular Standard contributor. Kristol and Brooks began their crusade for national greatness conservatism with a Sept. 15, 1997 Wall Street Journal article that urged Americans to “reinvigorate the nationalism of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay and Teddy Roosevelt.”
And during the 2000 presidential campaign, Wittmann chimed in with a lengthy piece in the Standard promoting John McCain, hailing McCain as a tribune of national greatness conservatism and as a modern-day Theodore Roosevelt.
Although many remember the first President Roosevelt as a symbol of American greatness, the ugly truth that the controlled media ignores is that it was “TR” who—even before Woodrow Wilson —began calling upon the American people to sacrifice their lives and treasure in the cause of global conquest, ostensibly in the name of bringing peace to the planet.
This is not nationalism. It is internationalism, advancing the theme that the United States should act as a world policeman promoting some undefined dream of democracy, which has now become the rallying cry of the modern Zionist-Trotskyite schemers.
So TR was an internationalist, and no true American nationalist should look to TR as a model of American greatness. Yet, TR’s spirit is said to underlie national greatness conservatism and American exceptionalism. More recently, in the Nov. 12, 2010 issue of The New York Times, the aforementioned Brooks—sounding the call for a new centrist movement in American politics— claimed that a national greatness agenda would be promoted by “the next big social movement.”
Brooks said this national greatness agenda would reject the views of “orthodox liberals and conservatives” and end “hyper-partisanship.” He added that “the coming movement may be a third party or it may support serious people in the existing two” and preserve American supremacy—that is, global interventionism. And don’t think it was—as the media has suggested— just a reckless misstep by Newt Gingrich when he criticized the Medicare reform package of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) saying, “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”
The truth is that Gingrich’s rhetoric—attacking both the right and the left in the same breath—was deliberate. He was clearly portraying himself as one of the centrist advocates of American exceptionalism, echoed by other recent comments by Gingrich proudly recalling his many years as a Rockefeller Republican.
Don’t be surprised—you heard it here first—that if he fails to win the GOP presidential nomination, Gingrich will be part of a breakaway centrist third party movement which has been conjured up at the highest levels of the establishment elite.
AFP—alone among the media—has been reporting on this phenomenon.
Another disciple of American exceptionalism, Yale Professor David Gelernter—another Weekly Standard figure—has promoted the idea that Americanism is a modern-day incarnation of Biblical Zionism and that Americans have “a divine mission to all mankind” and that “every human being everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality and democracy.”
In a book grandly entitled Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion, Gelernter expressed the contention that the United States (the base of what he has called American Zionism) is now charged with an imperial, even God-given, duty to remake the world, that Americanism is the creed of this global agenda, that this “Fourth Great Western Religion” is the driving force behind—and which must establish—a new planet- wide regime. He wrote:
We are the one and only biggest boy [in the world today]. If there is to be justice in the world, America must create it. . . .We must pursue justice, help the suffering and overthrow tyrants. We must spread the creed. This is the New World Order.And this is the underlying theme of national greatness conservatism and American exceptionalism. But there is nothing American about it. So don’t be fooled by what sounds like patriotic rhetoric from the Republicans. It isn’t.
Nationalism, Not ‘Exceptionalism’ the Proper Course for America
by Michael Collins Piper
During the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney spoke of “American exceptionalism.”
The rhetoric sounded patriotic. In reality, this is a modern-day propaganda mask for old-fashioned Trostkyite communism: rapacious imperialism and internationalism. Though wrapped in the American flag, there’s nothing American about it.
Rather than standing for American nationalism, this philosophy—quite the contrary—is a 21st century manifestation of the age-old dream of a global government under the rule of an elite few. Many call it the New World Order.
While some still fear the UN as the mechanism advancing the agenda, the fact is that the would be rulers of this global plantation now seek to utilize the U.S. as their vehicle for achieving that end.
The grand wizards who conjured up American exceptionalism are those infamous “neo-conservative” high priests of war who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq and who now seek to contrive a war against Iran. They crave U.S. military meddling all over the world—not just in the Middle East.
Perhaps the foremost intellectual proponent of this warmongering madness is Yale professor David Gelernter. Defining “Americanism” as an incarnation of biblical Zionism with “a divine mission to all mankind,” he says the United States is the base of “American Zionism,” charged with a God-given duty to remake the world.
“Americanism,” he asserts, is the “creed” of what is the “fourth great Western religion,” the driving force behind—and which must establish—a new planetary regime.
“We are the one and only biggest boy [in the world today],” he wrote. “If there is to be justice in the world, America must create it. . . .We must pursue justice, help the suffering and overthrow tyrants. We must spread the creed.”
Real American nationalists reject the idea the United States should be the world’s policeman. Instead, nationalists believe in developing and strengthening their nation from within, maintaining the integrity of its cultural heritage and sovereign borders, placing their own nation’s interests first. Nationalists do not start wars of imperialism.
Lest there be any doubt that the leaders of the American Zionist community do now view the United States as The New Jerusalem, it is vital to consider this salient—and undeniable—fact:
The Zionists now openly charge that critics of Israel are not only anti- Semitic and anti-Israel but also anti-Christian and anti-American, that anti- Israel sentiments are actually the underlying foundation of anti-Americanism and, in turn, anti-Americanism is inextricably indivisible from anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian sentiments.
In short, the bottom line of this proposition is America is indeed “The New Jerusalem.” That America and Israel are one. Such views are being nurtured at the highest levels of the Zionist movement and even now being inserted into the discourse of public debate in America. As such, we can only conclude that all of this is very much a confirmation of the thesis put forth in the pages of The New Jerusalem.
In a certain sense, there is some truth to the theme that “anti- Americanism” is a form of opposition to Israel, for most people around the world who are concerned about the new imperialism being pursued by the United States know full well that this policy is not really “Americanism” but, in fact, the product of the Zionist powers and their policymakers in high places who have come to reign supreme in America, particularly during the presidency of George W. Bush.
However, as usual, the Zionists always show great capacity to twist reality in order to make it fit their peculiar worldview. People worldwide are not “anti-American” (in the sense that they have no problem with the American people). If anything, it seems, because people from all walks of life from around the globe often have a better understanding than even Americans themselves of who really rules America, they actually have a certain sympathy for Americans for having allowed themselves to be manipulated so relentlessly by the Zionist minority. So there’s no “anti-Americanism” in the sense that the Zionists would have us believe.
It is also important to acknowledge that people worldwide have no trouble with the principles of democracy, liberty and freedom—however loosely defined. The idea that the rest of the planet (with the exception of Israel) is somehow “anti-American” is a destructive and dangerous myth the Zionists have propagated in order to turn Americans against anyone around the globe who dares to question Zionist power in America.
This concept of “anti-Americanism” is thus largely a Zionist invention. It was in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and in the period leading up to the utterly insane (and Zionist-ordered) U.S. invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003, that the Zionist-controlled media in the United States began hyping “anti-Americanism,” as a consequence of the urgent need to stoke up a worldwide (and apparently unending) “war against terrorism” of which President Bush and his Zionist handlers said the campaign to destroy Iraq was a vital component.
As a direct consequence of lies and inflammatory language coming from the Bush administration, coupled with deliberate distortions and disinformation in the media, good, honest, decent patriotic Americans truly believed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had played a part in the 9-11 terrorist attacks and that the war against Iraq was thus justified.
And in the build-up to the Iraq war, Zionist propagandists and the media increasingly began touting the message to Americans that “The whole world is against us”—or, to put it more accurately, at least as it was rendered in the media: “The whole world is against us good Americans and our good friends, the Israelis, who are certainly our only democratic ally in the Middle East and our only real, solid, dependable ally in the whole big wide world.”
The theme that “anti-Americanism” had run rampant was instilled in Americans for the very purpose of making them “anti” everyone who refused to support the war against Saddam that the Zionists demanded Americans fight on their behalf. In a sense, the Iraq war became a—if not “the”—measuring stick of determining who was supportive of the bigger, more broadranging Zionist agenda and who wasn’t.
In any case, the theme of “anti-Americanism” is now being introduced by the Zionists in the media into the public debate and now, as noted, “anti-Americanism” is being equated by the Zionists with opposition not only to Israel and Jewish interests but even to Christianity itself—an extraordinary theme indeed.
Yet, although it may be quite difficult for the average American to accept (or even understand) such a broad-ranging historical and geopolitical contention with obviously immense global ramifications, this is precisely what one of Zionism’s most highly regarded “intellectuals” contended in an audacious essay published in the January 2005 issue of Commentary magazine, the always-pompous, but nonetheless candid, journal of the American Jewish Committee.
In his Commentary essay, “Americanism—and Its Enemies,” Yale Professor David Gelernter says that “Americanism” itself—at least as defined by Gelernter and his fellow Zionists—is no more than a modern-day evolution of old-line Zionist thought, going back to the Bible itself. America, he contends, is essentially the new Israel, The New Jerusalem, a virtual adjunct of the State of Israel itself.
However, before we explore the specifics of Gelernter’s amazing essay, it is critical to understand the particular milieu from which it emerged, for that, in itself, points toward how significant this thesis is, at least from the standpoint of the circles of influence in America that truly count for something, that is, the Zionist elite.
That Gelernter’s proposition was put forth in Commentary—long-edited by neo-conservative “ex-Trotskyite” Norman Podhoretz, who still remains the power-behind-the-scenes at the journal—means quite a lot. Generally recognized as one of the foremost media influences directing U.S. foreign policy in the Bush administration, Commentary is certainly one of the leading— and hardline—voices of Zionism, not only in America, but worldwide.
In addition, although Gelernter is a computer specialist, his views on political affairs are regularly published with great fanfare in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, and in such staunch pro-Israel publications as The New Republic, National Review and Zionist billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s house journal, The Weekly Standard, edited by William Kristol, who is perhaps the chief media publicist and public affairs strategist for the so-called “neo-conservative” point of view today.
As such, what Gelernter has to say should be considered carefully, inasmuch he is very much a part of the Kristol network and also given free rein in Commentary to air such provocative opinions. Gelernter is one of the most widely-read voices of Zionism today.
Thus, to understand what the “neo-conservatives” such as Gelernter believe is to understand the very mindset of the hard-line Zionist movement not only in the United States and Israel, but worldwide, for neo-conservatism is probably best described as perhaps the foremost influence within the always-multifaceted world of Zionism today.
Although the history of the neo-conservatives (outlined in detail in this author’s previous work, The High Priests of War) is beyond the scope of our present study, it is important to note that the aforementioned William Kristol’s father, Irving Kristol, is known as “the godfather” of the neo-conservative movement and was himself, as an old-line Trotskyite communist, one of the self-dubbed “New York intellectuals”—part of a cell which actually called itself “The Family”—who acted as mentor for Podhoretz during the time when Commentary was emerging as one of the Israeli lobby’s most powerful media voices.
Today, the Kristols and Podhoretz—along with those such as Gelernter— are stalwart forces behind the global agenda of the Bush administration, allied with such key administration policymakers as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and collaborating intimately with like-minded allies in hard-line factions in Israel.
(…) it is very much a philosophical complement to the theme put forth by Sharansky—and dutifully and enthusiastically echoed by Bush—and part of a not-so-subtle ongoing effort to underscore and promote the new international imperium the Bush administration is working to effect.
While his essay was published before Bush’s inaugural address was publicly delivered—although it had already been privately concocted in the hands of Gelernter’s Zionist associates—Gelernter contends that what today is the Sharansky-Bush point of view goes back, in American historical terms, to the days of the Puritan and Pilgrim founding fathers.
Noting that “Puritans spoke of themselves as God’s new chosen people, living in God’s new promised land—in short, as God’s new Israel,” Gelernter asserts that “Many thinkers have noted that Americanism is inspired by or close to or intertwined with Puritanism,” noting that “one of the most impressive scholars to say so recently is Samuel Huntington, in his formidable book on American identity, Who Are We?”
An old Council on Foreign Relations hand, Huntington seems an ironic choice for Gelertner to cite when preaching about Americanism and democracy, inasmuch as Huntington’s earlier book The Crisis of Democracy (published by the Rockefeller-funded Trilateral Commission) suggested there was too much democracy in America and that it needed to be suppressed. However, then again, “democracy”—in the eyes of the elite—applies only to those whom they want to have freedom.
More recently, Huntington emerged a vocal spokesman for a determined high-level campaign to block certain groups of immigrants—namely Muslims and Hispanic Catholics—from coming into the United States, basically in the name of “fighting terrorism and anti-Semitism,” since the Jewish elite have concluded that Catholic immigrants, along with Muslims, are suspicious of Jewish power and not easily controlled.
In any case, Gelernter says that the Puritanism of Huntington’s chosen type is the real foundation of America. He writes:
Puritanism did not merely inspire or influence Americanism, it turned into Americanism. . . . You cannot really understand the Pilgrims, or Puritans in general, unless you know the Hebrew Bible and classical Jewish history; knowing Judaism itself also helps . . . Early exponents of Americanism tended to define even their own Christianity [emphasis Gelernter’s] in ways that make it sound like Judaism.
And it is probably worth pointing out that Gelenter notes that Puritanism, in its classic sense on American shores, underwent transition, so much so that many Puritan congregations became Unitarian. And the irony there, of course, is there are quite a few Christians—including fundamentalist supporters of Israel—who don’t even consider Unitarians to be Christians. (But that’s another question for another day and for others to debate.)
In any case, for all intents and purposes, Gelernter is perhaps hinting that (at least in the Zionist view) the modern-day form of “Puritanism” underlying “Americanism” is actually anything but Christian. And this, of course, again, would surprise many Christian supporters of Israel who proclaim that America is a Christian nation doing its part in helping fulfill God’s so-called promises to the Jewish people.
Gelernter’s assessment of the Bible, as he reads it, is that, among other things, Americans, in particular, have “a divine mission to all mankind” and that three conclusions can be reached: “Every human being everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality, and democracy.” (What Bible Gelernter refers to may be a good question, but certainly beyond our scope here.)
Suggesting that those whom he calls “the theologians of Americanism” understood that freedom, equality and democracy were not just philosophical ideas but “the word of God,” Gelernter concludes that the consequence is “the fervor and passion with which Americans believe their creed.” Gelernter says that creed is that “Americans, virtually alone in the world, insist that freedom, equality, and democracy are right not only for France and Spain but for Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Here Gelernter begins to spin his particular theme that Zionism is integral to and inseparable from what he says is “Americanism”:
To sum up Americanism’s creed as far as freedom, equality, and democracy for all is to state only half the case. The other half deals with a promised land, a chosen people, and a universal, divinely ordained mission. This part of Americanism is the American version of biblical Zionism: in short, American Zionism.
Purporting that “Americanism” (as he defines it) is “American Zionism”— the idea that America is also a Zionist “promised land” that is as one with the state of Israel and traditional Jewish Zionism itself, Gelernter is suggesting that both Israel and America are Jewish states. He goes even further:
Classical Israel’s (and classical Zionism’s) contribution to Americanism is incalculable. No modern historian or thinker I am aware of . . . has done justice to this extraordinary fact. They seem to have forgotten what the eminent 19th century Irish historian William Lecky recognized: that “Hebraic mortar cemented the foundations of American democracy.” And even Lecky, I suspect, did not grasp the full extent of this truth. Unless we do grasp it, we can never fully understand Americanism—or anti-Americanism.
In short, Gelernter is avowing that “anti-Americanism” is nothing more (or nothing less) than opposition to the Zionist theology that he contends played such a considerable role as the “mortar” that “cemented the foundations of American democracy.” Then, Gelernter moves forward, applying his bizarre theory to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. In the same spirit in which The Washington Post on January 21, 2005 declared President Bush’s global view to be “more Wilsonian than conservative,” Gelernter asserts:
[Woodrow] Wilson stands right at the center of classical Americanism. No president spoke the language of Bible and divine mission more lucidly . . . During Wilson’s administration, Americanism accomplished a fundamental transition. It had always included the idea of divine mission. But what was [emphasis in the original] the mission? Until the closing of the frontier in the last decade of the 19th century, the mission was to populate the continent. With the frontier closed, the mission became “Americanism for the whole world.”
According to Gelernter, subsequent presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S Truman waged wars on behalf of Americanism. FDR’s war against a virtually united Europe, allied with Japan, was no less than a war to vanquish perhaps the greatest threat that ever emerged to Zionist power in the entire history of the planet. Truman, of course, launched the Cold War against the Soviets which we now know was yet another mechanism of global profiteering, for even while American kids were dying in Korea and later in Vietnam, international banking houses—many of them Jewish, some not— were propping up the Soviet tyranny while it was in their interests to do so.
However, Gelernter says, it was Ronald Reagan who affirmed this “Americanism” when he spoke of a “shining city upon a hill,” citing the Bible’s book of Matthew in the same spirit of Puritan father John Winthrop. It was Reagan, claims Gelernter, whose “use of these words connected modern America to the humane Christian vision—the Puritan vision—the vision (ultimately) of the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish people—that created this nation.” Now, Gelernter says, “That Americanism is the successor of Puritanism is crucial to [understanding] anti-Americanism.”
According to the Zionist-based slant that Gelernter puts forth, modernday European opposition to the global designs being advanced by the neoconservative policy makers in the Bush administration is nothing more than a current manifestation of something long past:
In the 18th century anti-Americans were conservative, monarchist and anti-Puritans. . . . In the 19th century, European elites became increasingly hostile to Christianity—which inevitably entailed hostility to America.
And with a grand flourish, Gelernter lays it on the line . . .
In modern times, anti-Americanism is closely associated with anti-Christianism and anti-Semitism. [Gelernter’s emphasis}
All of this reflects the mindset of the Zionist elite and those who are now dictating American foreign policy in the name of a grand scheme of advancing some ill-defined global democratic revolution.
What it represents is nothing more than the New World Order that genuine American patriots warned about for generations, a scheme that is genuine “anti-Americanism” in its most basic definition.
Real Americans—and their many good friends around the globe who are rightly concerned with the rise of Zionist power in America—would make a mistake to discount the influence of such thinking: agree or disagree, this is the philosophy of the Zionist elite, however immoral and Hellish it may be.
The end result, in the Zionist grand scheme, is the establishment of a global empire—ruled from America, The New Jerusalem.
While the “real” Jerusalem in the occupied land of Palestine may function as the spiritual capital of international Zionism, America will provide the money and the arms and the young men and women who will fight and die to make the world safe for Zionist wealth and supremacy, all in the name of “Americanism” which is now the great Jewish mask.
Thus, in the end, the thesis put forth in The New Jerusalem — that the Zionists have laid claim to America as their New Jerusalem — is not some hor- rific and hate-filled “ anti-Jewish conspiracy theory. ”
In fact, according to the Zionists themselves, the concept that America is The New Jerusalem is the very foundation of Zionism in the 21st century. That conclusion is inescapable.
The question that remains is what Americans — and others worldwide — intend to do about it . . .
(…) The Rothschild Dynasty has hijacked the American republic and the United States has now been established as the New Babylon with the New World Order forces relentlessly pushing their agenda at a faster pace than ever before. Ultimate victory, they perceive, is within their reach, but only if they are able to destroy the opposition and to continue to divide and conquer those who dare to challenge their agenda.
As such, the blood and treasure of the American people are being hurled into global conflicts designed to bring the NewWorld Order into being. The wars on behalf of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East are really only the beginning. Many more wars of conquest lie ahead.Those nations that challenge the NewWorld Order will be targeted.
And lest there be any doubt that the Rothschild Empire and the New Pharisees now view the United States as the preeminent force in their drive for a global imperium, it is vital to consider this point:
Propagandists for the Jewish agenda now openly charge that critics of Israel (and of U.S. favoritism for Israel) are not only anti-Semitic and anti-Israel but also anti-Christian and anti-American, that anti-Israel sentiments are actually the underlying foundation of anti-Americanism and, in turn, anti-Americanism is inextricably indivisible from anti-Israel,anti-Semitic and even anti-Christian sentiments. Such extraordinary assertions are being nurtured at the highest levels of the Jewish-controlled mass media and are being inserted into the discourse of public debate in America.
In a certain sense, there is some truth to the theme that “anti-Americanism” is a form of opposition to Israel. Many people around the world concerned about the new imperialism pursued by the United States on Israel’s behalf recognize that this policy is not “Americanism” but, in fact, the product of the Rothschild Dynasty and the historic Jewish agenda.
However, as usual, the theoreticians of the Jewish Utopia always show great capacity to twist reality in order to make it fit their peculiar world view.Actually, people worldwide are not particularly “anti-American” (in the sense that they have any problem with the American people).
So because people from all walks of life from around the globe often have a better understanding than Americans of who really rules America, they actually have a certain sympathy for Americans for having allowed themselves to be manipulated so relentlessly by a powerful minority. So there’s very little “anti-Americanism” in the general sense of the term.
In fact, most people worldwide have no trouble with the principles of democracy, liberty and freedom—however loosely defined.The idea that the rest of the planet (with the exception of Israel) is “anti-American” is a dangerous myth propagated in order to turn Americans against anyone around the globe who dares to question Jewish power in America.
Thus, the concept of “anti-Americanism” is a Jewish invention. It was in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and in the period leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003,that the Jewish-controlled media began hyping“anti-Americanism,” to stoke up the so-called “war on terrorism” of which, it was said, the campaign to destroy Iraq was a vital component.
The media began advising Americans that “The whole world is against us”—or, as it was generally rendered in the media: “The whole world is against us good Americans and our good friend Israel.” The theme that “anti-Americanism”had run rampant was instilled inAmericans for the purpose of making them “anti” everyone who refused to support the wars the Jewish lobby demanded thatAmericans fight. In a sense,support for the Iraq war (in particular) became the measuring stick by which to determine who was in sync with the more broad-ranging global Jewish agenda and who wasn’t.
In any case, as noted,“anti-Americanism” is being equated with opposition not only to Israel and Jewish interests but even to Christianity itself—an extraordinary theme indeed.
Now although it is no doubt quite difficult for the average American to understand such a broad-ranging historical and geopolitical contention with obviously immense global ramifications, this is precisely what one of the Jewish elite’s most highly regarded“intellectuals”contended in an audacious essay published in the January 2005 issue of Commentary magazine, the journal of the American Jewish Committee.
In his Commentary essay, “Americanism—and Its Enemies,” Yale Professor David Gelernter said that “Americanism” itself—at least as defined by Gelernter and his confreres—is no more than a modern-day evolution of old-line Zionist thought, going back to the Old Testament itself. America, he contended, is essentially the new Israel—a virtual adjunct of the State of Israel.
That Gelernter’s proposition was published in Commentary—long-edited by neo-conservative “ex-Trotskyite” Norman Podhoretz and which is now under the direction of John Podhoretz, his son—means a great deal. Known as one of the foremost media influences directing U.S. foreign policy in the Bush administration,Commentary is certainly one of the leading—and hardline—voices of the Jewish power elite, not only in America, but worldwide.
In addition, although Gelernter is a computer specialist, his views on political affairs are regularly published with great fanfare in the pages of all of the elite magazines and newspapers in America, ranging from The Washington Post to The NewYork Times to TheWeekly Standard, the “neoconservative” journal of Rothschild Empire media baron Rupert Murdoch.
To understand what Gelernter asserts is to understand the mindset of those promoting a NewWorld Order, to recognize that America is now perceived as the force for achieving that Jewish Imperium.
Asserting that what he called“American Zionism”goes back, in American terms, to the days of the Puritan and Pilgrim founding fathers, Gelernter noted that “Puritans spoke of themselves as God’s new chosen people, living in God’s new promised land—in short, as God’s new Israel.”
Gelernter added that “Many thinkers have noted that Americanism is inspired by or close to or intertwined with Puritanism,” noting that “one of the most impressive scholars to say so recently is Samuel Huntington, in his formidable  book on American identity,Who AreWe?” (*) Gelernter says that the Puritanism of Huntington’s chosen type is the real foundation of America and that which has driven American thinking from the earliest days of our history. It’s all Jewish—according to Gelernter:
Puritanism did not merely inspire or influence Americanism, it turned into Americanism. . . . You cannot really understand the Pilgrims, or Puritans in general, unless you know the Hebrew Bible and classical Jewish history; knowing Judaism itself also helps . . .
Early exponents of Americanism tended to define even their own Christianity [emphasis Gelernter’s] in ways that make it sound like Judaism.
(*) An old hand at the Rothschild’s New York outpost, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),Huntington was also author of The Crisis of Democracy—published in 1975 by the Trilateral Commission, a CFR-allied NewWorld Order power group— which suggested there was too much democracy in America and that it needed to be suppressed. In the eyes of the elite,“democracy” is a right granted only to those in their favor. It was Huntington who popularized the now-infamous term “Clash of Civilizations” in a 1993 article in the CFR’s journal, Foreign Affairs, and in a 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. However, the term“clash of civilizations”was first used in 1956—in a small circulation academic publication, The Middle East Journal—by Jewish theoretician and hard-line anti- Arab and anti-Muslim propagandist, Bernard Lewis and later in his 1964 book, The Middle East and theWest. Lewis revived his “clash”theme for high-level circles in an article,“The Roots of Muslim Rage,” in the Sept. 1990 Atlantic Monthly, then owned by Jewish billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman, for several years the president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the official alliance of the key American Jewish power groups. In 2004, Huntington— in his book, Who Are We? (cited by Gelernter)—publicly proclaimed America’s “Anglo” roots and urged blocking certain groups—Muslims and Hispanic Catholics—from coming into the United States, this in the name of “fighting terrorism and anti- Semitism,” since the Jews have historically believed that Catholics and Muslims are suspicious of Jewish power and not easily controlled.
And it is probably worth pointing out that Gelernter notes that Puritanism underwent transition, so much so that many Puritan congregations became Unitarian. And the irony is that there are many Christians—including fundamentalist supporters of Israel—who don’t even consider Unitarians to be Christians. (Another question for others to debate.)
In any case, Gelernter is hinting that (at least in the Zionist view) the modern-day form of “Puritanism” underlying “Americanism” is actually anything but Christian.And this, of course, again,would surprise many Christian supporters of Israel who proclaim that America is a Christian nation doing its part in helping fulfill God’s so-called promises to the Jewish people.
Gelernter’s assessment of the Bible, as he reads it, is thatAmericans, in particular, have “a divine mission to all mankind” and that three conclusions can be reached:“Every human being everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality, and democracy.” Here Gelernter began to spin his particular theme that Zionism is integral to and inseparable from what he says is “Americanism”:
To sum up Americanism’s creed as far as freedom, equality, and democracy for all is to state only half the case.The other half deals with a promised land, a chosen people, and a universal, divinely ordained mission.This part of Americanism is the American version of biblical Zionism: in short,American Zionism.
Purporting that “Americanism” (as he defines it) is “American Zionism”—that America is a Zionist“promised land”as one with the state of Israel and traditional Zionism itself, Gelernter suggests that both Israel and America are Jewish states, declaring:
Classical Israel’s (and classical Zionism’s) contribution to Americanism is incalculable.Nomodern historian or thinker I am aware of . . .has done justice to this extraordinary fact. . .Unless we do grasp it, we can never fully understand Americanism—or anti-Americanism.
In short, Gelernter was avowing that “anti-Americanism” is opposition to the Zionist theology that he contends played such a considerable role as the “mortar” that “cemented the foundations of American democracy.” Gelernter applied all of this to his view of the internationalist bent in American foreign policy that began to emerge in its most grandiose sense, in particular, during the administration of Woodrow Wilson (at which time, we must recall, the Rothschild Empire cemented its power inAmerica with the institution of the Federal Reserve monopoly on the American economy and political system).
In his 2007 work, pretentiously entitled Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion—essentially a book-length exposition of his essay in Commentary—Gelernter wrote:
America’s participation in World War I was her attempt to act like the new chosen people, to set forth on a chivalrous quest to perfect the world; to spread liberty, equality, and democracy to all mankind. . . .
No president spoke the language of the Bible, divine mission, and American Zionism more consistently than Woodrow Wilson . . .[and] Americanism inspired his agonized, epochal decision to take America into the war. . .
In time he came to believe that America, grown to be a great power,must fight to bring Americanism to the world. . . .And some of Wilson’s critics made a point of singling out the Old Testament component ofWilson’s beliefs as especially obnoxious.
Those who read Gelernter’s assessment ofWilson’s internationalism and Wilson’s version of “Americanism” cannot help but be reminded—as they should be—of the grand scheme of a Jewish Utopia as outlined earlier in these pages. So by Gelernter’s estimation, let it be said, America is now charged with the responsibility of establishing a NewWorld Order.
According to Gelernter, subsequent presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S Truman waged wars on behalf of Americanism. And, he said, Ronald Reagan affirmed this “Americanism” when he spoke of a “shining city upon a hill” citing the Bible’s book of Matthew in the same spirit as Puritan father JohnWinthrop.
It was Reagan, claimed Gelernter in Commentary, whose “use of these words connected modern America to the humane Christian vision—the Puritan vision—the vision (ultimately) of the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish people—that created this nation.”Now, Gelernter says,“That Americanism is the successor of Puritanism is crucial to [understanding] anti-Americanism.”
According to the Judeo-centric slant that Gelernter put forth, modernday European opposition to the global designs of pro-Israel neo-conservatives was no more than a manifestation of a longstanding point of view:
In the 18th century anti-Americans were conservative, monarchist and anti-Puritans. . . . In the 19th century, European elites became increasingly hostile to Christianity—which inevitably entailed hostility to America.
Thus with a grand flourish,Gelernter proclaimed . . .
In modern times, anti-Americanism is closely associated with anti-Christianism and anti-Semitism. [Gelernter’s emphasis}
And while many American Christians might be delighted by Gelernter’s discussion of Christianity as it applies to his version of “Americanism” it should be pointed out to those Christians that, in his book Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion, Gelernter stated flatly that “You can believe in Americanism without believing in God—so long as you believe in man.” So Gelernter’s definition of “Christianity” (which most Christians affirm is a belief in God) is not what Christians might mistakenly believe Gelernter is talking about when discussing Christianity and “Americanism.”
In short, Gelernter’s version of “Americanism” is not Christianity at all. Rather it is a modern-day expression of the age-old Babylonian Talmudic dream of a Jewish Utopia: global rule of all people by the Jews. But in today’s context, the Jews will use America and“Americanism” to advance their agenda. Gelernter’s theory is fully in line with Jewish philosopher Max Dimont’s suggestion (reviewed in our opening pages) that America was truly the new locus of Jewish power, that America was indeed the New Babylon.
In his book, Gelernter candidly expressed the contention that the United States (base of what he has called “American Zionism”) is now charged with an imperial (even God-given) duty to remake the world, that “Americanism” is “the Creed,” of this global agenda, that this “Fourth Great Western Religion” is the driving force behind—and which must establish—a new planet-wide regime: in short, the New World Order:
We are the one and only biggest boy [in the world today]. If there is to be justice in the world, America must create it. . . .We must pursue justice, help the suffering, and overthrow tyrants. We must spread the Creed.
All of this reflects the mindset of those who are now dictating American policy in the name of a grand scheme of advancing their global agenda. What it represents is nothing more than the NewWorld Order that genuine American patriots warned about for generations, a scheme that is genuine “anti-Americanism” in its most basic definition.
The end result, in the grand scheme, is the establishment of a global empire—ruled from America, which is now the new foundation—the New Babylon—for the Jewish Utopia: the NewWorld Order.
While the “real” Jerusalem in the occupied land of Palestine may function as the spiritual capital of international Zionism, America will provide the money and the arms and the young men and women who will fight and die to make the world safe for Jewish wealth and supremacy, all in the name of “Americanism” which is now the great Jewish mask.
Thus, in the end, the thesis we’ve explored—that the Rothschild Empire and the New Pharisees have laid claim to America as their new base of power—is not some horrific and hate-filled “anti-Jewish conspiracy theory.”
In fact, as we have seen, according to the Jewish world view, America is the very foundation for Global Zionism in the 21st century.
That conclusion is inescapable.
The facts pointing to that conclusion are before us—all too visible. (…)
Posted inNon classé|Commentaires fermés sur Le Nouveau Monde, nouvel Israël ? Sion en Amérique : la Maison blanche plus que jamais sous influence de la secte dominioniste. Ce puissant mouvement religieux et politique de droite voit en Trump le prophète devant accomplir le glorieux destin de l’exceptionnalisme états-unien